You cut off the first part of the quote, which would have answered your question.
“the reason to ban open carry would be to simplify the situation: if you see a gun and it’s not on a police officer, call the cops.”
So, are you saying that, in a place or time when guns are in fact banned from being open carried, and you see someone with a gun, you should not call the cops?
And you are also asking that citizens not be wary of a person carrying a gun around, but you have nothing to say to the cops who will shoot person for carrying a fake gun around.
I am retired military, a gun owner, and possess a license to carry a concealed firearm - I suppose I fit the description of a “gun guy”. My state also allows unlicensed open carry.
I have no personal interest in open carry, and would not do it outside a fairly limited set of scenarios. Basically, I don’t want the attention that OC invites.
I actually know a couple guys who deliberately OC whenever possible, to “rub it in the faces of the gun control nuts”. As noted above, there’s assholes in every group. Unfortunately, the asshole gun owners are the ones who make the rest of us look like nutcases.
That’s a load of bovine excrement and you know it, nice straw man argument.
When I carry, concealed or open, I do it because I choose to, and have the legal right to do so.
You are no more threatened by me carrying than me not carrying, I have no desire or intent to use my firearm to threaten anyone, heck, the ideal solution is to make it to the end of the day not having to use the firearm at all.
Now, if you’re simply scared or “threatened” by me simply because I happen to be carrying, that’s your problem, not mine, your fear does not give you the right to infringe on my rights.
Yes, calling the cops on someone carrying a firearm is a problem. Possessing a weapon isn’t a threat, it is a basic constitutional right. Threatening someone with a weapon is a threat. I guess we need to start educating people on the difference?
And cops killing people for carrying toys or even exercising their rights is a big deal, hence why calling them every time someone sees an object they don’t like is a problem. Basically, don’t call the cops on other people. They don’t help, and there is a high probability they will make things much, much worse. If you don’t like what someone is doing or holding, just stay away from them.
So, I never liked the “If you see something, say something.” idea.
We can change it to, “If you see something, don’t say anything and stay away.”
But, once again, you were responding to the idea of calling the cops on someone carrying a gun, in a place or situation where carrying a gun is banned. Are you still saying that even in that situation, you should just keep your distance?
Yes. Unless someone is threatening you or others, there is zero reason to call in armed authorities, regardless of which laws you think they may have broken. Do you call the cops for every single trivial infraction you witness each day? If someone is breaking the law and it doesn’t harm anyone, that’s between them and their conscience. Why should you care at all?
So, let’s say I see a couple guys going into an elementary school carrying guns, you are saying I should just mind my own business? Why should I care at all, right? I’ll hear about it later on the news, I am sure.
So, just to be clear a last time, you are saying, in plain language, that someone carrying a gun in a gun free zone is absolutely no cause for concern unless they are actively pointing it or firing it at others?
Basically. It’s up to you in that moment whether to interpret “guys with guns going into a school” as a threat or an infraction. Perhaps they’re just plainclothes cops on their way to teach DARE? How would you feel you called the cops and they came and gunned down the principal for leaving work early for his hunting trip?
Back before mass hysteria, I mean mass media, students and teachers alike would often bring guns to school because they came straight from hunting in the morning, or were heading out that way again after class.
There’s nothing by itself that says “man with gun + school = tragedy”. That’s an unfortunate trend we’ve seen play out on the news too often, but it’s a fallacy to assume that, because it happens a few times a year across the country, that means it’s a virtual certainty that any time a gun is brought near a school, dead kids will result.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the country shares your apprehension about guns and schools now, so chances are that suspicious looking armed gentlemen on school property are up to no good. But that’s a probability game. Simply possessing a firearm on school property is still not a threat. But maybe the odds that it will become a threat in the near future are too much for you to ignore. I don’t personally know what those odds are but I bet they’re far lower than you think.
What about other gun free zones? Sports stadiums and colleges and the like? Why can’t college kids have guns? They’re free adults, it’s their money. Why not allow guns at airports and courthouses? There’s always a greater threat in large crowds, but I’m not sure why the specific crowds at airports and football stadiums are in more danger than the crowds downtown or in the park (or in line for security).
Society depends on us all trusting each other to a certain extent. I could walk down the hall now and strangle one of my weaker coworkers, or beat him to death with a chair, or something. But I won’t. I could also walk down the hall and gun him down in cold blood, but I won’t. We trust each other not to do these things as a matter of course. Turns out there are some signals that lower that trust irrationally, like hoodies, or tattoos, or speaking a foreign language, or guns. Not sure how to handle that fact, but I think allowing those prejudices to drive policy is a bad idea.
I had an interesting conversation with a university professor earlier today; she has had several colleagues retire or quit over the last year specifically over guns. Now that the state of Kansas permits (and sometimes encourages) students to carry firearms on campus, these professors are no longer willing to risk giving a student a bad grade and then having that student show up at office hours carrying. It’s not worth it to them–they’re leaving.
Whether or not their fears are justified, recruiting a replacement prof is not cheap or easy, so this is a problem for the university regardless of your stance on guns.
(It’s also a problem of a different sort if other professors, less able to take the financial hit of quitting, are just passing out an A to every student who makes it known they’re carrying.)
So the fact that their students could have been carrying illegally last year didn’t faze them, but the fact that they may carry legally now is cause to resign? Or the fact that their students could have had weapons at home with which to murder their poor teacher for giving out honest grades last year, but this year they may also carry those guns to school so it’s different?
Why do people act like a law prohibiting an activity causes that activity to stop occurring? Out of sight, out of mind, or something?
Your argument would be somewhat persuasive to me if it was question of raising an alarm about people carrying guns where there was a good chance they were doing so legally. But as actually given it seems extreme and I find myself agreeing with k9, with whom I don’t think I’m on the exact same page about guns generally.
There is a constitutional right wrt guns but it’s interpreted by courts. Where I live, in NJ, anyone carrying a gun is a police officer or a criminal, pretty much, 500 carry permits among 9 million people, and no open carry without permit (probably not with it either, I don’t know offhand but it’s basically moot). I don’t think that’s optimal, but it’s not up to me to decide the law is ‘unconstitutional’ and ignore it, either to break it myself or ignore others breaking it. So if I saw someone carrying a gun in my town, I would call the cops. If it’s one of them, open carry out of uniform, not likely, they’ll sort it out. The chance one of them shoots another sorting it out is too remote, and too clearly their responsibility to avoid, to be my concern.
I don’t find the situation fundamentally different if I were to see illegal carry, by virtue of a ‘gun free zone’ with force of law, though I probably agree more with you about whether that’s a good idea, ‘gun free zones’ entirely relying on ‘see something say something’, or relying on the police having probable cause to pat somebody down. Unless you’re going to have the guards and metal detectors to enforce it, and politically can’t effectively outlaw gun carry outside the ‘zone’, then a ‘gun free zone’ is highly questionable IMO. But again the law is the law (if the ‘zone’ has force of law).
And I still don’t buy the argument of not calling the police because they’re going to kill somebody. You can’t give that argument and then talk about ‘before hysteria’.
Officially permitting and encouraging guns on campus means the number of guns on campus has increased. More guns = more chance that one of those guns is going to be in the hands of somebody who is unstable.
Yes, if the guns are at home, the teacher is in less danger than if the guns are in the teacher’s office, so I’m not sure why that sounds so outrageous to you. A lot of crimes are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who are overcome by sudden emotions (e.g., the entire concept of voluntary manslaughter). If those otherwise law-abiding people don’t have a lethal weapon all nice and handy, some screaming and shouting, or even kicking and punching, might not turn into a death. When you can settle this dispute quite permanently with something in your coat pocket, though, a certain percentage of the population will reach into their pocket. Professors have quite enough experience with the emotional immaturity and poor judgment of a lot of college-aged kids.
The number of people who cold-bloodedly plot murder is rather smaller than the number of people who can be provoked into stupid violence. These teachers are fazed by the shifting odds, not by some snarky “out of sight, out of mind” idea.
I open carry a lot. It never occurred to me I am doing it to “rub it in the faces of the gun control nuts.” I guess it also means I’m an asshole, too. :rolleyes:
If it never occurred to you that that is what you are doing, then you are not deliberately carrying for the main purpose of rubbing it in other people’s faces. (Does that really need to be pointed out to you?)
However, there are people out there to whom that HAS occurred, people who have made a deliberate and conscious choice to carry for the purpose of rubbing it in other people’s faces. (Sadly, I know a couple of them.) One of them, in particular, is quite vocal about the fact he is not carrying for self-defense or personal protection; he’s carrying because he knows it pisses people off and it intimidates people, and he likes pissing people off and intimidating them. He’s a big bad man and he wants everybody to know it. HE is an asshole. Are you willing to defend him?
Just to highlight that each state is different, in Georgia we have what is called a Weapons Carry Permit. With it one can legally carry, open or concealed, anywhere that weapons are not expressly forbidden. Without it one can only possess a weapon in their own house or car or when doing a legal activity like hunting (with the appropriate license). Obtaining the carry permit requires these steps:
A completed application
An in person visit to the county Probate Court to turn in the application, swear an oath, and be photographed
A fee of $69.75 ($30 for renewals)
An in person trip to the Sherriff’s office (or similar) for fingerprinting
A background check via the national Instant Criminal Background Check system using info from the application and fingerprints
No class or training is required. As long as one has a valid carry permit one can bypass the paperwork when buying a gun from a firearms dealer, although the dealer will still run an instant background check each time.
I didn’t say it was “okay”. I said it isn’t a threat. Simply having a weapon on your person is not a threat, no matter what the sign on the wall says. You may be disregarding the property owner’s policy, but that isn’t the same thing at all. All I’m saying is let’s not conflate breaking a pretty stupid rule with threatening people’s lives. They are two very different things.
For example, it is not okay to talk on your cell phone in a theater. But would I call the cops on the person, afraid for my life, because they disobeyed a silly sign? No. So why would I call the cops on someone simply exercising their constitutional rights? If the property owner has a problem, they can ask them to leave or call the cops or charge them extra or whatever they want to do. It’s their property. But it’s silly for me to tattle on them like a kid who is trying to curry favor with the grown ups. “Um! So and so broke the rules!” Screw that.
