Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not knowing whos carring is a deterrent to the thinking criminal. Open carry is a visual detterent to the non thinking criminal or a target of a non thinking.
Is there something insane to having a ranged weapon to protect yourself? Is there something insane to personal responsibility?
Are you being threatened? Are you so very important? Most people walk around with neither and get through life fine...
If safety was your concern you'd spend your time advocating for locked and responsible gun storage, since that gun that you are dying for the world to see on your hip is more likely to kill someone you love in your own home than a stranger threatening you...
Are you being threatened? Are you so very important? Most people walk around with neither and get through life fine...
If safety was your concern you'd spend your time advocating for locked and responsible gun storage, since that gun that you are dying for the world to see on your hip is more likely to kill someone you love in your own home than a stranger threatening you...
I am surrounded bad neighborhoods where people get mugged at gunpoint at night. I can't afford a car, a better neighborhood, nor does my job have available hours during the day.
Are you being threatened? Are you so very important? Most people walk around with neither and get through life fine...
If safety was your concern you'd spend your time advocating for locked and responsible gun storage, since that gun that you are dying for the world to see on your hip is more likely to kill someone you love in your own home than a stranger threatening you...
Citation requested. This claim has been refuted numerous times, so show us the statistics from an established paper and let's clear it up once and for all.
I think concealed is safer all around. For one thing it helps prevent you from being the first target in a criminal situation.
That said, I'd like it to be an individual choice. Realistically, I think we're headed towards a likely Supreme Court ruling that says states may regulate carry but MUST allow some form of carry outside the home so long as the individual isn't disqualified by virtue of being a prior felon etc.
I don't think a license should be required. You already had a background check when you bought the gun. This is the "bear" part of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I think concealed is safer all around. For one thing it helps prevent you from being the first target in a criminal situation.
That said, I'd like it to be an individual choice. Realistically, I think we're headed towards a likely Supreme Court ruling that says states may regulate carry but MUST allow some form of carry outside the home so long as the individual isn't disqualified by virtue of being a prior felon etc.
I don't think a license should be required. You already had a background check when you bought the gun. This is the "bear" part of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And the "well regulated militia" part falls by the wayside?
I think concealed is safer all around. For one thing it helps prevent you from being the first target in a criminal situation.
That said, I'd like it to be an individual choice. Realistically, I think we're headed towards a likely Supreme Court ruling that says states may regulate carry but MUST allow some form of carry outside the home so long as the individual isn't disqualified by virtue of being a prior felon etc.
I don't think a license should be required. You already had a background check when you bought the gun. This is the "bear" part of "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I agree completely with the first two paragraphs. I live in a city and have too many friends and associates who freak out at the sight of a gun on the hip of someone without a uniform.
Your third paragraph raises another issue however. Many gun purchases, possibly even most gun purchases, are done with no background check whatsoever. I'm definitely pro-gun and pro-carry, but I'm also of the opinion that background checks should be mandatory for ALL purchases except direct family members. Actually, other than the extra cost and the mandatory 4473 paper trail that would have been one minor amendment away from a universal gun registry, I supported the background check bill that failed this spring. If responsible gun owners don't do more to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals the anti-gun crowd will keep getting more and more "ammunition" they can use to take all guns away.
Concealed carry allows people to carry on as normal without considering who may or may not be armed. People wishing to do harm have no visual cues for them to know who is or is not carrying.
Open carry would take some time to become accepted, however it gives everyone visual cues as to who is carrying or not in some cases I think that people may well be surprised as to the number of guns carried. Were the risks of criminals disarming people who openly carry as great as argued then surely your average beat cop would either be concealed carrying or not carrying a firearm at all. While it can be argued "they're trained" you only need to look at the top 10 results on google for "accidental police shooting" to realize the quality of most police training is negligible at best.
I will point out that concealed carry prohibitions were established long before carry restrictions. Since it was thought that only those seeking to do harm would carry in a manner that a casual observer could not see they were armed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkilgore
I'm definitely pro-gun and pro-carry, but I'm also of the opinion that background checks should be mandatory for ALL purchases except direct family members. Actually, other than the extra cost and the mandatory 4473 paper trail that would have been one minor amendment away from a universal gun registry, I supported the background check bill that failed this spring. If responsible gun owners don't do more to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals the anti-gun crowd will keep getting more and more "ammunition" they can use to take all guns away.
To respond to this, I'll ask, how many of the highest priority events (the Loughner's, Lanza's, Holmes, Cho's) were committed by persons who did not obtain their firearms legally, of those who obtained them legally how many were allowed to buy those firearms because of an administrative SNAFU?
While there's a lot of argument over guns traveling over state borders, and gun shows, you have to look at other factors that can raise these, for instance apparently Alaska has a gun trafficking problem (a high percentage of firearms are recovered that were first registered in AK) well 1/3 of the state population is military, they buy guns while here, and when posted to the L48 they take those guns with them, some are sold, is it any surprise that AK has a high "trafficking" rate? Gun shows we know are a red herring since all licensed FFL's when selling firearms (as a business) must complete a 4473 and NICS check at minimum for transfer.
Unfortunately it appears that in many cases (Loughner and Cho for example) that the State Administration failed to meet their legal requirements to report these people as prohibited (in Cho's case the State was reprimanded during the trial). So how would additional burdens being placed on the people who are lawfully acquiring firearms assist in this, when the states have failed to meet their legal obligations? It may deter the casual criminal who wants a gun (and being casual chances are he wouldn't use it) but not the hardened criminal.
Moreover given the porous nature of our borders where illegal immigrants and drugs cross over every single day in hundreds of individuals and hundreds if not thousands of pounds, how difficult would it be for those people to smuggle weapons in? How long do you think it would take a criminal enterprise to expand their business line into illegal firearms? More pertinently when the US itself is not (by choice or necessity) preventing these events, why should legal gun owners be put under additional duress during their acquisition of a firearm which is their natural right? The fact is that the government doesn't WANT to do everything it can, it wants to do something that will not significantly impact it's voter base, therefore porous borders are fine, additional limits of firearms sales needs to be actioned.
I'd like to bring a discussion from another forum here, in addition to adding a few other questions.
Should either choice require a license?
Should this choice be given to the state legislatures to decide?
Neither. The answer should be less guns overall...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
