As soon as you can post a cite that shows muggers, rapists, etc. have been significantly deterred by open carriers.
I’m not required to prove a negative, newbie. You need to cite your claim.
There’s a great movie that demonstrates this.
It’s called Death Wish, starred Charles Bronson and was made in the early to mid 1970s.
It proves just how open carriers can deal with violent crime.
Also Death Wish II, III, IV, V, VI…
As a general rule, yes: open carriers all too often are trying to start a fight, bully someone, act out their problems with authority or their funhouse mirror distorted risk perceptions. Gun crackpots will be inspired by this bozo in pajamas. This wannabe tough guy talked big on rights and liked making things difficult for the cops, but wouldn’t back his posturing up with his real name, though he did post his shots of the cop on You-tube. No shots of him, just the officer trying to do his job. Forbes reports that Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns while the NRA Remains Silent (the NRA later commented then retracted IIRC). These scumbags get off on scaring kids and making problems for businesses concerned about the family unfriendly environment that open carry rifles engender. More.
Once is too often.
Over in Milwaukee, this open carry fanatic was successfully robbed at gunpoint using the obvious technique that JesterX alluded to. The guy’s neighbors implied he was a weirdo with a gun unsurprisingly. The crime victim/gunnut simply had his gun taken away from him. He thought he would be invincible: instead he was a goat. Or so I surmise: the open carry mugging victim wasn’t interviewed.
Ok, I found a real link. How Should the Police Respond to a Report of a Man with a Gun?, by a legal blogger. He covers the Wisconsin situation. He doesn’t think the case law is fully settled with regards to open carry practitioners. It links to 2 guidance documents for law enforcement, one by PA, one by Michigan. They are relevant to the OP: they make some of Bricker’s points in greater detail.
More seriously, I should mention some factors that give me pause. In the old west, bad guys concealed weapons and good guys open carried in jurisdictions where guns were permitted. (Many cities such as Dodge required people to check their guns at the border. Cite: there are others.) If there were reasonable licensure requirements, I wouldn’t have a problem with open carry. And my upthread wisecracks notwithstanding, I concede there are circumstances where openly carrying a handgun would be prudent and socially acceptable.
Afoot?
I’m sure that’s a comfort to the taxpayers of those localities, the ones who bore the burden of paying those settlements.
Apart from your announcement of how ‘absurd’ it is, do you have any insight on what law the police should have pointed to as justification for believing a person with a rifle can be seized and questioned without legal probable cause or legal reasonable suspicion of the violation of any criminal statute?
Since when does that matter? If the cops want to stop you, they will. Having a gun doesn’t stop them; all it does is make you look suspicious & dangerous, and make it easy for them to get away with killing you if that’s what they want to do.
:dubious: You’re actually posting a movie as a “cite”?
Does that mean that if I post a link to Superman you’ll accept it as a cite that I can fly?
Well, if they’re carrying it they probably aren’t in a vehicle; so *of course *crime is afoot. 
It’s a truism that, regardless of any law, police officers can choose to stop you, search you, or kill you.
I think the discussion is about what consequences the legal system will impose upon police officers who do these things.
In other words, if i were to say, “Police can’t arrest you without probable cause,” I recognize that police actually can arrest you without probable cause, but the arrest will be voided and the police subject to legal sanctions if the police cannot subsequently prove that probable cause existed.
It isn’t just other people who might have guns. This is where so many gun control advocates get it wrong, thinking that if only there were no guns the whole danger level would be de-escalated for everyone. I want to carry a gun not just against others who might assault me with a gun, but with a knife or a baseball bat. Or the bully who’s 6’6" and 275 lbs of solid muscle. Or the five guys roaming the streets looking for some fun. I want the personal equivalent of nuclear weapons, the deterrent that says “If you attack me you will be in a world of hurt”.
I would guess that like me, the majority of carry advocates believe in being “porcupines”: harmless if left alone, painful if molested.
This are good examples of what I mentioned earlier: principled defense of civil liberties pretty much inevitably means you’ll end up defending the rights of assholes. If you believe in the first amendment, you hold your nose and defend the rights of Nazis, the Klan and Fred Phelps. If you believe in the second amendment, you hold your nose and defend these douchebags. Doesn’t mean you have to like any of them.
Whoooooosh!
Not that I’m a fan of open carry of long guns, but I see it more of a spectrum rather than a bright line difference. Like speech, not all of it is good, but especially abhorrent speech needs protection.
Based on the above, and post #155, I’m not clear if you’ve read Heller. Have you?
Separately from that comment, what do you think the word “bear” means in the 2nd? Have you read Peruta from the 9th circuit, and and Moore vs. Madigan from the 7th circuit (these are split from other circuit decisions that ruled differently).
Except for a cop, a gun is a “tool for the trade”. The same way a carpenter carries a hammer for every job they go, even if they don’t need one for that particular job. Or a plumber might carry a monkey wrench, a cop carries a gun. It’s part of the job. That is NOT the case for citizens. So you really can’t apply the same standard for both.
Well police are, in fact, a different class of citizens. They have authority normal citizens don’t have. They have more than the right to defend themselves, they have the DUTY to defend others. As I said, normal citizens don’t have that.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll make the same point as Kimstu… when we see an unidentifed person carrying a gun, just HOW are we supposed to know that person is actually an “average law-abiding citizen” and not someone with ill intent?
It’s not a preference. It’s not like anyone is saying they, personally, PREFER to see only people carrying valuables with guns because it makes them feel good. It’s about choosing the most LIKELY person to be attacked. And like the point I made earlier, if a crackhead wants your $20 bad enough and knows you’re armed, he/she is simply going to plan for it. Crime, specifically ROBBERIES, are all about getting the drop on your victim, catching them by surprise before they know they’re going to be robbed.
The point was… how do you cite a stat or example of what is/was in someone’s head? I can’t cite when a criminal deliberately targeted an open carrier anymore than you can cite one when a criminal was specifically deterred by an open carrier.
Providing for one’s own self defense is everyone’s responsibility.
Police have no duty to defend others. They are granted certain arrest powers, and certain types of immunity when performing their jobs, but they have no more duty to defend me than you do.
You’re not. But you don’t know that about anyone you see. The idea of open carry is normalization. At some point people became comfortable with walking adjacent to fast moving vehicles, the idea of standing 3 feet away from a speeding train (subways, etc.), and generally becoming accustomed to other potentially dangerous activities. If ~50% of the people you saw were openly carrying, at some point you’d probably treat it as an everyday occurrence and not think twice about it.
Self defense doesn’t require a gun. When you phrase it like that you make it sound like someone is being irresponsible if they DON’T carry a gun.
I see. So when someone calls 911 because someone is breaking into their home, police response is optional for them?
That’s an adjustment I’d rather NOT make.
Yes. In practice, this is mainly to prioritise responses, so that if there’s more serious crimes occurring they aren’t liable for not responding to yours. Short of having several cops available per property, there’s no way for it to be otherwise.
This is magnified in certain areas, where the distance the police would have to travel to reach you is large.
Yes.
If they did not respond, what remedy do you imagine you’d have against them?