Open carry: Too many guns on the street??

[HomerJS]

A real word question considering recent events. You are a cop that gets a call, shots fired. As you approach you can hear gunshots. You arrive and most people are armed some are not. Guns are being pointed at each other. How do you know good guys from bad guys?

The recent Kenosha incident shows a white guy open carrying gets more of a benefit of doubt then unarmed mostly black people. We know now who the bad guy was. Is this an example of why open carry should not be allowed? This was not an isolated incident. In many cases innocent black people were not given the benefit of the doubt and they killed because of it.

If you don't have an answer how to discern good from bad in these cases, then is it time to get rid of open carry? If you want concealed carry it comes with justifications, intensive training and psychological evaluations. Clearly Rittenhouse is an example of someone who should not have been allowed to open carry a gun.

 

[eelw]

Canadian here. Just don’t get the American obsession with guns. Oh look at me I’m a tough guy waving around my gun because I’m too macho to wear a mask. Why is it necessary to have one on you while shopping? And now these vigilantes going to different states to help “enforce” the rule of law.

 

[Greenman]

Open carry in a large group of people is always a bad idea. People are much stupider in large groups, and much more willing to commit crimes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Guns make almost every situation worse. The Founding Fathers has a lot of great ideas, and many of their ideals still hold up today. But they were people, and they got it wrong sometimes. This one they got wrong. I get it, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but they were not able to foresee how the technology would grow, or how dense our population would become. It is no longer a good idea.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Open carry is absolutely stupid because it is not a social norm. All it does is put everyone around you on edge. Yes it may be technically legal, but you're the odd person out, not everyone else.

The only reason to open carry is to project power/force and/or instill fear IMO. And neither are good.

Concealed carry, while I personally never would (and also think it's a bit dumb as well), is better because then you don't appear any different than anyone else. In essence, you are effectively following the social norm of not carrying a firearm

 

[balloonshark]

If you carry you need to learn how to communicate clearly with law enforcement so they understand your intent. You also have to put yourself in their shoes as all they see is a person with a weapon regardless if your legally carrying or not. It puts you both in an awkward situation in which their adrenaline is most likely flowing which makes it a very extremely dangerous situation for you to be in.

With that said people with guns have no business being around large gatherings of people. There is too much potential for mass casualties plus they also serve as a form of intimidation which is un-american.

 

[pete6032]

The people who showed up to open carry in Kenosha allege that they are there to "protect" property but we all know there were there to show black and brown people that they are the ones in charge.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm a very strong 2A supporter for various reasons, but I'm pretty convinced that it'll be repealed before long, as Americans are no longer capable of handling that right without shooting ourselves to death. Apparently we're a big fucking pile of babies, completely incapable of rational action without everything being taken care of for us, so it's probably best for us to just be locked in our homes until the singularity comes.

 

[Jaskalas]

With that said people with guns have no business being around large gatherings of people. There is too much potential for mass casualties plus they also serve as a form of intimidation which is un-american.

Would you say the rioters have a potential for casualties and intimidation?
Mobs controlling the streets causing violence, looting, and burning seem rather un-American to me.

I believe the armed men were there to stand guard and protect property in the city, as the police either could not or would not do their job with the streets ruled by a mob. If the city wants to outlaw that and say it is illegal to protect property... aka you cannot show up armed to defend a location... well I guess they could try to uphold that in a court of law. After the damage is done. It is morally wrong not to defend your citizens from a riot, but if that is the push here I must say I am quite curious how a court would rule on that.

If one cannot hold up on property and defend themselves from assault, what can we do? What right to life does the government actually afford us?

 

[Jaskalas]

To the subject at large, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I think it would be better if we did not have that. Or rather, if we respected it with single shot bolt action rifles. Those are most similar to the muskets the 2A was designed with, and a crowd of people would easily overwhelm a lone shooter. Hunting and home defense would somewhat be preserved - especially for anyone experience with and proficient with said rifles.

I for one am tired of a nation where the best response to violence is to shoot first. People fear guns. I fear guns. Problem is most people think guns are a solution to guns. We need to combat that narrative, that primal instinct of clubbing one another with a bigger club. An armed society is a deadly society. We can do better, we should do better. But it is a very big leap to get there from where we are today.

 

[cytg111]

A real word question considering recent events. You are a cop that gets a call, shots fired. As you approach you can hear gunshots. You arrive and most people are armed some are not. Guns are being pointed at each other. How do you know good guys from bad guys?

The recent Kenosha incident shows a white guy open carrying gets more of a benefit of doubt then unarmed mostly black people. We know now who the bad guy was. Is this an example of why open carry should not be allowed? This was not an isolated incident. In many cases innocent black people were not given the benefit of the doubt and they killed because of it.

If you don't have an answer how to discern good from bad in these cases, then is it time to get rid of open carry? If you want concealed carry it comes with justifications, intensive training and psychological evaluations. Clearly Rittenhouse is an example of someone who should not have been allowed to open carry a gun.

So 1780ish right? What was the firearm of choice then? Throwing rocks for the poor and muskets if you had a dollar?

Fast forward to 2020's definition of a pistol

It might be a little big for concealed carry, your milage may vary, though the legalese seems good to go?

Why You Need a Packable AR-15 Pistol for Your Vehicle

For several reasons, it is my theory that an AR-15 pistol is the better personal defense and road travel firearm to have stowed in your vehicle.

blog.cheaperthandirt.com

I would SO open carry a 5.56 PISTOL around like a boss ... EVERYWHERE... if I could.
I envy you suckers.

Seriously. In terms of 200+ years ago, you may as well be open carrying hand grenades, there is no way in hell they could have foreseen the evolutionary path of firearms back then.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Seriously. In terms of 200+ years ago, you may as well be open carrying hand grenades, there is no way in hell they could have foreseen the evolutionary path of firearms back then.

They, historically, saw the transition from crossbows to muskets and cannons. They saw how dramatic technology could advance, and there's a specific reason the founders used 'arms' rather than 'muskets'. The possibility of advanced arms being included was a feature, not a bug. Whether that was short sighted or not is up for debate.

 

[pete6032]

I believe the armed men were there to stand guard and protect property in the city, as the police either could not or would not do their job with the streets ruled by a mob.

No, they were there because they hate black people and they wanted to show their power. They don't give a shit about the looting.

 

[HomerJS]

I believe the armed men were there to stand guard and protect property in the city, as the police either could not or would not do their job with the streets ruled by a mob.

I don't think you drive from out of state illegally (Rittenhouse) open carrying to "defend property". You are looking for someone to shoot.

 

[Jhhnn]

Would you say the rioters have a potential for casualties and intimidation?
Mobs controlling the streets causing violence, looting, and burning seem rather un-American to me.

I believe the armed men were there to stand guard and protect property in the city, as the police either could not or would not do their job with the streets ruled by a mob. If the city wants to outlaw that and say it is illegal to protect property... aka you cannot show up armed to defend a location... well I guess they could try to uphold that in a court of law. After the damage is done. It is morally wrong not to defend your citizens from a riot, but if that is the push here I must say I am quite curious how a court would rule on that.

If one cannot hold up on property and defend themselves from assault, what can we do? What right to life does the government actually afford us?

Yep, Grab yer gun to drive for miles to protect the property of complete strangers & corporate entities who don't even know you're there, because reasons. Perfectly sensible. Cuz muh rights, motherfucker!

 

[cytg111]

They, historically, saw the transition from crossbows to muskets and cannons. They saw how dramatic technology could advance, and there's a specific reason the founders used 'arms' rather than 'muskets'. The possibility of advanced arms being included was a feature, not a bug. Whether that was short sighted or not is up for debate.

So, open carry claymores for everybody?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So, open carry claymores for everybody?

Ironically the development of guns was really helpful in normalizing combat between individuals. God made man, Colt made them equal, as was said.

 

[Svnla]

I am a strong believe in the Constitution, the whole thing, not just the parts that I like. I do not believe in open carry because it is like advertise out loud to the whole world, especially to the bad guys, of what you have with you.

A few days ago, I was sitting in my vehicle after I purchased a large drink from a C store and was about to leave. Another guy pulled in and parked to the left side of me. He was about to walk into the store but stopped and opened his vehicle from the right of his vehicle to pick up something in the front seat. He had a Ruger in his right side and if I was a bad person, I could slam him with my front door and knock him out to take his Ruger. Not safe at all.

Lay low and blend in with others.

 

[cytg111]

Ironically the development of guns was really helpful in normalizing combat between individuals. God made man, Colt made them equal, as was said.

There is a good amount of logic to that... just wonder whats the least powerful option that still gets the job done...

 

[SMOGZINN]

They, historically, saw the transition from crossbows to muskets and cannons. They saw how dramatic technology could advance, and there's a specific reason the founders used 'arms' rather than 'muskets'. The possibility of advanced arms being included was a feature, not a bug. Whether that was short sighted or not is up for debate.

You have a bad sense of the time scale of history. Crossbows were pretty much completely replaced by firearms by 1550. By the late 1700's no one would have used one for 200 years or so. Before the industrial revolution technology advanced very slowly. The firearms that they primarily used in the American Revolutionary War had been largely unchanged for a hundred years. That same basic musket would still be in use until 1854.
Technology moved so slowly back then that most people did not think about it changing at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, open carry claymores for everybody?

RPG's. Grenade launchers. Miniguns. Maybe a pack howitzer to tow around behind the pickup. So fashionable.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You have a bad sense of the time scale of history. Crossbows were pretty much completely replaced by firearms by 1550. By the late 1700's no one would have used one for 200 years or so. Before the industrial revolution technology advanced very slowly. The firearms that they primarily used in the American Revolutionary War had been largely unchanged for a hundred years. That same basic musket would still be in use until 1854.
Technology moved so slowly back then that most people did not think about it changing at all.

I know, I was referring to the history of arms in general. Likewise, we've seen muskets transition into machines rounds, magazines, semi auto and automatic weapons, etc. I didn't mean the founders saw crossbows of course, just that anyone could see crossbows -> muskets -> cannons -> Gatling guns, and see exactly what the potential was. If they were super duper worried at that time, they would have limited the 2a to single shot weapons, non automatic weapons, non-cannons/antipersonnel weapons, etc... But they didn't, they said arms.

Edit: to your second point, bear in mind the m16 which m4 and AR platforms are based on was developed in the 60's, so while it's not as long lived as the muskets are, it's not exactly a spring chicken, and it's likely to persist until we come up with some kind of projected energy weapon platforms. Those aren't bizarre service lifetimes for arms.

 

[nickqt]

Would you say the rioters have a potential for casualties and intimidation?
Mobs controlling the streets causing violence, looting, and burning seem rather un-American to me.

I believe the armed men were there to stand guard and protect property in the city, as the police either could not or would not do their job with the streets ruled by a mob. If the city wants to outlaw that and say it is illegal to protect property... aka you cannot show up armed to defend a location... well I guess they could try to uphold that in a court of law. After the damage is done. It is morally wrong not to defend your citizens from a riot, but if that is the push here I must say I am quite curious how a court would rule on that.

If one cannot hold up on property and defend themselves from assault, what can we do? What right to life does the government actually afford us?

The right to life ends the instant a police office decides that someone is resisting arrest.

I know this is true because you've said so multiple times.

 

[HomerJS]

Well this is fascinating. So far we have unanimous consent. Open carry is a bad idea that should be done away with.

Let's see the continued responses. Perhaps I should have reframed to include concealed carry because once the shooting starts it doesn't matter if the guns were open or concealed. I'll save that for another time.

 

[cytg111]

So 1780ish right? What was the firearm of choice then? Throwing rocks for the poor and muskets if you had a dollar?

Fast forward to 2020's definition of a pistol

It might be a little big for concealed carry, your milage may vary, though the legalese seems good to go?

Why You Need a Packable AR-15 Pistol for Your Vehicle

For several reasons, it is my theory that an AR-15 pistol is the better personal defense and road travel firearm to have stowed in your vehicle.

blog.cheaperthandirt.com

I would SO open carry a 5.56 PISTOL around like a boss ... EVERYWHERE... if I could.
I envy you suckers.

Seriously. In terms of 200+ years ago, you may as well be open carrying hand grenades, there is no way in hell they could have foreseen the evolutionary path of firearms back then.

Sometimes I dont understand you guys. No one is going to object to THAT being a pistol? Its INSANE?