Thread: Should Open Carry be Legal?

Originally Posted by jet57

This post goes right to the point of my argument in post # 281; thanks for making it so eloquently.

So you are intimidated if someone openly carries a weapon, but you are ok with it if its concealed. Seems a contridiction.

To some criminal who is shot, it makes little difference if the weapon was displayed or not. Yet, just maybe if the weapon was visable, the crime would not have taken place. Call it itimidation if you want. Visible weapons may deter someone from doing wrong.

Originally Posted by jet57

Oh please; you just can't refute the common sense my argument contains.

It's not common sense. Guns are not the only way through which one human can kill the other. You assume that without the gun, there would have been no harm done to the victim. That IS supposition. Your argument isn't common sense. It's built upon your perceived bias of gun ownership and built upon supposition. That's it. Come back when you do have a "common sense" argument.

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

The two examples that you cite are as far apart as night and day, and neither depended on open carry being legal. Most gun crime is NOT done with regard to any law, so passing some moronic unconstitutional "ban" law, like those that make recreational drugs illegal, is not going to have any noticable effect on crime, in fact quite the opposite is true.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???. The idea behind any defensive measure, be it alarms, locks, warning signs, dogs or fences is the same as for carrying a weapon (up to and including a handgun); it is a valuable deterent to being chosen as a crime victim (but is much more portable). Remember that criminals are basically lazy, or they would likely work to earn a living as most of us choose to do; you do not have to do much, to make yourself be passed over as "too hard" of a target, by the typical criminal, thus they continue right past you in search of an easier victim.

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

I am sure that your stature and attitude protect you from all harm, that you are the baddest MF in the valley and all sorts of things that many of us are not, so you see no valid reason for ANYONE to carry a weapon, certainly none as effective as a handgun. That is your right, but does not change the rights of, or risks to, others. Just because abortion is legal, does not compell anyone to have one, just as the right to carry a handgun does not require you (or anyone else) to do so. To assert that because YOU feel safe, we must all do things your way, is insane.

Crime happens, a lot to many, many people everyday; to deny any crime victim, or potential crime victim, from doing everything in their power to NOT be the next victim is NOT your right to decide. Try all you want to get the constitution amended to eliminate the 2nd amendment, but do not pretend it does not exist in the mean time. Try all you want to get more crimianls locked up, and for a much longer time, by changing the laws and I will gladly join you, but leave me, and other law abiding citizens, alone with ALL of our rights intact.

My two examples are perfect: they’re nuts with guns. It points to the type of mentality that creates a public safety threat, whether they carry open or concealed doesn’t matter. And I never said anything about an unconstitutional ban law: such regulations are not bans anymore than a traffic ordinance saying you can’t have a “USA 1” front license plate is ban on free speech. Ya’ can’t carry a loaded bazooka down the street either, so your argument against this part of my case won’t hold up. ** Please see post # 283 for another example.

Great, every time a crime is reported, the "personally responsible" among us, will pack up and move to ???.

This is a classic example of misrepresenting someone’s speech. What I said was; If (you) think the neighborhood you live in is dangerous, then move? Isn’t personal responsibility the conservative / Libertarian creed these days? What not leave crime to the police? Carrying a sword is a deterrent too. Your argument is simply pro –gun; nothing more. And don’t forget; I said that I own three firearms including one pistol, and I wouldn’t even think of carrying it around with me unless I was living with an open and active threat to my safety were going on at the time.

I have also lived in rural areas where nobody locked their doors and everybody had guns; myself included. But this statement doesn’t make sense:

OK, you may have the luxury of a nearby LEO watching over you, and keeping you (and your neighborhood) safe, but many of us live, work, travel, seek entertainment and/or shop in areas that expose us to considerable crime risk. When seconds really count, the police are only minutes away.

Where are you? Harlem? Hunter’s Point? Everybody else around you is doing fine, so this statement is seriously misleading. Ambulances are only minutes away as well, so what’s your point? If an innocent bystander gets hit by a stray (my point as well) then the shooter is responsible and the police are still minutes away, so now how solid is your argument . . .

And you can knock off the silly ad-hom about me. I was making a point.

As far as “crime happening every day”: get some mace; same defense tactic but much less troubling for the world around you.

I think my stronger point that the gun zealots are the ones who have endangered the II Amendment is also a very compelling case that some you should be talking about.

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

You are living proof that common sense is not so common. Please see post #287 ;-)

Well, you're not Ikari, so that settles that.

Originally Posted by mike2810

So you are intimidated if someone openly carries a weapon, but you are ok with it if its concealed. Seems a contridiction.

To some criminal who is shot, it makes little difference if the weapon was displayed or not. Yet, just maybe if the weapon was visable, the crime would not have taken place. Call it itimidation if you want. Visible weapons may deter someone from doing wrong.

I never said any such thing about any styles of carry. Concealed carry where I live is for police and federal agents only. The intimidating factor to the general public however is obvious: it's a public safety hazard and has nothing to do wiff da shawiff acommin' down de stweet: oooohhh he tuff!

. . . please

Originally Posted by Ikari

It's not common sense. Guns are not the only way through which one human can kill the other. You assume that without the gun, there would have been no harm done to the victim. That IS supposition. Your argument isn't common sense. It's built upon your perceived bias of gun ownership and built upon supposition. That's it. Come back when you do have a "common sense" argument.

Oh my god . . .

Guns were involved in both incidences; not tire irons. You're beating a dead horse. You can't refute my argument; that's the bottom line. And I own three weapons myself; as well as a swell collection of knives, so your charge of "bias" won't hold water either.

Originally Posted by jet57

Inever said it made things happen. What I said was that it provides too much of an opportunity for gun nuts - like George Zimmerman. You're "guns defend people" is a specious argument.

Again this business about Martin and Zimmerman is just another silly argument that ignores the fact that Zimmerman was in charge of his part of the incident. He chose not to explain himself, but chose instead to escalate the incident to point where that boy was killed by the gun Zimmerman was packin' around: the man's an idiot and makes my case perfectly. How you can sit by and defy logic and reason in this case just makes my point even stronger I'm afraid.

The gun zealots in this country are the ones who are threatening the II Amendment; nobody else. What you're not considering is that this BS with the gun nuts is what will eventually overturn the II Amendment.

Count on it.

The mistake Zimmerman made was not letting it known earlier that he was armed.

Yes, we understand you really, really wish Martin had been able to beat Zimmerman to death or cause permanent brain damage. Because of the Kel-Tec 9mm your wish for Zimmerman's death didn't come true.

Using Martin-Zimmmerman is the WORST possible example.

Originally Posted by jet57

That's great: nice life story. If you think you need protection, then you're doing things you shouldn't be doing .

^ Wow, is statement thata philosphy of total nonsense or total cowardice?

Everyone should quit all dangerous jobs. Swell shut-down-society concept, huh?

Originally Posted by jet57

My two examples are perfect: they’re nuts with guns. It points to the type of mentality that creates a public safety threat, whether they carry open or concealed doesn’t matter. And I never said anything about an unconstitutional ban law: such regulations are not bans anymore than a traffic ordinance saying you can’t have a “USA 1” front license plate is ban on free speech. Ya’ can’t carry a loaded bazooka down the street either, so your argument against this part of my case won’t hold up. ** Please see post # 283 for another example.



This is a classic example of misrepresenting someone’s speech. What I said was; If (you) think the neighborhood you live in is dangerous, then move? Isn’t personal responsibility the conservative / Libertarian creed these days? What not leave crime to the police? Carrying a sword is a deterrent too. Your argument is simply pro –gun; nothing more. And don’t forget; I said that I own three firearms including one pistol, and I wouldn’t even think of carrying it around with me unless I was living with an open and active threat to my safety were going on at the time.

I have also lived in rural areas where nobody locked their doors and everybody had guns; myself included. But this statement doesn’t make sense:



Where are you? Harlem? Hunter’s Point? Everybody else around you is doing fine, so this statement is seriously misleading. Ambulances are only minutes away as well, so what’s your point? If an innocent bystander gets hit by a stray (my point as well) then the shooter is responsible and the police are still minutes away, so now how solid is your argument . . .

And you can knock off the silly ad-hom about me. I was making a point.

As far as “crime happening every day”: get some mace; same defense tactic but much less troubling for the world around you.

I think my stronger point that the gun zealots are the ones who have endangered the II Amendment is also a very compelling case that some you should be talking about.

You suggest many NON-LETHAL options, as you say in a later post "in your area you have no right to carry". That is why I think you want others to HAVE TO LIVE AS YOU DO (the basis of all of yor arguments), owning useless firearms that must stay home. It's like saying its OK to own a car, just keep it in your driveway or garage, but please feel free to use your bicycle while out in public. You can't have it both ways. Either a right is a right (you obviously don't care enough to protest a local gun carry ban) or it is state/city issued privilege. Using non-lethal force against a perp intent on using "whatever force is necessary" is a VERY bad battle plan, likely to simply make them go all "Trayvon" on you.

In one breath you say rely on the police, in the next carry an arsenal of non-lethal things yet NEVER a handgun (because YOU can't?), because criminals have and use those things (and YOU can't). That is the whole idea behind honest citizen carry, to make it where not only LEO (gov't) and criminals have guns available. Trust me that criminals can tell who is LEO pretty well. What good is having your guns ONLY in your home? That 'protects' you for perhaps 1/2 (at most) of the day while you are in your "safest place" behind a locked door with your dogs and neighbors nearby. The rest of the time you are on THEIR turf, out in public playing potential crime victim, displaying your possessions (except your gun) and showing off your fine ride, just daring that thug to take it from you.

Originally Posted by jet57

Oh my god . . .

Guns were involved in both incidences; not tire irons. You're beating a dead horse. You can't refute my argument; that's the bottom line. And I own three weapons myself; as well as a swell collection of knives, so your charge of "bias" won't hold water either.

You have no argument. Guns may have been used in both cases, but that doesn't mean that some other item could not have been used in the absence of guns. For the love of all that is holy, just learn what supposition means.

Also you claiming that you own guns does not remove your bias on this exercise of rights. Your statements have already shown your bias towards those who would want to open carry. You can have all the guns you want, that doesn't mean that you don't hold bias to certain exercises with guns. You are a bucket of logic fail.