Hand Guns Carried Open - - - - >>

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

skipcoryell

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2008
5
0
0
I really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks to everyone who contributed to it. Some of you had questions. I thought you might be interested in getting a sneak peak at an article that Ted Nugent asked me to write for his website (tednugent.com). It won't be on there until Monday and this is just a draft, but it would be nice to get preliminary comments from you. Was nice reading your comments about open carry in general and about my event in particular.

All the best.

Skip Coryell
--------------

Open Carry ? Is America Ready?
Three years ago I wrote the following in my book titled Blood in the Streets: Concealed Carry and the OK Corral:

?I teach my students that there is no advantage to anyone knowing that they are carrying a concealed pistol.?

And then later on in the book I said:

?In my very humble opinion, in most scenarios, open carry is a bad decision. Open carry is stupid carry. Concealed carry is smart carry. Keep it hidden. Keep it smart.?

For the past 8 years I have consistently taught in my classes that open carry is a very risky proposition, but I am starting to re-evaluate the severity of that position. I am always gathering new data, new experiences and new technology and then applying it to my everyday life. I think this is the best way to go, and I?m not so dogmatic as to think that nothing ever changes. Some things change, some things don?t.

In my book I describe two reasons why open carry is stupid carry.

1. There is no tactical advantage to open carry.
2. It scares people. Michigan is not ready for open carry.

I believe that the first reason is still valid and probably always will be. Open carry gives away the element of surprise and I don?t want to do that. Here?s what I wrote in the book, and I still hold to it:

?As a former Marine Infantryman, I understand that the most important asset in a battle is the element of surprise. I know full well that if I can retain that equalizing ?surprise element?, then I can overcome most other odds, be they superior firepower or superior numbers. If I open carry, that advantage is gone. But if I carry concealed, I have a greater number of options that are open to me. I can wait and see what happens. I can duck behind cover. I can draw my firearm and surprise the bad guys with a hail of deadly gunfire. I can wait for them to make a mistake, then act decisively and with conviction.?

However, despite all that, something happened a few days ago which has caused me to re-evaluate my strong stance against open carry. Let me tell you what happened.

A friend of mine came to me, one of my long-time Second Amendment activist buddies, and told me that he was going to walk through downtown main street, daring the Chief of Police to arrest him. My first thought was: this doesn?t sound like a good idea. In fact, several years ago I had spoken with the Chief in that town and I knew that he was dead-set against open carry and even against concealed carry. Once, in a private conversation in his office, I asked him what he would do if I were to walk through town wearing a pistol and holster. He told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest me. I believed him.

So when my friend came to me, I was concerned about his plan. I was convinced that he would be arrested. But then he asked me to join him and I didn?t have the heart to tell him no. He was too good a friend and we?d been through the political activist trenches during the concealed carry debate, so we started making plans for the event.

Now you have to understand that I seldom do things small. It?s just not in my personality. Besides, if I was going to walk through a city with a pistol strapped to my side, I wanted company. So I told a few friends, and they told their friends and then their friends told their friends ? and then it hit the internet ? all over the country. When I told Ted Nugent he was all for it and said to put it on tednugent.com, which I did. From there it migrated to other websites and soon I was getting emails from people all across the country.

This two-man event was growing out of control. And then the media started to call.

I figured since I was going to be interviewed by channel 3, channel 8, and the Detroit Free Press, that I might want to know something about open carry before I actually did it. So I emailed the guys at www.opencarry.org and they were very helpful, pointing me to videos of previous open carry events and other news sources. But I have to tell you, that even after I?d educated myself, I was still as nervous as a frog in a blender.

Just to be safe, we contacted the County Prosecutor, the State Police and the State Attorney General, just to make sure that what we were doing was legal. To my surprise, they all agreed that it was. They even pointed me to several legal sources: Attorney General Opinion 7101 on brandishing, and MCL 750.234d. I was reassured, but still nervous. Just to make sure, we recruited an attorney to attend our event, just in case.

All this happened in the span of four days, and on the night before, I didn?t get to sleep until 4:30 AM. I emailed Ted Nugent for moral support and asked his advice. He emailed back in typical Tedlike fashion:

?YOU are in charge!! carryon! sincerity delivers the day. Godspeed?

Quite frankly, that?s what he always says. Be sincere! Speak from the heart! Take control! He?s such an alpha male. I secretly wished that he could fly on up and walk with me on this thing, but he had some lame excuse about a concert tour in Canada.

So I went to the event the next day with my wife and three kids. On the way there I called Dave and asked him how many people had come. He said he was still there alone. That was less than a half hour before the event. It was then I began to curse myself for being stupid enough to think that others would put themselves at risk alongside me. To top it all off, the kids were fighting with each other in the car and my nerves were tighter than a gnat?s butt stretched over a barrel.

We got there and I saw TV cameras out front. I kicked into public relations activist overdrive and gave three interviews before even entering the building. When I got inside I was shocked to see the room was packed with about 50 Second Amendment supporters. Some of them I knew, others I didn?t. But it was good to see them all. They were my backup.

I talked to the troops, telling them to keep smiling, say good things, and to not touch their firearms no matter what. Number one rule: 1. Pistols never clear leather. Number two rule: 2. Be nice, smile, live the golden rule.

Larry came up and told me that there was a group of anti?s who might give us trouble. I thought to myself, Great! Just what we need. Idiots bent on making us look bad! I told everyone not to talk to them, just let them make fools of themselves. Any altercation would undoubtedly be blamed on us and defeat our mission which was to educate the public that open carry was both legal and constitutional and that gun owners need not be feared by the general population.

We walked outside, the cameras following our every move. We walked down 2 blocks to city hall. Shopkeepers came out of their stores to watch, and people on the street took pictures with their cell phones.

A strange thing happened to me. I was no longer nervous. In fact, I was downright happy, gleeful even. It felt good to no longer have to hide my pistol behind a shirt. At that moment, while walking down main street with all eyes watching, I felt more like a free man than at any other point in my life.

We walked two blocks back to the county courthouse and gathered at the veteran?s memorial in front of the fountain. I told them the story of how Dave and I had crashed our first County Gun Board meeting back in 1999, subsequently opening it up to the public. Then I gave a 5-minute speech. The Detroit Free Press called it a red-meat speech, but I?m not even sure what that means. Here?s a small excerpt:

?We have been given a birthright of freedom, and that birthright was passed on to each one of us from our father and our father?s father and his father before him. The right to keep and bear arms, the right to protect our families, the right to ward off the wolves is as old as creation itself. It was infused into our spiritual DNA, into the everlasting consciousness of humanity and it forever runs deep in the race.?

I like red meat. Afterwards, people lingered, not wanting the moment to end. An hour later people were still there. Finally, I left, totally exhausted and my spirit fulfilled.

What we had done was risky, but the risk had paid off. Barry County was now open to ?open carry?. I?m glad we did it.

So, I find myself re-evaluating my stance. Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice. Nonetheless, I suspect that many in America are ready for more. I believe that open carry, when properly practiced, is a useful tool in educating and desensitizing the public to firearm usage. For decades the anti?s have taught that Guns equal crime; therefore, gun owners equal criminals.

That couldn?t be further from the truth, and last week in a small town in Michigan, 40 plus gun owners proved it.

Skip Coryell lives with his wife and children in Michigan. He is the author of five books including Blood in the Streets: Concealed Carry and the OK Corral, the hunting novel Bond of Unseen Blood, and the Second Amendment novel We Hold These Truths. He is an NRA Instructor and co-owner of Midwest Tactical Training, teaching CPL classes in both Michigan and Iowa and also owner of White Feather Press. To find out more about Skip, his classes and his writing, go to www.skipcoryell.com and www.mwtac.com .
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice.

Concealed carry is only the best tactical choice if you are being targeted specifically and the attack is NOT an attack of opportunity. This, however, is not the tactical situation in which a civilian is likely to find himself. More likely is that the victim is chosen randomly as someone who appears to present a low risk to the criminal. Open carry has the potential to prevent an attack from even starting; concealed carry does not.

The element of surprise is an advantage only after an altercation has already begun (or if you are the one who will be initiating the altercation, which is emphatically not the case for responsible gun owners). It is entirely reactive.

ZV
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice.

Concealed carry is only the best tactical choice if you are being targeted specifically and the attack is NOT an attack of opportunity. This, however, is not the tactical situation in which a civilian is likely to find himself. More likely is that the victim is chosen randomly as someone who appears to present a low risk to the criminal. Open carry has the potential to prevent an attack from even starting; concealed carry does not.

The element of surprise is an advantage only after an altercation has already begun (or if you are the one who will be initiating the altercation, which is emphatically not the case for responsible gun owners). It is entirely reactive.

ZV

hmmm... can't say i agree... opportunistic attack on a open carry means that if i hit from behind i can probably liberate the weapon before the liberatee can get to it... and, as a real bad guy, seeing a weapon is just like seeing any other bling - it's $$$ at the pawnshop... with concealed the target, if conscious after the inital attack, has a chance to retalliate... but then i'm the kind of bad guy who would slug first, not ask nicely for your posessions...

being a large kind of guy, i don't tend to be the bad guy's first choice in any case... but it's kind of how i look at lady cops: if me, a 250 lb 6'5'' guy, am a real bad guy who doesn't want to go to jail, she'd better have that gun out because i'm going to fight otherwise... having the gun on her hip is like not having a gun...

not trying to be sizeist or anything, but a little person with an open carry is still a target in my eyes...
 

ICRS

Banned
Apr 20, 2008
1,328
0
0
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It would make me nervous to know that I live in a place where people feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
where do u live? i have to be in downtown urban areas at night on a regular basis... i feel a lot safer with a gun... i'm pretty nervous without...
 

sonnygdude

Member
Jun 14, 2008
182
0
76
Wouldn't make me nervous, but wouldn't make me feel great either. Lots of dipshits out there who think a gun is a magic solution in itself instead of a means to an end.

In general, i think open carry is a mistake. A gun shouldn't be a deterrent. A gun should be for shooting someone. When you start to think of it as a deterrent, you are opening yourself to the dangerous subconscious feeling that a gun will protect you without you having to use it, which may lead you to the "I can't believe this is happening" state if someone does come after you. You should only pull a gun if you're going to use it, and you should only use it if you're going to shoot to stop - i.e. put in as many rounds as it takes to put the threat down.

For police, the exposed weapon is part of an overall uniform. Most duty holsters have secondary or even tertiary retention features that civilian carry holsters do not. And even among the people I know who are very familiar with carrying weapons, few of the private citizens have ever had any weapon retention training. That should be a must before you carry, whether open or cnocealed
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Originally posted by: dreadpiratedoug
I think it's funny that they had to point out they're white ... if they said any minority, it'd be claimed racist!

Because a black man openly carrying would have caused a panic and/or a hail of bullets.


Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
cops carry, and i trust them about as much as i trust the average guy, so i must say no big deal

Wow, you have a lot of faith in humanity.
 

skipcoryell

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2008
5
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice.

Concealed carry is only the best tactical choice if you are being targeted specifically and the attack is NOT an attack of opportunity. This, however, is not the tactical situation in which a civilian is likely to find himself. More likely is that the victim is chosen randomly as someone who appears to present a low risk to the criminal. Open carry has the potential to prevent an attack from even starting; concealed carry does not.

The element of surprise is an advantage only after an altercation has already begun (or if you are the one who will be initiating the altercation, which is emphatically not the case for responsible gun owners). It is entirely reactive.

ZV

Zenmervolt,

You may be correct, but unfortunately there's no way for us to know since it's impossible to document an assault that was deterred. My gut feeling and my studies lead me to believe that open carry deters most "sane" criminals, i.e., those without a death wish.

My personal feeling is that with the continuing degradation of our social fabric, we're seeing more and more criminals out there who aren't of sound mind e.g., those with drug and alcohol addictions and mental illness.

Bottom line for me is that self protection is a right endowed to us by our creator. It's our birthright that can't be taken away. So we have a choice to either not carry at all, carry open, or carry concealed. I always tell my students that they live or die based on decisions they make. So make good decisions.

Skip Coryell
www.mwtac.com
www.skipcoryell.com
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: ICRS
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

1. Already done in most states.
2. Unfair costs, Unfair frequency, lack of defined standards for 'sound mind' - all of which contribute to undue burden and infringement on a guaranteed right. Requiring a new mental health background check at the time of license renewal is a viable alternative, and already done in many states.
3. Already required in most states.
4. Already required in almost all states.
5. Already law in most states, and under severe restrictions even when allowed.

Now, let me counter:

Without these rules and with a drastic increase in concealed carry licensing not only has crime gone down significantly, but multiple studies confirm that permit holders are more law abiding than even law enforcement officers.

Moreover, in a state with none of those requirements, where any 16 year old can carry just about any gun they want, almost anywhere they want, with no oversight whatsoever, the crime and accident rates are the just about the lowest in the nation.

In other words, none of the things you suggest are ACTUALLY the problem. I'm not arguing against them, just reminding you that they're feel good platitudes with next to no positive effects in the real world.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
It would make me nervous to know that I live in a place where people feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.

In the states which allow concealed carry the carry rate is between 1 and 4 percent. That means unless you live in Wisconsin or Illinois at least a couple out of every 100 people you see have a gun on them (or at least are allowed to). Moreover there are going to be a number who carry without license, who open carry, etc. In other words if you live in America you should assume that at least 5 out of every 100 people you see have a gun on them, or in their vehicle right then. You'll be right more often than not.
 

skipcoryell

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2008
5
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
It would make me nervous to know that I live in a place where people feel they need to carry a gun to feel safe.

senseamp,

I believe you've hit the nail on the head with your comment. Many people feel the way you do. I have an anti-gun mother-in-law who always asks me "What are you afraid of that you you need to carry a gun?" I always laugh and say "I'm not afraid! I'm the one carrying a gun!" She doesn't get it.

Some people don't want to see people carrying guns because it reminds them of their own helplessness in a dangerous world and makes them nervous. That makes sense. In my book "Blood in the Streets" I quote Lt. Colonel David Grossman who pretty much sums it up:

"I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.?

I suppose part of the problem is that many people can't tell the difference between a wolf and a sheepdog. All they see is the gun and it scares them to death because they can't defend against it.

There's nothing wrong with being a sheep, so long as you're willing to accept the life of a sheep. But before you decide, remember that sheep are born and bred for one purpose: to be killed and to have their parts processed into something useful by predators. They stand on the hill and go ?Baa?, as they?re being slaughtered.

I carry a firearm to protect my family and other innocent people around me.

This is a very good forum.

Skip Coryell
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.

Not without help they can't. And once that help has that intention it can/may/will happen even without the firearm.
 

skipcoryell

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2008
5
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.

I respect all guns. But I only fear them if they're pointed at me. A holstered pistol never hurt anyone.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.

I respect all guns. But I only fear them if they're pointed at me. A holstered pistol never hurt anyone.

You've obviously never driven cross-country with an iwb in the small of your back. :cool:
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: scott916
Originally posted by: child of wonder
People having guns don't scare me. What scares me is that they might also be driving around in a big SUV, with "W '04," "WWJD?," and anti-evolution bumper stickers on their way to their local schoolboard meeting to push "Intelligent Design" into schools and vote for politicians on religious grounds.

This. And also the simple assumption that every Tom Dick and Harry that carries a weapon in the open is a responsible, well-trained citizen, which is simply not the truth. Most people who carry are upstanding citizens, but it only takes one dipshit.

Strange, im a gun rights person whos an engineering student, with a fuel efficient car, agnostic, and for bush impeachment, oh and im an independant voter who leans democrat.

I guess i dont fit the stereotypical demographic :p

To answer the OP i think it should be legal in all 50.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: ICRS
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

1. Already done in most states.
2. Unfair costs, Unfair frequency, lack of defined standards for 'sound mind' - all of which contribute to undue burden and infringement on a guaranteed right. Requiring a new mental health background check at the time of license renewal is a viable alternative, and already done in many states.
3. Already required in most states.
4. Already required in almost all states.
5. Already law in most states, and under severe restrictions even when allowed.

Now, let me counter:

Without these rules and with a drastic increase in concealed carry licensing not only has crime gone down significantly, but multiple studies confirm that permit holders are more law abiding than even law enforcement officers.

Moreover, in a state with none of those requirements, where any 16 year old can carry just about any gun they want, almost anywhere they want, with no oversight whatsoever, the crime and accident rates are the just about the lowest in the nation.

In other words, none of the things you suggest are ACTUALLY the problem. I'm not arguing against them, just reminding you that they're feel good platitudes with next to no positive effects in the real world.

Crime going down significantly really shouldn't have anything to do with concealed carry, it isn't a deterrent and should only be used once a crime is committed. I would also venture to guess that areas where 16 year olds can carry were already areas with low crime rates.

In addition it wouldn't be a stretch to say the reduced crime rate is due to increased gun control, I wouldn't agree with this statement either.

And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

As I said before, I believe strongly in lots of freedoms with strong penalties for abuse of those freedoms rather than restrictions of freedoms.
 

skipcoryell

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2008
5
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: scott916
Originally posted by: child of wonder
People having guns don't scare me. What scares me is that they might also be driving around in a big SUV, with "W '04," "WWJD?," and anti-evolution bumper stickers on their way to their local schoolboard meeting to push "Intelligent Design" into schools and vote for politicians on religious grounds.

This. And also the simple assumption that every Tom Dick and Harry that carries a weapon in the open is a responsible, well-trained citizen, which is simply not the truth. Most people who carry are upstanding citizens, but it only takes one dipshit.

Strange, im a gun rights person whos an engineering student, with a fuel efficient car, agnostic, and for bush impeachment, oh and im an independant voter who leans democrat.

I guess i dont fit the stereotypical demographic :p

To answer the OP i think it should be legal in all 50.


That's okay. I don't fit in either. I'm an English major.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: CountZero
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: ICRS
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

1. Already done in most states.
2. Unfair costs, Unfair frequency, lack of defined standards for 'sound mind' - all of which contribute to undue burden and infringement on a guaranteed right. Requiring a new mental health background check at the time of license renewal is a viable alternative, and already done in many states.
3. Already required in most states.
4. Already required in almost all states.
5. Already law in most states, and under severe restrictions even when allowed.

Now, let me counter:

Without these rules and with a drastic increase in concealed carry licensing not only has crime gone down significantly, but multiple studies confirm that permit holders are more law abiding than even law enforcement officers.

Moreover, in a state with none of those requirements, where any 16 year old can carry just about any gun they want, almost anywhere they want, with no oversight whatsoever, the crime and accident rates are the just about the lowest in the nation.

In other words, none of the things you suggest are ACTUALLY the problem. I'm not arguing against them, just reminding you that they're feel good platitudes with next to no positive effects in the real world.

Crime going down significantly really shouldn't have anything to do with concealed carry, it isn't a deterrent and should only be used once a crime is committed. I would also venture to guess that areas where 16 year olds can carry were already areas with low crime rates.

In addition it wouldn't be a stretch to say the reduced crime rate is due to increased gun control, I wouldn't agree with this statement either.

And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

As I said before, I believe strongly in lots of freedoms with strong penalties for abuse of those freedoms rather than restrictions of freedoms.

No, concealed carry wasn't responsible for lowering the crime rate (in my opinion, though there is no clinching proof). However, people carrying doesn't in any way increase crime/accident rates, and that much IS proven.

Yes, Vermont has always been relatively low crime. The point, again, is that even when 16 year olds carry guns it doesn't CAUSE crime or accidents. This is a significant disconnect between the gun and the events. It establishes that they are in no way a problem. Not saying they're necessarily a solution either, but they have no negatives.

Why scary? It's been going on for forty years now, and before that it was going on with open carry instead of concealed. Before that it was swords, and so on. People have ALWAYS carried weapons. While the results of that carrying have varied over the centuries, it's never ended society, or even harmed a majority of the populace (except in rare instances like wars/genocide). Meanwhile it has afforded those persons the opportunity to defend themselves. I just don't see how being scared of every human being is rational, given the overall low chance of harm from them.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: scott916
Originally posted by: child of wonder
People having guns don't scare me. What scares me is that they might also be driving around in a big SUV, with "W '04," "WWJD?," and anti-evolution bumper stickers on their way to their local schoolboard meeting to push "Intelligent Design" into schools and vote for politicians on religious grounds.

This. And also the simple assumption that every Tom Dick and Harry that carries a weapon in the open is a responsible, well-trained citizen, which is simply not the truth. Most people who carry are upstanding citizens, but it only takes one dipshit.

Strange, im a gun rights person whos an engineering student, with a fuel efficient car, agnostic, and for bush impeachment, oh and im an independant voter who leans democrat.

I guess i dont fit the stereotypical demographic :p

To answer the OP i think it should be legal in all 50.


That's okay. I don't fit in either. I'm an English major.

Try being a director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus while in the Secondary Education program. Talk about sticking out like a sore thumb. :cool:
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.

so can a car, a knife, a baseball bat, a tree, a dog, tripping over your own feet, etc...
lots of things can kill you. what's your point?