Open carry: Too many guns on the street??

[Pipeline 1010]

Americans are no longer capable of handling that right without shooting ourselves to death.

Why would you say this now when gun murder rates have dropped over the last few decades in America? Why are we all of a sudden "no longer" capable of handling that right if the numbers actually show us doing a better job of it? Maybe you've got better numbers than I do...

 

[Pipeline 1010]

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

Are there any statistics that compare crimes rates of those who open carry vs the general population? If they generally commit fewer crimes, let them have at it. If they are a measurable problem beyond "ooh that's scary" then don't let them have at it.

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.

I have seen data that conceal carry permit holders are one of the most law abiding groups in America. Some evidence suggests that group is even more law abiding than cops. I'm not sure getting rid of conceal carry gets us any closer to a goal of reducing gun violence.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Actually they got the second amendment right. Most Americans just don’t realize that because we had a Supreme Court totally distort what its original intentions were.

In the days of the constitution creation many state laws had laws that requires arms to be locked up or even stored at a separate location. Arms were intended for militias only, that is, voluntary non professional soldiers. The point of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the states the right to continue doing that as the founders recognized that state militias were necessary in order to protect their sovereignty from foreign and domestic threats. This is supported by the constitution itself, article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16. Which also states that congress is the one that controls the organizing, arming, training, and discipline of said militias. Who was to be authorized to implement the above was to be determined by the states.

The second amendment was never intended to be an individual right (if it was they would have included it in the 1st element with the rest of the people’s rights). This is further supported by clause 15 which specifically gives Congress the ability to call said militias to execute federal laws and to put down insurrections and rebellions.

If you think about it, it makes sense that the 2nd wasn’t an individual right since an armed populace would severely undermine our democracy. In fact, with the recent events in Kenosha, we see exactly why that is. Having armed citizens greatly hinders peoples ability to assemble and protest.

Democracy doesn’t work if it’s held at gun point.

 

[HomerJS]

Are there any statistics that compare crimes rates of those who open carry vs the general population? If they generally commit fewer crimes, let them have at it. If they are a measurable problem beyond "ooh that's scary" then don't let them have at it.



I have seen data that conceal carry permit holders are one of the most law abiding groups in America. Some evidence suggests that group is even more law abiding than cops. I'm not sure getting rid of conceal carry gets us any closer to a goal of reducing gun violence.

Please answer the question in the OP then get back to if open carry is a good idea.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Please answer the question in the OP then get back to if open carry is a good idea.

"Are there any statistics that compare crimes rates of those who open carry vs the general population? If they generally commit fewer crimes, let them have at it. If they are a measurable problem beyond "ooh that's scary" then don't let them have at it." -- ME

The answer to this question seems paramount.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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.

The problem is too many guns, period. Open carry allows the police to see who has the guns and assess the level of threat. Many police shootings occur because the police enter into situations where they fear the weapons not being opened carried, the weapons they can’t see but assume are present because there are too many guns.

The solution is to get all the guns off the streets and train police in non lethal de-escalation techniques.

 

[purbeast0]

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.

Well to be fair, it was over TWO HUNDRED years ago when this idea was born and set in stone.

I mean think about how much stuff has changed since 2010 to now. I was watching that High Score documentary on Netflix last weekend and they show all these old clips from the 80's and it is like a completely different world.

I can't even imagine how different it was over 200 years ago.

Times change and laws should change with the times.

 

[K1052]

In my experience open carry people are compensating. You don't need a Glock to shop at Costco.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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

Our well regulated militias have all those things and more

 

[HomerJS]

"Are there any statistics that compare crimes rates of those who open carry vs the general population? If they generally commit fewer crimes, let them have at it. If they are a measurable problem beyond "ooh that's scary" then don't let them have at it." -- ME

The answer to this question seems paramount.

I don't have those stats but I will look. Please answer original question. Put yourself in the position of the police.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Actually they got the second amendment right. Most Americans just don’t realize that because we had a Supreme Court totally distort what its original intentions were.

In the days of the constitution creation many state laws had laws that requires arms to be locked up or even stored at a separate location. Arms were intended for militias only, that is, voluntary non professional soldiers. The point of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the states the right to continue doing that as the founders recognized that state militias were necessary in order to protect their sovereignty from foreign and domestic threats. This is supported by the constitution itself, article 1 section 8 clause 15 & 16. Which also states that congress is the one that controls the organizing, arming, training, and discipline of said militias. Who was to be authorized to implement the above was to be determined by the states.

The second amendment was never intended to be an individual right (if it was they would have included it in the 1st element with the rest of the people’s rights). This is further supported by clause 15 which specifically gives Congress the ability to call said militias to execute federal laws and to put down insurrections and rebellions.

If you think about it, it makes sense that the 2nd wasn’t an individual right since an armed populace would severely undermine our democracy. In fact, with the recent events in Kenosha, we see exactly why that is. Having armed citizens greatly hinders peoples ability to assemble and protest.

Democracy doesn’t work if it’s held at gun point.

While I agree with you in theory, in practicality when the 2A was drafted it was strongly based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which allowed for individuals (Protestants) to not be denied the right to bear arms for personal defense.
I find that the intent was not to give an absolute right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent the Federal Government from banning firearms, giving that power to the states. The intent was to insure the ability of each state to regulate their own citizens.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't have those stats but I will look. Please answer original question. Put yourself in the position of the police.

You won't find those stats because the Federal Government has been specifically banned from collecting them.
I happen to agree with Pipeline that we should have that answer, because it is important to the question. What I don't agree is that those numbers would show that people that open carry are more law abiding or more peaceful.
The fact is you solve problems with the tools you have at hand. Having a firearm at hand make that a tool that can be used, so of course it will be used more often by those that have it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why would you say this now when gun murder rates have dropped over the last few decades in America? Why are we all of a sudden "no longer" capable of handling that right if the numbers actually show us doing a better job of it? Maybe you've got better numbers than I do...

This is just mho, but where we used to have primarily gang violence and single person disputes that ended in murder, we now seem to have insane shit like school shootings, mass shootings at malls, political shootings, etc. The stakes feel higher at this point than in the past, and it feels as though a higher percentage of victims are 'innocent' now (note, not saying that people who died to gun violence before deserved it, just that they weren't commonly third parties).

This could be wrong, not backed up by any empirical evidence. Just based on observations of what floats to the top.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The problem is too many guns, period. Open carry allows the police to see who has the guns and assess the level of threat. Many police shootings occur because the police enter into situations where they fear the weapons not being opened carried, the weapons they can’t see but assume are present because there are too many guns.

The solution is to get all the guns off the streets and train police in non lethal de-escalation techniques.

If officers fear every encounter, they need to not be police. You cannot have fearful law enforcement.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If officers fear every encounter, they need to not be police. You cannot have fearful law enforcement.

Fear is a natural response to a threat. There is however training to help them better discern what constitutes a threat.

 

[HomerJS]

"Are there any statistics that compare crimes rates of those who open carry vs the general population? If they generally commit fewer crimes, let them have at it. If they are a measurable problem beyond "ooh that's scary" then don't let them have at it." -- ME

The answer to this question seems paramount.

Sorry you're going to have to answer without me providing open carry stats. I was reminded 2A absolutists don't even allow those stats to be collected. We have this latest real world example along with school shootings, movie theater shootings, etc

 

[rommelrommel]

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

 

[Svnla]

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.

Whaaaa...Not too fast, grasshopper.

See what I wrote above. Personally I would NOT do open carry because I do NOT want to advertise out loud to everyone around me of what I have with me.

What is a bad/stupid idea is fools that bring guns/any type of weapon/anything can use as weapon to any protest/public gathering. That should be done away with for everyone. I don't remember MLK and the civil right marchers bring anything but their voice and conviction.

 

[cytg111]

Can you open carry a cyanide spray of sorts? canister on back for "open carry" and a gas mask for yourself?
Its gonna get tight going to the movies, maybe buying an extra ticket for the tank solves that problem...

 

[Muse]

one gun on the street is too many

 

[Stokely]

Open carry is insane to me, but then I don't have a fear of meth addicts suddenly bursting from the bushes to attack my family.

My former co-worker, after EVERY single annual active-shooter talk we got at work (it's a college, security puts this on every year), would raise his hand afterward in the Q&A and ask: "why can't we bring our weapons on campus?" Thankfully, every single year Security answers, "our policy is not to allow firearms on campus." He gets so fired up by these seminars, it's quite obvious he sees himself as the hero to take down the active shooter.
More likely, he'll be the guy to shoot the cops coming to take down the active shooter. Or kill someone through a wall, or be the one shot by the cops when they come in and see him holding a gun.

My favorite were people saying that if there had been people carrying in that dark theater shooting that happened a few years ago, less people would have died. Really...more people shooting in a dark theater would be less people dying, right-o.

Other countries can wait and see how the grand American gun odyssey plays out. Somewhere around 400 million guns in this country, by FAR the most per citizen in the world. I guess we must be the safest!

 

[HomerJS]

I copied this tweet from another thread to ask the question, why should we continue to allow open carry?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1299416460629024770

 

[cytg111]

So. If you see a white dude in the street with a long gun looking like a retarded wannabe operator you either run for your life or shoot first? Thats the lesson?

 

[blackangst1]

The problem is too many guns, period. Open carry allows the police to see who has the guns and assess the level of threat. Many police shootings occur because the police enter into situations where they fear the weapons not being opened carried, the weapons they can’t see but assume are present because there are too many guns.

The solution is to get all the guns off the streets and train police in non lethal de-escalation techniques.

And how would this be accomplished? Its about as feasible as the Green New Deal. Its a nice idea, but impossible to do. We couldnt do it with alcohol, and we cant do it with drugs.

The last part of your sentence I totally agree with. My stance WRT guns has always been more education is needed, both by citizens AND law enforcement.

 

[HomerJS]

And how would this be accomplished? Its about as feasible as the Green New Deal. Its a nice idea, but impossible to do. We couldnt do it with alcohol, and we cant do it with drugs.

The last part of your sentence I totally agree with. My stance WRT guns has always been more education is needed, both by citizens AND law enforcement.

Are you in favor of allowing open carry to remain?