Open Carry and Stand Your Ground

[Acme]

I've always been skeptical that a population armed as we are would stand much chance against a concerted US military effort. IF the military could be convinced to attack a superior force of armed civilians, wouldn't they go after them with more than assault rifles and handguns?

Ahhh. Superior force of armed civilians meaning more small arms I take it. Then fo shizzle the military could and would up the anti. Never come to a tank battle with an AR15.

 

I guess I'm saying it's not accurate to assume civilian firepower is better based on common weapons, but I'm also saying that owning guns to keep the government honest these days is a less powerful argument than it's ever been.

Agreed. I think the point of the chart was to show the absurdity of the gun fanatic argument that the government is out to take their small arms. Speaking of small, the simple truth is that the male gun fanatics are just overcompensating for their little schnitzels [perceived or otherwise] in the best way they know how.

[John Cuthber]

 

I see your point regarding assault weapons, however as a general statement about guns, I disagree.

 

I grew up in a semi rural region of a country which doesn't have a constitutionally defined right to bear arms. I was always taught that the gun was a tool like for e.g. a chainsaw - useful in the right circumstances, and incredibly dangerous if mistreated. Both should be stored correctly - i.e. unloaded and away from the ammunition, or in the "off" position away from the fuel can in the case of chainsaw; and used correctly - i.e. correct protective wear, clear are free of obstruction, by person with the proper instruction who isn't under the influence of anything.

 

Given where I came from in regards to guns, having a loaded shotgun by the bed in case someone breaks in seems about on par with keeping an idling chainsaw next to the bed in case a tree falls on the house, and walking around in public with a loaded assault rifle in case you encounter a crazy person seems about as intelligent as carrying around an idling logger's saw just in case a power pole falls down and you need to saw it up.

It seems to me that you are still missing the point.

A chainsaw is very dangerous, because it could kill someone.

But the intention of a chainsaw designer is to make something to cut wood.

The fact that it is able to kill people is an unfortunate side issue.

But a gun is quintessentially different.

The intention of a gun designer is (generally) to produce a "tool" for killing people. (I'm ignoring the vanishingly small number of guns explicitly designed for target shooting).

 

If someone invented a chainsaw that cuts wood, but can't harm people, then they would be praised as having made a contribution to society.

 

On the other hand, the guy who invents a gun that can't kill or maim people is likely to be laughed at.

 

The whole point of a gun is, broadly to kill and, broadly, killing is a bad thing.

 

It's not just a matter of "it's a bad idea to carry a chainsaw about unless you are a lumberjack".

It's an issue of "it's a bad idea to carry a gun about unless you plan to kill people- and since that's an intrinsically bad thing- its a bad idea to carry a gun."

 

There are exceptions for valid security staff, but that's it.

No civilian going about their everyday business needs a gun, and there is no logical basis to distinguish "assault weapons" from other guns.

One is designed to kill people: and so is the other.

 

Also Phi for all, re.

"the people carrying guns as a 2nd Amendment statement are carrying them as tools to do work (security work, in this case),"

Is that actually true?

Are most guns owned and carried by people who legitimately work in security?

Or are they, as Dave Gillson's post indicates, outnumbered 310 million to 4 million?

[Ringer]

It seems to me that you are still missing the point.

A chainsaw is very dangerous, because it could kill someone.

But the intention of a chainsaw designer is to make something to cut wood.

The fact that it is able to kill people is an unfortunate side issue.

But a gun is quintessentially different.

The intention of a gun designer is (generally) to produce a "tool" for killing people. (I'm ignoring the vanishingly small number of guns explicitly designed for target shooting).

It seems you're assuming a handgun or assault rifle here. When I was young we used our rifles to make sure coyotes didn't get to any of the animals on the farm. We also used them to hunt during hunting season. Fundamentally they served a useful purpose and they were used to kill things that were killed for a purpose. Much like trees that are being killed for a purpose. But so many people are extremely dumb in the way they use their weapons.

[Acme]

 

It seems to me that you are still missing the point.

A chainsaw is very dangerous, because it could kill someone.

But the intention of a chainsaw designer is to make something to cut wood.

The fact that it is able to kill people is an unfortunate side issue.

But a gun is quintessentially different.

The intention of a gun designer is (generally) to produce a "tool" for killing people. (I'm ignoring the vanishingly small number of guns explicitly designed for target shooting). ...

It seems you're assuming a handgun or assault rifle here. When I was young we used our rifles to make sure coyotes didn't get to any of the animals on the farm. We also used them to hunt during hunting season. Fundamentally they served a useful purpose and they were used to kill things that were killed for a purpose. Much like trees that are being killed for a purpose. But so many people are extremely dumb in the way they use their weapons.

 

While I agree guns are meant to kill animals as well as people, John is not off base concerning the topic of this thread which is Open-Carry and Stand-Your-Ground laws. The intentions of the people staging open-carry events and promoting stand-your-ground are entirely focused on using guns to kill people.

 

Moreover, since today hunters make up a minority of gun owners, that old-days dog don't hunt.

 

U.S. Gun Owners Outnumbered Hunters by 5 to 1 in 2011

CNSNews.com) -- In 2011, gun owners in the United States outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1.

 

There were 13.7 million hunters in the United States over age 16 -- 12.7 million of whom used rifles, shotguns or handguns for hunting, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 

That means hunters constituted only 15.9 to 18.1 percent of the estimated 70-80 million gun owners in the U.S. in 2011 -- the latest year for which statistics are available.

...

Now just to personalize this, I grew up around guns, I trained in an NRA riflery program as a young boy, and I make a habit of procuring and carrying a handgun into the back-country when I have occasion to go. What is going on today with the gun lobby is worlds away in temper & tone from my American experience.

 

Edited June 14, 2014 by Acme

[ajb]

It seems to that some points have been mixed up a little here. I am sure that no-one is suggesting that farmers who use certain kinds of guns in order to protect their stock from wild animals necessarily have their guns removed. Here in the UK farmers are one of the very very few people you will see with a gun. The downside to that has been the ease of suicide, but that is another issue. We also have the case of Tony Martin.

 

(As an aside, it feels strange to me to see police at the airport carrying MP5's in the UK and here in Poland the police are always armed with a handgun, like most to Europe. It all feels different to seeing the standard British Police officer.)

 

The issue has to be with people carrying guns with the purpose of killing others.

 

My question has to be, is the US such a dangerous place that many of the law abiding citizens feel that they need to carry a gun of any kind let alone an assault rife?

 

So, I was planning to apply for jobs in the US soon. Anyone have any suggestions where I can get a kevlar helmet and go for a fitting for a bullet proof vest?

 

If it is not stray gun fire from the local high school, a gang shoot-out on the streets, getting caught in police exchanging fire with bank robbers, it will be otherwise reasonable US citizens shooting at each other.

Edited June 14, 2014 by ajb

[Ten oz]

It seems to that some points have been mixed up a little here. I am sure that no-one is suggesting that farmers who use certain kinds of guns in order to protect their stock from wild animals necessarily have their guns removed. Here in the UK farmers are one of the very very few people you will see with a gun. The downside to that has been the ease of suicide, but that is another issue. We also have the case of Tony Martin.(As an aside, it feels strange to me to see police at the airport carrying MP5's in the UK and here in Poland the police are always armed with a handgun, like most to Europe. It all feels different to seeing the standard British Police officer.)The issue has to be with people carrying guns with the purpose of killing others.My question has to be, is the US such a dangerous place that many of the law abiding citizens feel that they need to carry a gun of any kind let alone an assault rife?So, I was planning to apply for jobs in the US soon. Anyone have any suggestions where I can get a kevlar helmet and go for a fitting for a bullet proof vest?If it is not stray gun fire from the local high school, a gang shoot-out on the streets, getting caught in police exchanging fire with bank robbers, it will be otherwise reasonable US citizens shooting at each other.

Murder in the U.S. is actually at a century low. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/us-murder-rate-track-be-lowest-century

 

Gun ownership is actually down. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

 

With murder down and gun ownership down what we are seeing in the U.S. are certain paranoid groups hoarding guns. Sales for guns are up because pro gun enthusiasts are buying gun after gun out of fear they soon won't be able too. Sadly many politicians, pundits, and business looking to cash in stoke fear as a means to an end. Suicides make up over 60% of all gun deaths in the U.S. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

Yet to hear people talk you'd think heavily armed gangs were going door to door attacking people in every nieghborhood in this country. The open carry stand your ground stuff, in my opinion, is about self fullfilling prophecies. They are not a necessary response to any legitimate problem facing the U.S. .

[barfbag]

I am in my 40's and have never seen an unholstered hand gun in my life and I don't know anybody that owns one. I have seen hunters using rifles, but never small arms.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

 

In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms — three times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.

 

Nationally, guns still kill twice as many children and young people than cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than infection

 

 

 

People fighting for their right to bear arms are also fighting for the rights of the mentally challenged pedophile down the block to bear arms.

 

The solution needs to be in slowing or preventing sales of weapons. The people who seem most embedded to fight for guns are gun owners already.

 

It is a shame it is The American Bill of Rights.

 

My concern is the number of illegal guns arriving in my country from the US. I have less problem with them killing themselves than I do with them allowing them past the borders.

 

I think a smart media stunt to promote gun safety would be to fly in about 10 000 parents or so to a "Dead Kid Convention" where America (and the world) can see the enormity of the pain that second amendment has caused.

 

The Stand your ground laws have recently been made headlines with the Trayvon Martin case. Nobody has ever said it, but I think his hands free cell phone made him look more crazy than any hoodie would. The first time many of us saw a person on a hands free cellphone we thought the person was just a bug talking to him/herself. Had the young guy held a phone to his ear he would have looked a lot less crazy. It turns out that Trayvon was selling illegal handguns himself (his cellphone texts had at least 3 gun deals), and that just points to further seriousness of the problem.

 

I have never seen a hand gun (except on tv) and I hope I never do.

[Arete]

It seems to me that you are still missing the point.

...

The whole point of a gun is, broadly to kill and, broadly, killing is a bad thing.

...

No civilian going about their everyday business needs a gun,

 

No, I understand what you are saying and disagree with it.

 

Last time I was back at my parents, I used a rifle to shoot a kangaroo which had tangled itself in a fence and broken its leg. In the past - particularly whilst doing fieldwork, I've shot animals who have been struck and injured by cars. In those cases, using a rifle to euthanase a suffering animal has been an act of kindness, rather than a bad thing.

 

I've used guns to shoot feral pests. I actually did a project for my MSc where we culled a number of introduced rusa deer in a national park, and used morphological parameters to estimate their abundance and relative impact on the park. I've also shot feral cats, pigs, rabbits and foxes.

 

When I helped my wife out with fieldwork in the Galapagos, we mainly subsisted on beef from feral cattle that the park rangers shot.

 

And these are just a few examples of cases where responsible use of firearms by people other than law enforcement had a positive outcome - I'd go so far as to say that guns are an integral tool for responsible and ethical conservation and land management - both for private and public land, and as such there are people who legitimately use guns going about their daily business. That said they are a tool, I don't see them as an inalienable right, or a legitimate means of self protection. Kind of like a chainsaw....

[John Cuthber]

 

No, I understand what you are saying and disagree with it.

 

Last time I was back at my parents, I used a rifle to shoot a kangaroo which had tangled itself in a fence and broken its leg. In the past - particularly whilst doing fieldwork, I've shot animals who have been struck and injured by cars. In those cases, using a rifle to euthanase a suffering animal has been an act of kindness, rather than a bad thing.

 

I've used guns to shoot feral pests. I actually did a project for my MSc where we culled a number of introduced rusa deer in a national park, and used morphological parameters to estimate their abundance and relative impact on the park. I've also shot feral cats, pigs, rabbits and foxes.

 

When I helped my wife out with fieldwork in the Galapagos, we mainly subsisted on beef from feral cattle that the park rangers shot.

 

And these are just a few examples of cases where responsible use of firearms by people other than law enforcement had a positive outcome - I'd go so far as to say that guns are an integral tool for responsible and ethical conservation and land management - both for private and public land, and as such there are people who legitimately use guns going about their daily business. That said they are a tool, I don't see them as an inalienable right, or a legitimate means of self protection. Kind of like a chainsaw....

And you think those are relevant to the OP's discussion of open carry in Texas?

[Arete]

And you think those are relevant to the OP's discussion of open carry in Texas?

 

They were in response to, and relevant to the specific statements you made, which I quoted.

[Phi for All]

Also Phi for all, re.

"the people carrying guns as a 2nd Amendment statement are carrying them as tools to do work (security work, in this case),"

Is that actually true?

Are most guns owned and carried by people who legitimately work in security?

Or are they, as Dave Gillson's post indicates, outnumbered 310 million to 4 million?

 

"Legitimately"? Heavens, no. But they believe in the right to carry a gun openly for personal protection, so in this case the guns are still just tools for security.

 

I just don't think they're appropriate tools for civilians to carry in public. Protect your home, your hearth, I get that. If you've got guns, keep them at home. Come out in public, you should accept what your government has put in place for your security when dealing with the rest of your society. Even concealed carry is preferable to walking around openly armed, blurring the lines between what we should worry about and what keeps us safe.

[barfbag]

@ John C,

the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/

 

While it is unknown the percentage of homes that have firearms, it would seem unlikely that even most gun ownership was for security work purposes.

 

@ everyone else,

 

I think if you are going to have a gun you should get a big Tattoo on your forehead, but at least open carry would let everyone see the extent of the danger they are in.

 

If I meet any Americans at work or elsewhere I simply assume they are armed. I know this is not just me as it comes up many times when people are discussing where to travel. The world has a lot of people with mental disorders, but if they don't get a criminal record they can own a gun.

 

When firearms became a civil right the were not much more than muskets which were slower in loading and not as accurate. Most muskets did not have hollow point bullets in them either.

 

I'm sure that if their forefathers could see children being murdered in gang crossfire they might have stepped back a bit and thought some more.

 

Perhaps someone could challenge the second amendment based on that fact. The definition of "arms" has certainly changed drastically enough.

 

Let people use muskets or at the most .22 cal guns in their homes if they insist upon protection. This would be more in line with the intention of the amendment. Maybe such a lawsuit is the key.

Edited June 19, 2014 by barfbag

[Ten oz]

Humans have successfully removed themselves from the food chain. We go about our lives free from the threat of predators looking to eat us or our children. The dangers that surround us are ones we as a species create for ourselves. If you are of the us vs them mindset you'll eventually find an excuse to act. Most violence is self fulfilling prophecies. People believe others are after them so they need weapons to protect themselves. Once they have weapons defensive positions are take that put people at odds with others. Then it is just a matter of time before there is conflict.

Our, humans, development of weapons throughout history has driven the necessity for more weapons. Once country "A" has a bomb then country "B" needs a bomb to defend against country "A". Once too many countries have bombs we need to develop bigger bombs. Same thing plays out in neighborhoods across the U.S.. Good guys buying guns because they fear bad guys with guns. Meanwhile basic supply and demand principles mean greater demand equals greater supply. The greater the supply the more likely it is someone you fear, a bad gun, has access which then feeds more demand.

[marty dabney]

to give my thoughts on the ops original questions.first,I think and have always thought that open carry is a bad idea for several reasons.first,it carries with it fear to the general public that might not understand that he is a good guy(maybe not the sharpest tool in the shed) but not a bad guy.i also compare that to freedom of speech.just because you have that freedom doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a theater.another reason is it can cause unneeded confrontation which also flows over into my opinion on "stand your ground".I carry a handgun concealed and I keep one in a nightstand safe by my bed.i have all necessary training and permits and then some.anyway,I have always felt like carrying a firearm came with a responsibility that some gun owners don't get.i will always and I mean always try to solve a potential threat with reason and if that fails retreat with a gun being the last possible choice.so that being said i'm not a fan of either law.

[Moontanman]

I have a gun in my house, it sits by my bed loaded, a 12 gauge pump tactical shotgun. I actually bought it because the local sheriff deputy said I might need it due to some disagreement with local gangs in my old neighborhood.

 

Now that being said I grew up around guns, loaded guns were every where in the house. I can honestly say that even as a little kid the idea of picking on up for any reason was something i knew not to do.

 

But I have owned guns, bought my first one at 12 with my own money i had worked for the previous summer.

 

I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed.

[John Cuthber]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

"I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed."

"I actually bought it because the local sheriff deputy said..."

[Phi for All]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

"I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed."

"I actually bought it because the local sheriff deputy said..."

 

I could see the irony if the local sheriff had told him to carry the shotgun in public.

 

Or are you saying it's ironic that our police carry guns in public but aren't considered to have mental issues (much)?

[Ten oz]

If local law enforcement told me I wouldn't be safe living somewhere unless I purchased fire arms to protect myself with I would live someplace else.

[John Cuthber]

The sherif chooses to carry a gun in public*. He doesn't have to so, at some level he must like to.

What does that make him if this is true?

"I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed."

 

And is that someone from whom you should take advice on the matter?

 

 

* other jobs are presumably available.

[barfbag]

@ Phi,

 

I took it to mean that it's ironic because Moontanman said he happily keeps a loaded shotgun beside his bed, but the same guy thinks that it is borderline mental disorder to bring that same shotgun outside only yards away. It definitely displays a contradiction in feelings about gun use in a short post. It's okay to keep a loaded gun ready to kill in your home, but a mental disorder label is hoisted upon any who carry openly.

[John Cuthber]

If local law enforcement told me I wouldn't be safe living somewhere unless I purchased fire arms to protect myself with I would live someplace else.

I might do so too.

Or I might campaign for better law enforcement. If I have to act as my own armed guard, what am I paying the police for?

 

But re Moontanman's post, the problem is the over-generalisation.

It means that the post essentially says

"I took advice on gun ownership from someone who I consider to have mental health problems in respect of gun ownership."

[Moontanman]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

"I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed."

"I actually bought it because the local sheriff deputy said..."

 

Since I don't carry a gun around in public I don't see the irony. The Sheriff admitted that it was unlikely for them to get to me quick enough to prevent violence from the drug gang perpetrated on me...

 

If local law enforcement told me I wouldn't be safe living somewhere unless I purchased fire arms to protect myself with I would live someplace else.

 

That is an arrogant statement, you have no idea who i am or what difficulties i face, sometimes just up and moving is impossible unless you want to be homeless...

 

The sherif chooses to carry a gun in public*. He doesn't have to so, at some level he must like to.

What does that make him if this is true?

"I think the people who like to carry a gun around in public have some mental issues that need to be addressed."

 

And is that someone from whom you should take advice on the matter?

 

 

* other jobs are presumably available.

 

Where I live a sheriff does not choose to carry a gun, it's part of his job... As I have said I do not carry a gun around in public, although I did in my yard a few times when threatened by gang members driving by and pointing guns at me...

 

@ Phi,

 

I took it to mean that it's ironic because Moontanman said he happily keeps a loaded shotgun beside his bed, but the same guy thinks that it is borderline mental disorder to bring that same shotgun outside only yards away. It definitely displays a contradiction in feelings about gun use in a short post. It's okay to keep a loaded gun ready to kill in your home, but a mental disorder label is hoisted upon any who carry openly.

 

If someone comes into my my home unannounced and unwelcome I see no reason why i should not be able to defend myself. Calling the police only serves to have someone to catch the criminals after the fact. Home invasions happen here, probably two or three a year in my area, and in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed. Calling the police is not defending your home..

 

I might do so too.

Or I might campaign for better law enforcement. If I have to act as my own armed guard, what am I paying the police for?

 

But re Moontanman's post, the problem is the over-generalisation.

It means that the post essentially says

"I took advice on gun ownership from someone who I consider to have mental health problems in respect of gun ownership."

 

 

Again, the police investigate crime, only rarely do they actually show up in time to prevent crime. Since I stated that people who carry guns in public, possibly i should be more specific, if someone feels the need to walk around in public openly carrying a rifle or large gun when there is no threat and only to impress others then he has a mental disorder that needs to be addressed.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Where I live a sheriff does not choose to carry a gun, it's part of his job...

 

...

 

 

* other jobs are presumably available.

On the whole, I think that this clarifies it nicely

"Since I stated that people who carry guns in public, possibly i should be more specific, if someone feels the need to walk around in public openly carrying a rifle or large gun when there is no threat and only to impress others then he has a mental disorder that needs to be addressed."

And I agree with you.

Edited June 24, 2014 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

If someone comes into my my home unannounced and unwelcome I see no reason why i should not be able to defend myself. Calling the police only serves to have someone to catch the criminals after the fact. Home invasions happen here, probably two or three a year in my area, and in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed. Calling the police is not defending your home..

 

"in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed."

 

What's the percentage for cases where they were armed?

[Ten oz]

That is an arrogant statement, you have no idea who i am or what difficulties i face, sometimes just up and moving is impossible unless you want to be homeless...

 

If I felt my life was threatened at home I would prefer to be homeless someplace safe.

 

Where I live a sheriff does not choose to carry a gun, it's part of his job... As I have said I do not carry a gun around in public, although I did in my yard a few times when threatened by gang members driving by and pointing guns at me...

 

......seriously, if people were pointing guns at me and I was arming myself in response I would sacrifice whatever needed to be sacrificed and find a way out of that situation. What could be more important than safety?

 

If someone comes into my my home unannounced and unwelcome I see no reason why i should not be able to defend myself. Calling the police only serves to have someone to catch the criminals after the fact. Home invasions happen here, probably two or three a year in my area, and in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed. Calling the police is not defending your home..

 

Exterior motion lighting, bars on your windows n' doors, alarm systems, dogs, etc, etc are all effective crime prevention tools. None are free but neither are guns and ammunition. If I were convinced nothing could protect me other than a gun on my person while at home that would mean I was living someplace too dangerous. It would become my life's mission to not live there.