Obviously I was speaking of non-police.
I think the “fear of guns” thing is inaccurate, and usually a deliberate twisting of the facts by pro-gun types (not that I’m accusing you of this). People are afraid of the person with a gun who could kill them in one second, if they wished. More likely is that the noble civil rights activist will kill them accidentally. I just don’t trust people to carry guns around in populated areas unless they’re well-trained, and I have no way of verifying that. Hundreds of people die from accidental shootings every year in the US.
As for “irrational”, that’s debatable, but it’s a completely unnecessary risk compared to driving or even smoking.
I see your point, but I’d modify it some.
Caring for the planet or demanding the very wealthy abide by the same laws as the rest of us–those kinds of things tend to be offensive to those who would exploit the planet and its inhabitants with little to no regard for the mess they make. Other folks may just not care, but few people would look at those who do as threats to anything they hold dear.
Public displays of weaponry–not just a dutifully-worn sidearm casually observed, but a full-on display of way more firepower than is necessary under the normal run of things–offend a much larger audience, and not just gun-grabbers and sissies. It’s hard to say exactly where the line between activism and douchebaggery is drawn, but I think the closer you get to it the more you need to explain what you’re about, in terms your target audience understands, lest you just get written off as a douchebag who deserves it when a cop loses his shit and plugs you. Because that’s exactly where all this is headed. Some weapon-sporting activist is going to get belligerent with the wrong cop, who will make a bad call, and someone will end up dead. No matter who loses that altercation, the armed civilians will end up paying the price, not the cops.
Does anyone want to tell me it’s unreasonable to be squicked out by a dude carrying an assault rifle down the street? If someone like that walked into a restaurant I was eating at or a theater I was watching a movie at, you bet your ass my first response would be to get somewhere else immediately and call the cops. I’m sorry, have we learned nothing from incidents like the one in Aurora? What’s more, the only people legitimately interested in that (hey buddy, ever heard of a handgun?) are the kind of people whose mental stability I’d call into question either way - people either paranoid enough to think they’d need it, or enough of assholes to want to make a point of it. Nobody’s going to take your gun, but it’s freakin’ terrifying. Cut it out.
(And no, the dog comparison is not reasonable. The sole reason to have a dog is not “kill as many people as fast and as accurately as possible”.)
Regarding the ridiculous “guns are designed for killing” and “guns are for killing” arguments: They’re different, but both dumb for different reasons.
Saying “that guy shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun, because they’re DESIGNED for killing” makes about as much sense as saying “It’s OK that that guy comes into a theater with a can of gasoline and a flaming torch, but that’s OK, because they weren’t designed for killing.” It’s the use of objects that matters, not the design intent.
Saying “guns are for killing” is essentially the same as saying “people shouldn’t have deadly weapons, because they’re deadly.” That’s a defensible argument on its own, perhaps, but it shows in every thread about gun control. If that’s your position, please stop trying to pretend to argue the subtleties of open carry, and just say “I don’t think people should have deadly weapons.” Please.
Lastly, if you don’t understand the dog analogy, try thinking a bit harder. I’ll help: Walking dogs is legal. If the police were routinely arresting people under the premise of “disturbing the peace” for harmlessly walking dogs, wouldn’t you expect that there might by a videotaped protest staged by dog walkers? Same thing with open carry. For years, police have harassed lawful gun carriers. Now they’re getting called on it.
More likely than said civil rights activist spontaneously deciding to snap and murder them, perhaps, but still vanishingly improbable. Accidental gun deaths number only a few hundred each year, and nearly all of those are hunting accidents, morons playing around in their own homes, or people leaving guns where kids can get a hold of them. The open carry crowd is self-selected from the more serious gun rights demographic, and most of them are also concealed carry license holders, who are statistically a cut above the rest when it comes to safety.
That said, I’m mainly talking about the people who feel that open carry consists of a holstered pistol. I have little sympathy with the ones who walk around with rifles on their backs for no other purpose than to stir up confrontation.
Hey, speak for yourself! My specially-trained, high-capacity assault dogs beg to differ. 
The point is people DON’T KNOW whether or not someone carrying a weapon has ill intent or not. Having a NON open carry society makes it easier to identify those that do. If you see someone carrying a gun, you can assume, with reasonable certainty, that they DO have ill intent.
I understand there is a difference, but can you explicitly state why you think one is okay (presumably) and one is obnoxious?
Do you trust people to carry guns around in un-populated areas? What is your cut off? What would satisfy you as to what constitutes “well-trained”?
(my bold)
So while engaging in lawful activity, someone deserves to be shot and/or killed by police because they don’t approve of their chosen form of protest. Lovely.
I personally don’t support the open carry of long arms as a matter of practice, but I do support the legality of it. As an aside, the availability of open carry prevents a concealed carrier from being harassed or arrested if they accidentally print while carrying. That has utility. Also keep in mind that just about 1/2 of all US states allow open carry either by default with no permit, or as a matter of course by permit which is issued on a shall issue basis.
Simple. Police are MARKED by uniforms. When you see one in uniform, you’re not only unafraid of their gun but you expect it. And even plain clothes officers don’t carry their guns openly. When you see an everyday NON-MARKED person openly carrying a gun, you have no idea why or for what purpose. It unnecessarily makes you apprehensive. Even if the person doesn’t start blasting away immediately, as long as they’re in your presence you’re constantly in fear that they will.
What is your rational basis for feeling safer around a uniformed police officer with a weapon as opposed to a non-uniformed individual with a weapon? And don’t say training, because I’ve been to the range on police qual day and I know better. 
Nonsense. In a non-open-carry society, anyone with ill intent will simply conceal their firearm until it’s time to put the intent into practice, at which point the other questions become academic. For that matter, even where open carry is legal, people with ill intent conceal their firearms.
You know they’re SUPPOSED to be armed. The same with soldiers.
That’s kind of the same argument pro-gun types use against gun control… “just because someone can commit a crime with another instrument, what sense does it make to limit guns?”
The point is people aren’t all jumpy seeing an unidentified person walking around with a gun for which they have no idea for what intent or purpose for why they’re carrying it.
That doesn’t really answer my question. Yes, we have a public policy of arming our police officers. But that does not suggest that they are less likely to snap, or act unsafely, than Joe Schmoe with a CPL. And in fact, given that we are frequently reminded that the people who go in for police work in this country tend to be self-selected bullies who are shown again and again that they can kill with impunity, I’m not too inclined to feel especially safe around cops.
And soldiers are not generally armed unless they’re in a war zone or under other specific circumstances. Not really relevant.
That wasn’t at all the point I was trying to make. I wasn’t arguing for or against any law or policy, just observing that a criminal with a gun wants to hide it until he can use it to his advantage. A pistol carried openly suggests that the carrier has no criminal intent.
Why do you believe the people of the state legalized open carry of firearms?
That’s the best answer I can give you. That, essentially, seeing a police officer or soldier with a gun doesn’t raise any alarms. Seeing an unidentified person with a gun does.
Not if he’s in a community where people wouldn’t normally open carry, or expect to find someone who openly carries. THEN someone carrying a gun WOULD suggest criminal intent. And even in the openest open carry area, most people STILL don’t carry guns.
Because of the NRA and other excessive pro-gun types influencing the lawmakers.
Bricker quotes: “§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.” Interesting and thanks. I’ll note that routine use of surgical masks among those with colds, common in Asia, is illegal in Virginia unless you are carrying a physician’s note with you or the Governor has declared a health emergency.
There are all sorts of delusionals who believe that’s unreasonable.
If I wanted to talk with the easily excited, I could strike up a conversation with any homeless lunatic who has imaginary friends.
Unlike Joe Open Carry, cops and grunts are subjected to mental health evaluations. It seems to me that a guy paranoid enough to carry around an AK-47 in public isn’t the sort of person you should trust with a dull butter knife, never mind expect to have a lucid conversation with. Lurid, maybe. There are plenty of screaming maniacs who can’t distinguish between “Permitted by the law” and “Socially and ethically appropriate”: some have even showered within the past several weeks. I don’t need to converse with them when they are in easy reach of their semi-automatic pacifier.
I can’t believe anyone really believes that. I carry a gun pretty more days than I don’t, usually concealed, sometimes openly. On the days I carry openly, I have ill intent? And the guy that walks into the bank with his gun concealed, sooon to rob it, gets a pass?
You’re supposed to be armed, too. The more good guys who aren’t defenseless, the better for all of us. What if I miss?
Love these videos. Any time one of these doofuses decides to remove himself from the voting pool or at least place himself under the most intense police surveillance, all speed and fortune to him.
If you can’t see the gun, you can’t identify the threat, right? It’s not a matter of preference. We’re not FAVORING the guy with the concealed gun. We just don’t know he’s a threat yet.
You’re not “supposed” to. You CHOOSE to. Huge difference. Again, you don’t know the intent of an unidentifed person walking around with a gun.