Open Carry Of Firearms: Yea Or Nay?

Clearly, your anecdote lends support to favoring handguns for civilians. I believe you're being truthful, and if so, I agree with the judge's ruling in your favor, 100%.

However, similarly, there are the stories about the few freak accidents where someone involved in a car wreck actually survived because s/he *didn't* wear a fastened seat belt. Yes, it happens, rarely. However, those anecdotes do not, by any stretch of the imagination, discount the millions of accidents where drivers and passengers were spared from death or serious injury solely because they *did* use the seat belt properly.

Let me pose this to you, Bekisa. What if a similar situation occurred, but instead of your family, the aggressive dog was rampaging after a criminal ... or even a cat or squirrel ... and its path to track the criminal/cat/squirrel just coincidentally happened to take the dog near/past your family. You said it all happened very fast, and I believe that. But when things happen fast, human beings don't always see anything beyond their focal point. Folks like yourself are trained to "shoot first, ask questions later", right? If you ask me (and many other people), in a civilian situation/setting, something "happening fast" and someone having access to a handgun is a recipe for disaster more often than a recipe (as in your example) for heroism. So, what if you murdered the dog that was tracking a wanted fugitive ... and you didn't see the fugitive as it happened because you were focused on the dog? What if the dog really had just seen a cat/squirrel, and it ended up not having the bad behavioral history, and you really did just murder some family's pet for no good reason?

Dogs aside, much more importantly, let's put another human being in its place. A mentally-ill guy who's off his meds, acting erratically, but not an actual physical threat? Or, perhaps an everyday average good Samaritan who charged in the direction of your family, but only because he could see a robber/mugger/murderer creeping up on your family, from an angle that you could not see at the moment?

What if you had shot those persons instead of the dog?

The bottom line is that deadly force is too great of a luxury to afford to any civilian in a civilization that hopes to progress beyond living in fear and doubt. I agree with your assessment that firearms are less dangerous (in general) in "the sticks" rural areas ... but how can we realistically regulate/prevent people from getting "carry" permits in rural areas then just bringing them into more densely-populated areas whenever they feel like it?
We can't. It sucks, but it isn't possible to realistically segregate the land into "guns OK" areas and "guns off-limits" areas.

This is just another situation/debate where the needs of the many have to outweigh the needs of the few. "Conservatives" and military types and hunters/sportsmen will gripe and moan, and I understand why, and I respect that position, but I'd fight you tooth and nail to deny you the right to carry that pistol in my city. You don't need it. You may think you do, but you don't.

Where is this mythical city where violent crimes against the citizens never occur?

Your right to feel good about the world ends at my right to protect myself and my family. Sorry.

Edit: We've had this conversation before. You're of the mindset that "if just one life" is a valid reason to impose your views on the rest of the world. Not everyone feels that every life is precious. A violent criminal hell bent on doing harm to me or a loved one? His life isn't precious. Mine is, my family members' are. They get the chance to live, and he made a decision that could end up with him not being here tomorrow.

The biggest difference I always see between people like you and people like myself is that I just want to be left alone to do what I do, within the law, and you want to impose your views on me. One of these is liberty. The other is tyranny. This country was founded on the former, and is quickly descending into the latter.

elana you make good points as always but why take the chance

Pulling your weapon is a judgement call. It's up to you to decide is this something I will need to possibly use deadly force. Can I deal with the consequences.

When I was around 6, my mom and I were were shopping at K-mart. We were being followed isle to isle for 30 min.s. When we left the store the guy followed us to her car. she turned to him and drew her glock from her purse and lined it straight up to his chest when he was about 10 feet away yelling at him to stop. The guy dropped rope and a pair of gloves as he took off running.

The police showed up a few min.s later because a clerk in the store called 911 on the guy because she thought he was acting weird.


I don't know what would have happened to either of us that day if she had not been carrying a weapon.

I would also like to add I was kidnapped for 2 days when I was 3 years old out of the babysitters back yard.

Some may not think personal protection is needed. I tend to disagree.

Your mom should have just given the guy whatever he wanted. /sarcasm

I disagree with Elana's examples as reasons to prevent people from carrying weapons. I do think that they're very important examples of just how much of a responsibility it is. Basically, I see it like this:



I can think of a lot of people that I would never want owning a gun, but I also can think of a lot of people who I have zero doubt about their gun safety. I understand that it's hard, though, because I can make those decisions about those people because I know those people. Evaluating people's suitability for carrying a gun via some kind of standardized test (that also cannot be too long, or too expensive both for the agency giving it or the person taking it) sounds like an insanely difficult job. But I very much think that if a person believes it to be necessary, then they should have the ability to demonstrate a certain (rational) level of proficiency, responsibility, and understanding and be allowed. Maybe that requires a good deal of work - I would not be upset even if it was a six month course with strictly graded test - both practical and written. (Nights and weekends, of course.) Just as long as it didn't exclude everyone that isn't Patrick Flanigan, either.

And, as far as those examples, it's my feeling that if you can't evaluate the situation thoroughly enough, then that kind of action isn't called for. Being unsure or scared isn't reason enough - even being scared for your life. It has to be a decision, and it's only correct when "If I don't do this, I (or someone else) is going to die, and there is no other option." Is that something anyone can do? Absolutely not. But luckily, it's also something that most everyone will never have to do.*

*Some people think that the extreme low chance of that happening reinforces the lack of necessity. I don't know.

Also, edit: Pic is not to scale, duh.

I love how things always go to name-calling. This has been a pretty good thread up to this point, let's keep it that way.

you forgot to add jet

I don't remember where to put everyone :(

Add a tag in the middle labeled "Anyone who wants to" and add me.

Complete and total fail.
All life is precious. Perhaps some is more precious than others, but that's as far as it goes.
You say in one breath that you want to be "left alone". Well, in that case, get off the roads that everyone pays for in taxes, take your kids out of public schools that everyone pays for, don't call 9-1-1 if your house is on fire, and don't bring your family to the public market, playground, library, or hospital, either.
In the next breath, you complain about "others wanting to impose their views on you". Fail. If you carry a weapon into a public place, you ARE imposing your views on others, even if it's unloaded or if you never remove it from its holster.


Humans have lived on this planet for millions of years, and they've only had handguns for a couple hundred of those years. We survived as a race and grew as a culture despite not having handguns for a very, very, very long time. They are not necessary, and they never will be necessary. Handguns are a vice, not unlike gambling or doing drugs. People cling to these things because they THINK they need them, NOT because they actually do need them.

put me on the far right end of that pic plz

edit: btw

yeah...you're just forgetting the part over the course of several thousands of years that people carried some type of weapon on them. Guns are just the modern version of that.

Before hand guns, everyone carried swords. Before swords, everyone carried spears. Before spears, everyone carried clubs.

Evolution of weapons.

Well, its kinda situational.

Elana, you know what kind of work I do. Imagine the kinds of neighborhoods I have to go through. Some of these in larger cities where someone will stab you and take your ***without thinking twice about it. I feel safer with some sort of protection when I go. It is why I got my concealed carry permit.

even modern day, some schools allow muslim students to carry a kirpan

Left alone to do what I do, within the law. There was more to that sentence than what you cherrypicked to try to attack me with. Also, I pay taxes. So yeah, those roads and public schools and whatnot that I contribute to, I'll partake in their services.

There's also a difference between exposing you to my views and imposing my views on you. I'm not forcing you to carry my gun. You, however, ARE for making it so that I'm a criminal if I do carry it.

And as for failing, humans have been killing each other with rocks and sticks since the dawn of man. Hell, all a bullet is is a small rock traveling at a high velocity imparted on it thru chemical and mechanical force. Also, I'm fairly certain I already said on the last page, and many, if not most people who carry would also admit, that it's very unlikely that I will ever be in a situation where I need it again (remember, I've been in a situation before where I could very easily have been killed, and a handgun would have evened the odds up). I count myself very lucky to be sitting here typing this right now, but I don't ever want to have to depend on luck only again.

Even if it were possible to have a world with absolutely no firearms, do you really think people would stop killing each other? If you do, you're very naive.

Ok, but that's the end of my lightheartedness! Also, you get a pirate smiley. And finally, I am using ms paint and making a half assed effort.

Complete with a cigarette. /joy

We're talking about guns, not left field irrelevant arguments that take something someone said and misconstrue it for a 3 paragraph post filled with knee jerk reactions to what can only be illiteracy or ignorance.

The only view someone imposes by carrying in public is that they support the Constitution of the United States. That they support Liberty, Life, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I've personally been involved in two situations where people were attacked or shot in public. One of them, a man opened fire on a shopping center/area. After he was taken out, the people that were injured received medical attention. When the paramedics arrived, they asked why first responder actions were not started on the shooter.

We laughed at them as he continued to bleed out.

I think what a lot of people are saying, in response to Elana, is something like:

"No, I shouldn't feel protecting myself and my family this was is necessary, but, I do. So unless and until I see that violent crime and the use of any kind of weapon against innocent people is very, very, VERY nearly eliminated, I will continue to do so."

I'll just leave this here.

No, I don't think that. And if you think I'm that naive, then you are not only naive, but .... how shall I put it? ... simple, too.

There's a difference between spears/clubs/swords/knives/sticks/rocks and handguns. Hell, there's even a BIG difference between handguns and rifles ... but I digress.

All of those more rudimentary weapons are all potentially deadly, but none of them is LIKELY to be deadly, and all of them are EXTREMELY unlikely to cause ACCIDENTAL deaths.

THAT is the difference. We're talking about Deadly Force. If we assume that you want to continue living, but must first survive one of the following, which would you choose?:

1. Me throwing a rock at you
2. Me throwing a spear at you
3. Me swinging a sword at you
4. Me attempting to stab/slash you with a knife
5. Me attempting to club/maul you, or
6. Me shooting you with a pistol

I guarantee you'll choose #1, #2, #3, #4, or #5. Do not try to deny that or argue against this, because you'll fail if you do.

I'm not saying human beings shouldn't be allowed or granted the right to defend themselves (and their loved ones) from evildoers and criminals, but I'm saying that handguns are too precise/effective/dangerous/deadly to be allowed into public hands.

Yes, there are SOME citizens who are genuinely mentally-balanced and responsible enough to use a firearm SOLELY for defense only and only in emergency and REAL (not perceived or imagined) threatening situations. HOWEVER, you all MUST know that many (most??) American adults (especially men) are NOT both mentally-balanced and responsible enough every single day of their lives. So that point, unfortunately, while valid, is also moot.

1. Should have been "bashing with a rock" and in which case, when rocks were weapons that could be deadly.

2. When spears were the weapon of choice it could have been deadly.

3. When swords were the weapon of choice it could have been deadly.

4. Same as #3, swords/knives

5. When clubs were the weapon of choice it could have been deadly.

6. When pistols were the weapon of choice it could have been deadly.

Pain wise? I'd choose #6 as long as I could choose the calibre and powder and jacket etc. None of those other ones seem fun as I've been stabbed and taken shrapnel and the tearing seems like it's much worse than being shot.

Elana is a dude.

And he is talking about maturity.

Banning guns won't do anything. Guns aren't that hard to make. Couple springs here, hammer there, hollowed out barrel, stock there.. The science behind it exists. So now you take away people's rights to buy and make guns - only the criminals will have access to them and no one can use them to protect themselves from criminals with guns, good job there.

i choose 6 because you're probably a bad shot

So mentally-balanced + responsible = maturity

Check.

To answer your question, I'd much prefer none of those things happen to me. Probably why I do carry. I have an advantage over someone with a non-firearm weapon, and am on more or less equal footing as someone with a firearm.


For lack of less harsh words, maybe because I'm simple, but what the *** at your "logic", is all I can say. Someone wishes to do me harm, and I should HAVE to resort to something less effective than something else to defend myself? Also, the police are public, so they shouldn't have guns either, right?


Please respond to this.

Except that how do I defend against a handgun with a rock? Or a sword? Or a knife? That's the key - it's the availability of guns to people that would hurt someone that is the real problem, not the people trying to protect themselves from it.

There has even been talk about purchasing kevlar vests in this thread - it's nothing more than an arms race, and until "the other side" backs down, "we" (I still don't carry guns, but the proverbial we or whatever) aren't, either.