Open Carry

[£]

Sigh. I'm going to touch on this briefly and go eat pizza, because I'm tired of seeing this topic pop up all over the place. You have a right to defend yourself. I'm not worshipping the American forefathers/framers, but they were onto something when it came to government and liberty. Don't even think about pointing at Japan if you're anti-gun. You play your Japan and I raise you one United Kingdom. No guns, yet the violent crime rate is at the American level. Not violent gun crime. Violent overall crime.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, all firearms are banned. No one can obtain a gun through legal channels. Who is likelier to have a gun in this scenario: Criminals or Innocents? Who is likelier to follow laws: The people that adhere to them and go about their day-to-day like proper, responsible citizens, or the people who are defined by how much time they devote to breaking said laws? Just some food for thought.

I myself prefer to carry concealed. I'm on some Batman stuff, and don't like (potential) adversaries to see my hand before I'm ready to play it. If I can conceal it, I'm going to. Open carrying detracts from my "young professional" image. Makes me look rather crass, I find. In fact, I'd prefer to settle disputes the old fashioned way. First with diplomacy, then with fists if need be. This coming from someone on the smaller scale size-wise.


I find it quaint that people think you shouldn't have a right to defend yourself. I am quick to remind them that bullets fly faster than Crown Vics (police vehicles).

I explicitly used my own country as a fine example of somewhere that does a lot better without guns; and that's your primary example of somewhere where it doesn't work. If you take a wee gander over at my first post where I spewed out everything, you'd soon notice that the amount of lives lost over here, even when scaled up to be GREATER than your population at the time, were still significantly less than the US, with almost FOUR TIMES as many deaths in the US per person. If you're feeling pedantic and reckon Northern Ireland/Scotland have it worse, they don't, actually. I took the most disadvantageous example to my case and it still highlighted just how much of a positive difference a lack of guns makes. I think preventing even one family from being a broken family is a positive move, never mind a few thousand of them.

Please cite evidence and source it to back up your case on the violence front. I would argue that a violent crime is much better than a murder, but I don't even see any proper studies or statistics from a decent source from you to look at first.

As for the people most likely to use guns... anyone who has them and has been backed into a corner. Criminality is not a black/white thing, unlike the children's movies that have the "good guys" and the "bad guys." Anyone can be a murderer, and I can tell you with some certainty that by giving seemingly ordinary people guns, any one of them can have a bad turn that leads them to using it for killing themselves/other people. I myself could not deny the possibility that I could be driven mad and I could build up and take out a vendetta on other people, and to be able to openly carry guns around would certainly make it easier to reach the point where I actually had the means to do it, if I were driven to insanity. I'd hope that I would never reach that point, but nobody knows what life has in store. Scary thought, really.

At the last bit - Is wielding a gun really necessary to compensate for your small stature? Is your country truly that brutish that you need a gun for day to day activities? My local city is one of the more "rough" cities in the UK and yet I've been perfectly fine going there and heading around. I haven't once had a situation where I'd have had any benefit in carrying a gun around. I feel a lot better knowing that the people I'm walking around with almost certainly are not carrying a gun around. I feel confident that if someone were to attack me with a knife, I'd have a better chance of getting away alive than if they were allowed to use a gun.

-If there was much point the difference between openly/secretly having guns on you, I'd genuinely say something about this. There really isn't much difference, but the fact they can be openly carried shows how severe the situation is. 8D

 

[Oryx]

Sigh. I'm going to touch on this briefly and go eat pizza, because I'm tired of seeing this topic pop up all over the place. You have a right to defend yourself. I'm not worshipping the American forefathers/framers, but they were onto something when it came to government and liberty. Don't even think about pointing at Japan if you're anti-gun. You play your Japan and I raise you one United Kingdom. No guns, yet the violent crime rate is at the American level. Not violent gun crime. Violent overall crime.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, all firearms are banned. No one can obtain a gun through legal channels. Who is likelier to have a gun in this scenario: Criminals or Innocents? Who is likelier to follow laws: The people that adhere to them and go about their day-to-day like proper, responsible citizens, or the people who are defined by how much time they devote to breaking said laws? Just some food for thought.

Point 1: There was a mass stabbing in China the same week as Sandy Hook in the US. Both would have fallen under the violent crime statistic. However, only one resulted in death. Can you guess which one that was? Writing off a violent crime with another weapon as the same as a violent crime with a gun just doesn't make sense.

Point 2: Luck Hax was completely right in pointing out that most of the mass shootings in the US happen because the people either legally own guns themselves or their family legally owns guns and wasn't responsible enough with them. Take a look at our Santa Barbara shooter for example; he was not a criminal before the shooting. He was not running with people that would get him black market guns. It's not as easy as going into the street and screaming "SELL ME A GUN" to buy a gun illegally.

I do agree that the reason this is so much more fraught in this country than other countries, at least partially, is that our country is founded on the idea that we should be as free as possible unless there's a legitimate reason to restrict that freedom. It's not like disagreeing with the Constitution is inconsistent with the forefathers though; Thomas Jefferson once said "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years." Gun regulation often comes from a critical view of the Constitution, instead of a hero-worshiping view; why was the Second Amendment written, and what was its goal? The goal, based on its talk of a militia, was to allow rebellion if necessary. However, civilians cannot own drones, machine guns, biological warfare, tanks, war planes. We are living in a world where owning a gun is not going to protect us from the government squashing any kind of rebellion, therefore the amendment fails in its purpose.

Of course, too many citizens of the United States are too obsessed with the "perfection" of the document that even the forefathers wanted to be living that they're unwilling to change things in it, or even reassess to see if those things are no longer applicable.

 

[Oddisee]

It may be a difference of culture, but it's the opposite over here. In addition to regular police officers, we recently have had a roll out of Protective Service Officers (PSOs) a division of the police force that specifically patrol train stations. They carry guns and overwhelmingly they have reduced the amount of crime at train stations and made people feel safer.

The only people who seem to disrespect police tend to be the ones either committing a crime or the uneducated. The police are there to keep the general population safe - putting themselves in the line of danger to do so. Show some respect.

The police is disrespected by a wide variety of people for an even wider variety of reasons. Some justified, some far from. Respect shouldn't be shown by default, but should be earned. In the case of the majority of policemen the respect is justified, others actually justify the disrespect. Though I'm straying off topic now, I apologise.

(I'll be strictly speaking about conflicts concerning pointless violence, whether it's with guns or not. Some conflicts concerning different circumstances are tough to avoid or cannot be avoided.)

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but that's avoiding the problem. Should there really be a need or urge to defend yourself? What makes it so you have to be able to defend yourself at all times? I try to live as harmonious with those around me as possible, never looking for a conflict and always avoiding every single possibility of a conflict. Since doing so I've been in the possibility of having a conflict only once with a group of people who were openly and obviously in search of said conflict and even then I was able to avoid it through merely attempting to avoid it at all costs from my part.

You see, most conflicts always need two or more parties to ensue. If you find yourself in a conflict with someone else, there's absolutely no case for who began and who was at fault the most. Fact is, both of you were at fault. You chose to either start it or react to it in conflict and in both cases you have to ask yourself: why? Why do you need to defend yourself, why do you need to stand your ground? Especially considering it's so much nicer on yourself and your surroundings to avoid the conflict and not have your mood ruined, even if it means you have to give into something like "fleeing the scene".

Of course you can run into the odd person that is just trigger happy for no simple reason and well, that's just really ♥♥♥♥ing bad luck. Thank god these kind of people are rare though... And if you really go through life thinking you can encounter these people at every possible point, I can't help but feel sorry for you. At least taking the gun away from both parties makes sure both parties have a bigger possibility of surviving...

The question I often miss is what makes that odd person so trigger happy or what turns an ordinary person into a criminal? Or do we truly believe these people are actually born that way? Are these people just out and out evil or do they turn evil due to a wide variety of circumstances? I'm pretty sure you can guess which side I am on...

I find it hard to believe owning a gun changes people that much... It seems a bit far fetched. Changes in one's person and mind are often due to social happenings. Those are incredibly difficult to manage and keep track of though. So the logical decision should be to take away guns so those who do mean harm will have a tougher time to do so. For those who do own guns, but don't mean harm and thus feel "attacked" in some way or another. Ask yourself what guns actually add to your life that's absolutely necessary and why that is. And if you really feel so bad about giving away your precious guns, is that because you'd experience it as "giving into something and not being able to stand your ground on this"?

I do truly believe the presence of guns and the ease of acquiring one or more adds to the possibility of someone actually causing harm to others. The USA's gun laws actually makes the idea of performing for example a school shooting so much more realistic because of the fact guns are so easy to acquire... How would one with the same idea go about performing the same act if a gun was a lot further out of reach? Do you really think acquiring weapons illegally is that easy? ...Really? Sure, they might go about things with a different weapon like a knife, but at least it would decrease both the possibility and the amount of casualties.

I could go on and on about things really... Point is, guns on ordinary people really aren't necessary. And if you do really think so, think again and repeat the action.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I hate to echo most everyone here, but the US is just ass-backwards with this. More guns = more killing, simple as that. Since I live near the largest Army post in US possession (Fort Carson) along with the USAFA, NORAD, and Peterson AFB, I get to deal with a lot of these gun-toting jerk-offs who think that their protecting themselves from the government with their shotgun like the Army still uses gold-plated machine guns and wears blue battle dress uniforms. As for open carry, it's just food for these conservative ♥♥♥♥sticks' egos so they feel more "liberated" and "protected" in their delusion of what society is and how it functions as it is, let alone how it should be functioning and so isn't.

The only people who seem to disrespect police tend to be the ones either committing a crime or the uneducated. The police are there to keep the general population safe - putting themselves in the line of danger to do so. Show some respect.

And police aren't thugs, right? That schizophrenic was definitely uneducated enough to be beaten to death in a parking lot for little reasoning other than some random carjack report late at night, right? I'm sure he was definitely the one breaking into those cars and most certainly deserved to have his face smashed in out of the officers' own pleasure. Police are so noble, aren't they? Noble enough to be acquitted for battery and murder, eh?

 

[Nah]

Since when can civilians own AR-15s? WHY would any civilian need an AR-15? I'd like to own a gun myself one day, but wtf would I want what is basically a military-grade weapon for?

No good counters yet. Beginning to lose interest.

Ya know, its better if you explain why their arguments are "not good counters".....

 

[twocows]

Idiotic teenagers who have no business carrying a firearm like that down the street won't put the fear of god into anybody, let alone the imaginary criminals they're going to thwart with their guns. It's a stunt performed by the exact opposite people you'd trust with a deadly weapon, lol.

I think he was speaking to the general idea of open-carrying assault weapons and not this specific case. I think the law was in the right here; I don't see a problem with carrying assault weapons, but it shouldn't look like this.

I don't see any problem with open carry other than the counter-intuitive laws we have in Michigan where open carry is usually more legally permissible than concealed carry. I don't get why concealed carry should be treated as less legally permissible, that seems weird to me.

As for the idea of carrying guns in general, for me, the main reason is just personal and inter-personal protection. I plan on getting a license in the next few years sometime (not a huge priority, I don't travel much). Pepper spray is probably sufficient in a lot of cases, though (but not all). Keep in mind that it's easily possible to merely incapacitate an individual with a firearm. Police have to understand and apply the concept of "necessary force," and it's something I think most gun owners are instructed in. You can shoot to incapacitate just the same as you can shoot to kill.

I think, at the very least, there should be some way for ordinary citizens to obtain a firearm for protection, provided they can demonstrate competency and psychological stability. I think it's absurd to suggest that they should be banned altogether. I don't have any strong opinion about open carry in particular, though. Being able to protect myself and others is really my only concern, and that's not really impacted by the firearm's visibility (though open carry might prevent some situations from developing to begin with, I guess).

Point 2: Luck Hax was completely right in pointing out that most of the mass shootings in the US happen because the people either legally own guns themselves or their family legally owns guns and wasn't responsible enough with them. Take a look at our Santa Barbara shooter for example; he was not a criminal before the shooting. He was not running with people that would get him black market guns. It's not as easy as going into the street and screaming "SELL ME A GUN" to buy a gun illegally.

Can you back up that claim? One anecdote isn't really convincing evidence. If Luck already provided it, I didn't see it (I haven't read it yet, just skimmed it).

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Personally, I have no problems with people owning firearms. I do have a problem with open carry though, namely because many of the people who advocate for it or would/do use it are fairly irresponsible, and it's bound to be a problem going wrong. I believe that private establishments have the full right to refuse those with firearms or other weapons entrance, and I believe that cities and smaller divisions have the right to forbid use and "open carry" of firearms in their vicinity. It's honestly just a mistake waiting to happen.

 

[Oryx]

Can you back up that claim? One anecdote isn't really convincing evidence. If Luck already provided it, I didn't see it (I haven't read it yet, just skimmed it).

I'm going to go back on rampage killings in the US by date, using this list. The information about how they got the guns is from the Wikipedia pages of each shooting.

Elliot Rodger, Isla Vista (2014) - we already talked about this one, he got his guns legally.
Hialeah shooting (2013) - The pistol used in the shooting was legally owned by the shooter.
Colorado shooting (2012) - All his weapons were obtained legally.
IHOP shooting (2011) - This one there isn't really information about where he got the gun, but he did illegally modify it so I'll count that as illegal.
Tuscon shooting (2011) - The shooter bought his gun legally in 2010.
Collier Township shooting (2009) - This one is also lacking information but at least part of his equipment was bought legally through an online gun wholesale outlet.
Carthage nursing home shooting (2009) - Lacking information, although he did serve for years in the National Guard and was part of a hunting club so...we can assume.
Geneva County massacre (2009) - No information about legality, but one of the guns was an assault rifle which I'm pretty sure are illegal in a lot of places?
Binghamton shooting (2009) - All of the shooter's guns were purchased legally.
Kirkwood City Council shooting (2008) - No information.
Skagit killing spree (2008) - Guns stolen from neighbors.
Nicholas Tory Sheley (2008) - No information.
Crandon, Wisconsin shooting (2007) - He was a deputy in the Sheriff's department and apparently used that gun.
Westroads Mall shooting (2007) - His gun was taken from his stepfather's house.
Capitol Hill massacre (2006) - All guns were bought legally by the shooter. Interestingly, he got a felony while owning the guns that would have banned him from owning guns, and the police were aware of his guns, but let him keep them.
Living Church of God shooting (2005) - The gun was bought legally.
Wisconsin hunting shooting (2004) - The gun was his hunting gun, bought legally.

So in the last 10 years, we have 12 shootings that were either their own guns or their family's guns, 3 where they were stolen, and 2 with no information. The vast majority were them buying it themselves. :)

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Don't carry assault rifles around with you. Just don't. It:

a) Makes you look like you're compensating for a small... gun
b) Shows how much of a coward who's scared of everything you are
c) Makes you look, or in many cases simply shows that you are, mentally unstable
d) Scares the poo out of everyone around you. With all the mass shootings going on lately, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that that guy over there with the AR-15 is going to start shooting up the McDonald's you're in.
e) Gives you a terrible case of the hero complex that plagues many Americans. With an assault rifle on your back, you'll start looking for reasons to use it so you can "be a hero". Thus, you may end up shooting a black teenager just because you think he's a gang member.

If you must carry a gun with you, a pistol will do. Even then, I think anyone wanting to carry one should have to undergo rigorous background checks and mental screening, and be properly trained in the appropriate use of said gun. With power comes responsibility.

 

[twocows]

Don't carry assault rifles around with you. Just don't. It:

a) Makes you look like you're compensating for a small... gun

I doubt they care what dumb, irrelevant assumptions people make

b) Shows how much of a coward who's scared of everything you are

That's another bad, unfounded assumption that doesn't really mean anything

c) Makes you look, or in many cases simply shows that you are, mentally unstable

I know many people who are part of the open carry movement and they're some of the nicest people I've ever met. Again, you're making terrible assumptions here.

d) Scares the poo out of everyone around you. With all the mass shootings going on lately, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that that guy over there with the AR-15 is going to start shooting up the McDonald's you're in.

If someone was planning to shoot up McDonalds, they (a) most likely would do it with a pistol, as it's easier to obtain and conceal one, and (b) probably wouldn't wait in line to buy a hamburger. That said, it is a bit overkill to tote your AR around in McDonalds, in my opinion. That's something you only bring out when you're with other gun lovers.

e) Gives you a terrible case of the hero complex that plagues many Americans. With an assault rifle on your back, you'll start looking for reasons to use it so you can "be a hero". Thus, you may end up shooting a black teenager just because you think he's a gang member.

That's true to a degree, though I object to your bringing race into it.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

I doubt they care what dumb, irrelevant assumptions people make

While I was partially joking about this, it is true that it says something about how insecure in yourself you must be to have to carry around a giant assault rifle to make yourself feel "protected" or strong. I'm sorry if this makes me an oddball, but I feel completely safe walking around town unarmed. But apparently I'm less of a man for not carrying a weapon, according to many gun nuts.

another bad, unfounded assumption that doesn't really mean anything

It's hardly unfounded. Most of the lunatics fighting for the "right" to carry a military-grade rifle with them claim it's for "self-defense". If you're so scared that you think your life is always in danger and you need to take your f***ing assault rifle everywhere you go for "self-defense", then yes, you're a coward.

know many people who are part of the open carry movement and they're some of the nicest people I've ever met. Again, you're making terrible assumptions here.

Nice to you, who obviously supports their ideals of a wild west-esque anarchy where everyone solves every problem with guns. Not so nice to their opponents, who they bombard with all sorts of insults and accuse of trying to "destroy America" and "support terrorism" and all sorts of other wonderful accusations.

If someone was planning to shoot up McDonalds, they (a) most likely would do it with a pistol, as it's easier to obtain and conceal one, and (b) probably wouldn't wait in line to buy a hamburger. That said, it is a bit overkill to tote your AR around in McDonalds, in my opinion. That's something you only bring out when you're with other gun lovers.[/QUOTE]
How naive are you to think that the average everyday crazed mass shooter would use a pistol? Just about every mass shooting that goes on has the shooters using assault rifles.

true to a degree, though I object to your bringing race into it.

I'm not bringing race into it; the bloodthirsty, racist wannabe-hero vigilantes shooting people because they're black are the ones bringing race into it. Their minds work differently than stable peoples; they see black, they think "gang member".

 

[Zeffy]

Nice to you, who obviously supports their ideals of a wild west-esque anarchy where everyone solves every problem with guns. Not so nice to their opponents, who they bombard with all sorts of insults and accuse of trying to "destroy America" and "support terrorism" and all sorts of other wonderful accusations.

If someone was talking ♥♥♥♥ to you because of their own selfish reasons and inaccurate assumptions, wouldn't you act the same way?

 

[Atomic Pirate]

If someone was talking ♥♥♥♥ to you because of their own selfish reasons and inaccurate assumptions, wouldn't you act the same way?

I would attempt to form an intelligent debate with them. Not call them freedom-hating commies (Or, in the case of when they are talking about Obama, a Kenyan Muslim Gay Atheist Terrorist Communist Socialist) or whatever other insult I can think of that I feel will make a mark.

Look, I just feel like society would be better off if people didn't carry loaded AKs around with them and solve every "problem" with shooting. Am I crazy for wanting people not to kill each other and follow a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality?

 

[uoneko]

viewing this as a big picture, i think the united states' open carry policy is just a never-ending cycle of people owning firearms because of the fear of others owning firearms, causing other people to buy firearms out of fear of those people, etc. etc...
speaking personally, i'm against the idea of open carry mainly because of personal experiences of mine. this told experience of my friend's is somewhat graphic [i have her consent to share, before anyone calls me out on something irrelevant like that.]. last year, one of my very close friends was walking home one night when a stranger, a man, approached her and began to sexually harass her. when she tried to escape, he shot her in the foot and she collapsed, and he then proceeded to rape her. if he hadn't owned a gun, she said she might have been able to escape. but of course, since the u.s. follows open carry, it allows awful people like these to handle weapons for awful purposes.

 

[twocows]

It's hardly unfounded. Most of the lunatics fighting for the "right" to carry a military-grade rifle with them claim it's for "self-defense". If you're so scared that you think your life is always in danger and you need to take your f***ing assault rifle everywhere you go for "self-defense", then yes, you're a coward.

If you honestly think they're "so scared that they think their lives are always in danger," you're completely misunderstanding. You don't take self-defense courses because you think you're constantly going to be bombarded by muggers at all hours of the day, you do it in case it happens. This is no different other than it's a bit tasteless, really.

Nice to you, who obviously supports their ideals of a wild west-esque anarchy where everyone solves every problem with guns.

You certainly make a lot of assumptions. I don't recall saying that I support open carry, especially with regards to assault rifles. What I said was that I have no strong opinions on it either way, and specifically that as long as I'm able to carry a firearm for personal and inter-personal protection, I really don't care about whether it needs to be concealed or not or what the laws are on assault rifles.

Furthermore, nobody but you has said anything about solving every problem with guns. That's another assumption you've made. Open carry and assault rifle proponents have never said anything about solving every problem with guns.

Not so nice to their opponents, who they bombard with all sorts of insults and accuse of trying to "destroy America" and "support terrorism" and all sorts of other wonderful accusations.

You're grossly overgeneralizing. There are a few idiots out there going around calling gun advocates murderers and psychopaths, that doesn't mean all people who oppose firearms are jerks. Again, most gun advocates are ordinary people who happen to have a different opinion than you. Have you ever eaten at a country restaurant or gone to a farmer's market out in the sticks? Those are the kind of people who are gun advocates. They're not as diabolical as you are making them out to be. They're people like this business-owner and this congresswoman (NSFW language).

How naive are you to think that the average everyday crazed mass shooter would use a pistol? Just about every mass shooting that goes on has the shooters using pistols.

Putting your personal attack aside, I don't really see how that contradicts anything I said. In fact, it kind of seems to support it: if most mass shootings are done with pistols, then it goes without saying that you probably have nothing to worry about with regards to the guy in line for a hamburger who has an AR slung over his back.

I'm not bringing race into it; the bloodthirsty, racist wannabe-hero vigilantes shooting people because they're black are the ones bringing race into it. Their minds work differently than stable peoples; they see black, they think "gang member".

You obviously have some messed up notions about gun advocates. I find it extremely disturbing that you're trying to generalize gun advocates as racist murderers, if that's what you're actually suggesting.

viewing this as a big picture, i think the united states' open carry policy is just a never-ending cycle of people owning firearms because of the fear of others owning firearms, causing other people to buy firearms out of fear of those people, etc. etc...
speaking personally, i'm against the idea of open carry mainly because of personal experiences of mine. this told experience of my friend's is somewhat graphic [i have her consent to share, before anyone calls me out on something irrelevant like that.]. last year, one of my very close friends was walking home one night when a stranger, a man, approached her and began to sexually harass her. when she tried to escape, he shot her in the foot and she collapsed, and he then proceeded to rape her. if he hadn't owned a gun, she said she might have been able to escape. but of course, since the u.s. follows open carry, it allows awful people like these to handle weapons for awful purposes.

Actually, the US does not allow people to do things like that with guns. By definition, using a gun in that way is an unlawful purpose and banned by US law.

Also, open carry would have no effect on that situation. Assuming this criminal purchased the weapon legitimately (unlikely), he could have just concealed the weapon to skirt any open carry restrictions. Banning guns wouldn't solve the problem, either; criminals like this can still obtain them illegally and wouldn't be deprived of any weapons they already have (banning guns wouldn't make existing ones and existing manufacture sites disappear). And foreign trade, for example to Mexico, would still bring new ones in even if criminals did somehow lose access to their guns (again, that wouldn't happen).

And again, there are alternative ways to hurt or stop someone from a range; the non-existence of all guns still may not have had an impact on that situation. Tasers and knives can both be used to harm someone at a range, and even pepper spray can be used offensively instead of in self-defense. As a general rule, anything you can use to effectively defend yourself with can be used offensively to harm someone.

 

[Dakotah]

I live in Ontario, Canada. The only people allowed to carry guns with them on the streets are the police. That's the way it should be.

 

[uoneko]

And again, there are alternative ways to hurt or stop someone from a range; the non-existence of all guns still may not have had an impact on that situation. Tasers and knives can both be used to harm someone at a range, and even pepper spray can be used offensively instead of in self-defense. As a general rule, anything you can use to effectively defend yourself with can be used offensively to harm someone.

carrying on this conversation would be irrelevant to the topic, but it's important for you to know that by saying that this girl was attacked because she had no way to defend herself is essentially victim-shaming, which is never ok.

 

[twocows]

carrying on this conversation would be irrelevant to the topic, but it's important for you to know that by saying that this girl was attacked because she had no way to defend herself is essentially victim-shaming, which is never ok.

You can't say something and then try to exclude a response, that's not how debate works.

I didn't say anything about her being attacked because she had no way to defend herself. In fact, I made sure not to mention that because I knew someone would misinterpret it and I had plenty of other good points that I felt wouldn't be misinterpreted (clearly, I was wrong). What I actually said in the line you quoted was that if the offender didn't have a gun, he would probably have some other equally effective way of harming or incapacitating your friend. That has nothing to do with the victim at all.

However, since you brought it up, I'll say that it is a completely valid point. A person with a gun is a lot more likely not to be accosted in the first place and a lot more likely to make it out alive and unharmed if they are. Stating the obvious is not "victim-shaming," as I already argued in another thread. Victim-shaming would be to say "they had it coming because they weren't prepared," which is a lot different than saying "they may have fared better if they weren't prepared," which is merely stating the obvious.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

If you honestly think they're "so scared that they think their lives are always in danger," you're completely misunderstanding. You don't take self-defense courses because you think you're constantly going to be bombarded by muggers at all hours of the day, you do it in case it happens. This is no different other than it's a bit tasteless, really.

I'm sorry, but if you think you need an assault rifle strapped to your back to protect yourself, you almost definitely live in a state of perpetual fear. Normal people are able to walk through the city either unarmed, or with a simple pistol on them. When you start lugging a loaded AK-47 with you, you begin to look like a scared little man who's so weak that he can't defend himself without an assault rifle that allows him to spray a hail of bullets at whatever is threatening him.

Putting your personal attack aside, I don't really see how that contradicts anything I said. In fact, it kind of seems to support it: if most mass shootings are done with pistols, then it goes without saying that you probably have nothing to worry about with regards to the guy in line for a hamburger who has an AR slung over his back.

I meant to say that most mass shootings were done with assault rifles. It happens, sometimes I type the wrong word. It should have been obvious, though, that I intended to say assault rifles due to the context, and your "assumption" that I actually meant pistols makes it seem like you're just looking for any possible way to "refute" any points that I make because anyone with a mind could have seen that I meant assault rifles and typed the wrong thing.

again, there are alternative ways to hurt or stop someone from a range; the non-existence of all guns still may not have had an impact on that situation. Tasers and knives can both be used to harm someone at a range, and even pepper spray can be used offensively instead of in self-defense. As a general rule, anything you can use to effectively defend yourself with can be used offensively to harm someone.

Yeah, tell me more about all the pepper spray and taser massacres that go on. The difference between a gun and a can of pepper spray is that shooting someone is much, much more likely to kill them than spraying them in the eyes with pepper spray. Yeah, tasers and knives and the like can harm and even kill someone, but guns, especially assault rifles, are capable of killing with deadly efficiency that these other methods of self defense you mentioned do not have.

, the US does not allow people to do things like that with guns. By definition, using a gun in that way is an unlawful purpose and banned by US law.

Not in states like Florida, where inane "Stand Your Ground" laws exist. These laws, combined with allowed open carry of assault rifles, would basically allow a self-appointed "hero" to open fire into a group of black dudes because he feels "threatened" by them because he thinks that they're in a gang.

 

[twocows]

I'm sorry, but if you think you need an assault rifle strapped to your back to protect yourself, you almost definitely live in a state of perpetual fear. Normal people are able to walk through the city either unarmed, or with a simple pistol on them. When you start lugging a loaded AK-47 with you, you begin to look like a scared little man who's so weak that he can't defend himself without an assault rifle that allows him to spray a hail of bullets at whatever is threatening him.

If that's what you think they look like; I certainly don't. Like I said, at worst, they're being a bit showy. I don't see why you are so intent on trying to make it into a personal attack on them.

I meant to say that most mass shootings were done with assault rifles. It happens, sometimes I type the wrong word. It should have been obvious, though, that I intended to say assault rifles due to the context, and your "assumption" that I actually meant pistols makes it seem like you're just looking for any possible way to "refute" any points that I make because anyone with a mind could have seen that I meant assault rifles and typed the wrong thing.

No, it wasn't obvious, and really, please stop with the insults. I haven't insulted you once; the worst I said was that you made a dumb assumption in the first post I responded to you with, which is not an attack against you, though I probably could have worded it better. You're being extremely disrespectful and I'm just trying to argue my position.

Anyway, do you have backing for that statement? I find it hard to believe that it is true.

Yeah, tell me more about all the pepper spray and taser massacres that go on.

You're moving the goalposts. The person I was responding to was describing a situation with one person who attacked her friend, and the point I made is that it could have happened even if guns somehow magically disappeared from the world; a gun is not the only way to incapacitate someone from a distance.

With respect to your point, if assault rifles are commonly used in shootings, I don't see how banning people from carrying them on their back would negate this at all. It's harder to conceal an AR, but it can be done, and even if it couldn't, I doubt someone intent on using an AR to shoot up some place would care much about what the law says about carrying them in the open.

The difference between a gun and a can of pepper spray is that shooting someone is much, much more likely to kill them than spraying them in the eyes with pepper spray. Yeah, tasers and knives and the like can harm and even kill someone, but guns, especially assault rifles, are capable of killing with deadly efficiency that these other methods of self defense you mentioned do not have.

That's true, provided the shooter is intent on killing someone. However, in the case the person I was responding to described, the shooter shot to incapacitate. Incapacitating someone from a distance is no more difficult with a taser than it is with a firearm, probably easier in fact.

Not in states like Florida, where inane "Stand Your Ground" laws exist. These laws, combined with allowed open carry of assault rifles, would basically allow a self-appointed "hero" to open fire into a group of black dudes because he feels "threatened" by them because he thinks that they're in a gang.

I don't know much about that particular law, but it seems like if that law is problematic, the solution is to get that law repealed, not ban certain forms of open carry.