The student plotting and planning to kill a teacher isn’t the threat they’re worried about. Those kids are very rarely encountered. The threats they’re concerned about, the kids they DO encounter over and over, are (1) the student who is normally law-abiding but in a suddenly emotional situation will grab for whatever’s handy, and (2) the student who doesn’t really have any intention of ever using that gun, but wants people to think s/he will as a form of bullying or intimidation.
How would you address those threats? Are you, for example, willing to bet your life that the would-be bully will never feel compelled to back up their threat, or are you just wanting other people to bet their lives?
I am no gun-control nut; I plead with the Hillaryists to ignore that issue; I’ve asked my wife to buy a gun for home defense (I’m an alien here so would have more trouble getting a permit than she). But call me old-fashioned: I think behavior — especially behavior that might be offensive and/or dangerous — should have reasons!
“Sir, there were competent candidates on the ballot; why did you vote for Bozo the Clown?”
— Because I choose to, because I have that legal right.
“Sir, you have money enough to buy regular food; why did you just eat your own finger?”
— Because I choose to, because I have that legal right.
“Sir, why do you walk down Main Street on your hands, babbling like a lunatic and masturbating your pet poodle with your toes?”
— Because I choose to, because I have that legal right.
It’s hard to discuss issues with people when we can’t even agree on the meaning of the word “Because.”
First off, I completely support gun rights and everyone’s right to carry OC or CC.
I would like to hear one really good argument for OC over CC, where OC is not the only option in that state.
Secondly, Why should there be so many Gov controls over anybody’s rights in life. Laws were in place that prohibit carrying loaded weapons and their uses. Fine, remove the laws. Why do I need to get a permit from the state? If the law is removed. The only thing that really needs to be done is background checks for purchases. Even those are ridiculous. Let’s face it, the only one’s that have to pass a background are the law abiding citizen. It is incredibly rare to find a gun used in the commission of a crime that was purchased legally by the criminal in question.
Before anyone blasts me for not requiring permits, when you have to take a gun safety course for CHL… GET REAL, you cannot learn gun safety in an 8 hour course, nor will you learn the laws in that same time frame. Gun safety is learned from years of safe gun handling and being taught by our family or peers. Then it is mastered by hours and hours of practice to become proficient.
Lastly, we live mostly in a country, USA, that permits OC or CC now in I believe all states. Not 100% sure on that. I live in Texas and I seriously see no reason why a criminal should be able to get away with any type of armed attack or Felony in sight of a fellow citizen without getting put 6 feet under. The police cannot be everywhere at the same time, but the fear of getting dead by the hands of a proficient and properly armed citizen, should be enough to thwart even the stupidest of criminals.
Texas has become an OC and CC state now for over a year now and I have seen only one person OC.
It doesn’t discuss the physical comfort issue much, so I would add that as it is often an important reason for the times I choose to open carry vs concealed. I find open carry far more physically comfortable than concealed carry, though I’ve never had a compact pistol to try out. I actually often prefer what some call “sloppy carry”, which you can think of as partially open and partially concealed. I usually wear a jacket when I’m out and about, and carrying fully concealed is even more uncomfortable as you add layers to deal with the weather, and makes it more difficult and clumsy to draw if that were ever warranted. I rarely notice people noticing. It also makes it easy to more fully cover up if I feel that would be a good idea for whatever reason.
Sounds like a bunch of stupid professors. A student who will shoot up a teacher due to receiving bad grades isn’t going to be thwarted by a policy of not having guns on campus.
[/QUOTE]
Any professor who has ever had anyone throw anything at them, or had a student pick up something off a desk in a threatening manner… So, pretty much every professor.
They are dealing with kids. 18-22 year old kids, away from home for the first time. This is not the demographic best known for its impulse control.
So, if a professor fails a student, and the student throws a tantrum, I have heard of many instances of professors being punched or otherwise assaulted with objects close at hand. Most of the time, such incidents aren’t even reported to the university, much less the police. It’s just kids learning to grow up.
Add a gun into that mix, when the kid is not at his most rational, and things escalate much more quickly. The chances of the kid going home, getting his gun, and coming back to confront his professor is slim, by that time he’ll have cooled off. But if armed, in the heat of the moment, can you really say you don’t think that some of these kids will make a bad decision?
Can you really fault a professor for not taking that chance?
OP here. I don’t particularly care about assholeness or otherwise but if I was in the US I think I would prefer OC so that I would actually know who’s armed. To that end, mandatory OC would almost be a good thing IMO.
There was a time in this country when open carry was the norm and concealed carry was looked upon with suspicion and considered to be the practice of scoundrels. A number of state constitutions specifically exclude concealed carry as a right, with wording like the following from the Idaho Constitution (Art. 1, Sect. 11): “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person…”
While I would not support mandating open carry over concealed carry, I also don’t believe that it ought to be looked upon as something notorious and dangerous.
A far better analogy would be–
"You had the opportunity to buy a fire extinguisher. But you didn’t, and now your house burned down in a fire that you could have easily stopped if you had had a fire extinguisher. So why didn’t you buy one?
“Because I had the right to choose not to.”
You see, people who carry a gun believe in being prepared for danger. People who mock those people believe that the danger will go away if they wish hard enough.
You’ve got your analogies completely backwards. And nowhere in my comments did I oppose precaution, nor embrace wishful thinking. My only dog in the gunnism debate is rational thought … and my dog appears to be losing the race.
Taking precautions is rational behavior. But you’re defending MacTech, for whom precaution is not the reason he carries a gun, or at least not the reason he brags about. His reason for carrying a gun is encapsulated by my quote
— Because I choose to, because I have that legal right.
I’m not singling out MacTech. One hears the same “reason” for gunnism from many other gunnists. One sincerely wonders about their models of cognition, logic and communication. Do they have some other reason for their gunnism which they are ashamed to mention? Do they think the “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right” embraces some profound truth about America, God or Freedom that liberals can’t understand? My curiosity leads me to ask, but in response I get only
— Because I choose to, because I have that legal right.
Regarding the OP’s question; Open carry can end up being more restrictive than concealed, at least in practice.
Here in Texas we had an annoying bunch agitating for open carry by showing up with legal, but intimidating firearms in public places. All I saw was a bunch of buffoons brandishing AR-15s around restaurants and malls. IMO, they were doing gun owners more harm than good. When my daughter asked why one man was carrying a rifle, I answered: “Because the cheerleaders wouldn’t date him in high school.” I got a good laugh when they got their law changed. You now can open carry in Texas, but only if you already have a concealed carry permit. As with CC, OC can be denied by most establishments by posting the required signs. And those signs are almost everywhere now. The net result of their little tantrum? Bupkis.
If it matters, I’m a CC holder and carry most everywhere, as does my son. But I have a distaste for all forms of intimidation and I regard intentionally visible firearms the same way I regard Harley attire. It’s just someone trying to look tough.
And how does my legal carry of a concealed firearm affect you?
It doesn’t
You want an “actual reason” why I carry? Okay…
It’s better to be prepared for the (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) chance I need to defend myself than not be prepared
Yes, I know the chances of that happening are nearly zero, but the fact remains it’s better to be prepared than not, and you’re not at risk from me carrying anyway.
Is this your same response to someone who insists on their 1st amendment right? If someone walks around with an anti-Trump or anti-Hillary T-shirt on, would it be OK if the police came and told them they had to either take it off or cover it up? I may think one or both of them is a nutjob, but I’m not going to call the cops on them or confront them. They have a right - and should have that right - to wear the shirt, plain and simple, whether I agree or not.
The same goes if they are carrying a letter to the editor in an envelope in their pocket. That’s protected by the constitution, too, whether I know about it or not.
You are absolutely right. I assume you also carry flood, earthquake, and typhoon insurance on your house? Also, you carry a grounded lightening rod around?
Not true. The day might come where you FINALLY get to shoot at somebody posing a danger to you, but in your excited state, you miss and hit me instead.
The question, “Why do you need to carry a gun?” suggests that the continued legal permission for carrying a gun will then be weighed against the perceived validity of the need. . . (“The risks you identify are unlikely to occur and the dangers outweigh the risks, so you see that since you don’t actually need it.”)
The response “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right,” is, I suspect, a reminder that you don’t have the legal power to weigh and evaluate the reasons a person may choose to carry a firearm: the right is of Constitutional dimension. Your approval of the underlying reasons is absolutely irrelevant to the issue.
In another context, of course, the question might be different (“I’m curious to understand the factors that go in to deciding to carry…”) suggests an implicit understanding that the right itself rests comfortably beyond your review and your interest lies only in the actual factors animating the decision.
I believe it is not the carrying as much as it is the REASON for carrying - “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right” which is a pretty crappy reason for doing anything.
If someone was burning an flag for no reason other than “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right” you would probably consider them a dumbass or something. Or if someone was loudly proclaiming “I think Orwell is a stupid douchebag” in a public area and the reason they were doing so was “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right” you would probably similarly think they were assholes. But if someone carries a gun “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right” everyone is just supposed to accept it without thinking negatively of the person?
You can think negatively of them all you want, but stopping or infringing on the right is something else entirely. Lots of people think anyone burning a flag is a dumbass, unpatriotic and offensive, no matter what the reason is. That has nothing to do with their 1st amendment right to do so. Yes, they may get hassled by both bystanders and police, and will have to deal with it. Although once it’s been established as a right, other people should mind their own business. I suppose the same goes for open carry. As several of us have explained, the unwelcome attention and meddling are part of the reason I do not open carry, although I support the right to do so.
It’s very obvious to me that people like to pick and choose which constitutional rights they support and which ones they want to quash. Many liberals want to support the 1st, 4th and 5th, but not the 2nd or much of the 10th. Many conservatives want to support the 2nd and the 5th, but not parts of the 1st (flag burning, for example) or 4th (you know, those “technicalities” that criminals use to get away with crimes). I fully support all of the constitutional protections, and am almost always in favor of individual rights over government power.
I have no intention of stopping or infringing on their rights. Doesn’t mean it is wrong for me to consider them dumbasses for thinking they need to carry a gun around to be safe.
Same as I consider someone burning a flag for no reason a dumbass.
Same as I consider someone yelling “Orwell is a douchebag” for no reason a dumbass.
But to people who DO carry guns, they take offense to being called a dumbass when they can articulate no reason why they carry a gun other than “Because it is my right to do so”
Y’know, “I have my reasons but would rather not argue them with you now” could be fine with me. I already know it’s his right so reiterating that provides me no new information.
It seems strange to me that you don’t understand it’s for protecting themself and their family in case they need it. And that they shouldn’t need to explain or articulate anything to you about it.
It’s hard to argue that it’s about being curious, not about disagreeing and browbeating and ridiculing.
You’ve got your analogies completely backwards. And nowhere in my comments did I oppose precaution, nor embrace wishful thinking. My only dog in the gunnism debate is rational thought … and my dog appears to be losing the race.
As with CC, OC can be denied by most establishments by posting the required signs. And those signs are almost everywhere now. The net result of their little tantrum? Bupkis.