More Open Carry Nonsense in Wisconsin

[Thebobo]

Funny how people forget History.

 

[MagickMan]

The guy is just the left version of incorruptible. We don't blame you for that idiot, so don't try to associate this moron with us.

I thought that was McOwned?

 

[MagickMan]

Funny how people forget History.

I see 3 laws being broken in that pic, without even considering the Mulford act (or their berets).

 

[TerryMathews]

and people making those judgments on a person's actions is not analogous to judging folks for latent characteristics such as homosexuality.

Only because you don't view it as a form of discrimination.

 

[CLite]

Only because you don't view it as a form of discrimination.

Of fucking course it's a form of discrimination. People are discriminating in their perception of someone open carrying a shotgun in an area where there is no particular need to nor preponderance of open carried shotguns.

The point is there are many things to be discriminating of, generally you are more judgmental if you are discriminating of latent characteristics as opposed to actionable choices. I could be discriminating of people playing loud music or any number of things.

I personally don't consider it that horrifying that people are put-off by atypical use and display of guns. There is a reason almost no gun owners bring long-rifles or shotguns strapped to their backs where they are not needed, and no the reason is not because all those gun owners are pussies praying for the death of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Knowing]

So are the words, "More guns make us safer."

If you knew it was a myth, why bother repeating it? Are replies prepackaged so that we can always repeat the same rhetoric over and over again? Also, given that the number of weapons in circulation has increased while crime decreased, statistics don't appear to be on the anti-rights side.

 

[HomerJS]

We all know you're not the brightest bulb, but even a dim one such as yourself could see the difference between people who are actively trying to intimidate others (yelling obscenities, pointing at people, yelling at them etc) at a polling place where people are voting, versus someone who is not doing anything intimidating and is simply bearing arms in a perfectly legal way.

The idiots pictured were probably breaking all sorts of laws, while the guy in this story broke none.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQg-7HNQAA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A

In the age of cell phones if what you said was true someone would have had a recording. In fact there aren't any clips, just accusations by Republicans and Fox News. First clip a U of Penn student asks one of the NBPs questions and his questions were answered calmly.

So they were just standing there exercising their right to bear arms.

As for voter intimidation remember that district is 90% democratic. If their agenda was to stop whitey from voting they would have camped out in the burbs.

For the record I'm not in favor of any armed person/group standing outside a polling place. Just making a point.

 

[bradly1101]

If you knew it was a myth, why bother repeating it? Are replies prepackaged so that we can always repeat the same rhetoric over and over again? Also, given that the number of weapons in circulation has increased while crime decreased, statistics don't appear to be on the anti-rights side.

I don't believe it is a myth. But I believe you do.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.

What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.

The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, "Perforated by His Own Pistol."

The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have "the right to bear arms," but he contended that guns have to be regulated. As for cowboys carrying pistols, a dispatch from Laramie’s Northwest Stock Journal in 1884, reported, "We see many cowboys fitting up for the spring and summer work. They all seem to think it absolutely necessary to have a revolver. Of all foolish notions this is the most absurd."

Cowboy president Theodore Roosevelt recalled with approval that as a Dakota Territory ranch owner, his town, at the least, allowed "no shooting in the streets." The editor of that town's newspaper, The Bad Lands Cow Boy of Medora, demanded that gun control be even tighter than that, however. Like leaders in Miles City and many other cow towns, he wanted to see guns banned entirely within the city limits. A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy's belt. "In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters," concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. "The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons." [/FONT]

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have never seen a single instance of a person open carrying a long gun in a city where that person was anything other than a wacko and/or attention whore. I am a gun owner but would stay far away from anyone who thought this was a good idea. To me it's completely counter-productive in that it just reinforces negative stereotypes about gun enthusiasts.

 

[bradly1101]

I not only do not believe The Wild West was a myth, I believe it never ended, but it spread and is now The Wild North, East, South and West. Guns are everywhere as is gun violence.

 

[michal1980]

I love all those people telling gun owners to stay in the closet. Don't exercise your constitutional rights.

Would you guys tell gays the same thing? Stay in the closet so you don't freak out the weak minded?

Lets ban pride parades they might offend/scare people.

 

[trenchfoot]

I see folks at the range carrying firearms and think to myself, "hey nice pieces".

I see fellow hunters on a trail carrying the proper firearms for the occasion and I feel right at home.

I see a stranger walking through my neighborhood, in front of my home armed with rifle/shotgun and sidearm where I have never ever seen such a sight before I'm gonna think "well, that's odd" and I'm gonna get the wife and kids in the house and get close to my gun locker.

Until I know for certain what the intent of that unknown person is, I will consider that person a potential threat to the lives of my family and neighbors and will react with lawful preparedness.

It takes just a couple of seconds to go from transporting to aiming to firing, and not knowing what the intent of that stranger is, I will prepare for the worst scenario and hope for the best.

That guy was just asking for a bad time, especially if he was lawfully unloaded and the potential reactionary wasn't.

Worth the risk? I guess so if waving a red muleta at a suspicious and nervous pissed off bull is worth the attention one gets from it.

 

[alzan]

There was nothing in that amendment that specifically addressed being gay.

Eskimo, you're usually somewhat reasonable. Don't tell me you can't see my point. Nowhere in history has telling people not to be uppity about exercising their rights been appropriate. Not to the blacks, not to LBGTs, and not to gun owners.

Just leaving this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[alzan]

+1

 

[JockoJohnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQg-7HNQAA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A

In the age of cell phones if what you said was true someone would have had a recording. In fact there aren't any clips, just accusations by Republicans and Fox News. First clip a U of Penn student asks one of the NBPs questions and his questions were answered calmly.

So they were just standing there exercising their right to bear arms.

As for voter intimidation remember that district is 90% democratic. If their agenda was to stop whitey from voting they would have camped out in the burbs.

For the record I'm not in favor of any armed person/group standing outside a polling place. Just making a point.

Hmmm, sounds just like when Nancy Pelosi said that the Tea Partiers that she was walking near shouted the N word. No proof ever showed up in this day and age of cell phones but a bunch of fucktards ran with that as truth too.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I see folks at the range carrying firearms and think to myself, "hey nice pieces".

I see fellow hunters on a trail carrying the proper firearms for the occasion and I feel right at home.

I see a stranger walking through my neighborhood, in front of my home armed with rifle/shotgun and sidearm where I have never ever seen such a sight before I'm gonna think "well, that's odd" and I'm gonna get the wife and kids in the house and get close to my gun locker.

Until I know for certain what the intent of that unknown person is, I will consider that person a potential threat to the lives of my family and neighbors and will react with lawful preparedness.

It takes just a couple of seconds to go from transporting to aiming to firing, and not knowing what the intent of that stranger is, I will prepare for the worst scenario and hope for the best.

That guy was just asking for a bad time, especially if he was lawfully unloaded and the potential reactionary wasn't.

Worth the risk? I guess so if waving a red muleta at a suspicious and nervous pissed off bull is worth the attention one gets from it.

Agreed. Something this country lacks is the use of common sense. Just because he can technically walk around carrying a gun by law, doesn't mean that he should have done that.

 

[Knowing]

I don't believe it is a myth. But I believe you do.

Stanford

Gun control and regular police forces were, by and large, successful in curtailing violence. There were never more than five murders in any given cattle town during a single year despite the presence, on both sides of the law, of gunfighters. . . . During the peak years of cattle towns, the average number of homicides was only 1.5 a year for each town.

Note that it doesn't specify how the homicides were carried out.

PERC

However, even in a cattle town like Abilene, Kan., the murder rate was much lower than in most modern American cities. Larry Schweikart, a historian at the University of Dayton, estimates that there were probably fewer than a dozen bank robberies in the entire period from 1859 through 1900 in all the frontier West. Schweikart summarizes: "The record is shockingly clear: There are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!"

How Violent was the Old West? Student Guide Sheet
On page 5 you can view a chart. Despite the low rate per year, because the population was so small when you normalize it for population (murders per 100,000) Abiline doesn't look so great at 50 per 100,000. That looks terrible compared to all of the Eastern Towns. But lets compare it to the present day.

The Daily Beast
The rate per 100,000 looks like it's in decline (definitely time for gun control) but lets examine Chicago since it's near and dear to my heart. Chicago, Detroit, and New York are right around 40 per 100,000. Now you could say that's 20% lower than Abiline but let's also note that Chicago (when the ban was still in effect in 2008) was sitting pretty at 60 per 100,000.

The Atlantic
New Orleans is even worse, posting an impressive 62 per 100,000 in 2013.

Disaster Center
The DC murder rate peaked at 80.6 in 1991. Curiously it's consistently in decline after the Heller decision.

tl;dr- the Wild West is a Myth, and your attempt at a clarion call of "It'll be just like the Wild West!" is decades late because our cities were more dangerous than the wild west when the AWB and ad-hoc local bans were in effect.

 

[bradly1101]

I love all those people telling gun owners to stay in the closet. Don't exercise your constitutional rights.

Would you guys tell gays the same thing? Stay in the closet so you don't freak out the weak minded?

Lets ban pride parades they might offend/scare people.

Being something and carrying a gun aren't really comparable are they? Have the poor gun owners felt discriminated against for centuries? We should embrace homophobia and not fear the gun? One is much more deserving of their fear, and it's not the gays.

 

[TerryMathews]

Being something and carrying a gun aren't really comparable are they? Have the poor gun owners felt discriminated against for centuries? We should embrace homophobia and not fear the gun? One is much more deserving of their fear, and it's not the gays.

They are both rights. How can you justify them not being comparable?

 

[bradly1101]

Stanford
Quote:
Gun control and regular police forces were, by and large, successful in curtailing violence. There were never more than five murders in any given cattle town during a single year despite the presence, on both sides of the law, of gunfighters. . . . During the peak years of cattle towns, the average number of homicides was only 1.5 a year for each town.
Note that it doesn't specify how the homicides were carried out.

So gun control works as proven in our own history? If it wasn't a problem, why did they need gun control?

 

[bradly1101]

They are both rights. How can you justify them not being comparable?

Being gay isn't a right.

 

[Knowing]

So gun control works as proven in our own history? If it wasn't a problem, why did they need gun control?

Confiscation works in small localized populations, yes.

They thought it was a problem, epidemiologically it was given their population. They still had less violence than we have had recently despite modern efforts at gun control. Gun crimes are still trending down despite (read:because of?) the utter failure of gun control policies.

 

[bshole]

Confiscation works in small localized populations, yes.

They thought it was a problem, epidemiologically it was given their population. They still had less violence than we have had recently despite modern efforts at gun control. Gun crimes are still trending down despite (read:because of?) the utter failure of gun control policies.

It also works EXTREMELY well in entire countries. Japan is evidence of this. With it's draconian gun control laws, it has an effectively ZERO gun murder rate. It is an order of magnitude safer than the United States.

 

[bradly1101]

Stanford

PERC
How Violent was the Old West? Student Guide Sheet
On page 5 you can view a chart. Despite the low rate per year, because the population was so small when you normalize it for population (murders per 100,000) Abiline doesn't look so great at 50 per 100,000. That looks terrible compared to all of the Eastern Towns.

The chart, note The Note at the bottom:

It's not just Abilene in the West that has a much higher rate, it's all listed towns in the west.

But lets compare it to the present day.

I did. The gun culture is everywhere now.

 

[Knowing]

It also works EXTREMELY well in entire countries. Japan is evidence of this. With it's draconian gun control laws, it has an effectively ZERO gun murder rate. It is an order of magnitude safer than the United States.

Japan isn't the United States, but if you're advocating confiscation then I think we can give up on arguing that the final goal is not confiscation - since it very clearly is.

The chart, note The Note at the bottom:

It's not just Abilene in the West that has a much higher rate, it's all listed towns in the west.

That's a problem of population density.

gun culture

The gun culture of areas that drive gun crime rates is wildly different from the gun culture of everywhere else.