So to put your sentiment in slightly different terms, you take umbrage at the question so the response of “because I can” is intended to similarly cause offense. It’s a passive aggressive answer. Which is not a intended to be a “perfectly valid” response.
I think we are in violent agreement.
When you’re referring to “the world where gun controllers live,” you’re taking about virtually all modern industrialized countries that have much lower rates of violent deaths, right?
No. I’m talking about the real world, where you don’t get to cherry pick your defining criteria and not get called on it, and where the United States is the bottom half of the entire world’s countries in homicide rate.
Also the world where my own state of Wyoming, with the highest gun ownership and least gun control in the country, has a lower homicide rate than five Canadian provinces, and lower than California, the gun controllers dream state.
Do you guys ever try any new lines, or just keep repeating the same old tired BS and hope somebody believes it? Check the polls: it’s not working. Should be obvious - your core premise is that a person will be safer if he makes himself defenseless.
Maybe you could try the no-fly list. Oh wait…
I’ll admit I laughed.
Really. I don’t understand why gun controllers keep bringing up US homicide rates vs. “other industrialized countries”, when they can just look within the US itself and get a finer focus.
California has a lot of gun control. Wyoming has much less, and a lower homicide rate. So within the US, gun control = more crime, right? Not so fast. There must be other factors at work.
Right.
*Actually, I do understand it. They cherry-pick numbers than reinforce their emotionally-driven beliefs. See their use of “gun deaths” instead of “murder rates” for example.
Dishonest bunch, these gun controllers.
Brilliant! I am stunned by the eloquence and erudition of those who Love Guns So Very Very Big.,
Not.
Good.
We’ve had it in Ohio for forever. No problems.
Even though I have a CHL, I open carry 90% of the time.
How does violent crime correlate between dense urban populations and a place where some people have to drive a couple miles to see their neighbor?
That’s the point. There are other factors at work, just as there are between the US and other countries.
Comparing Wyoming to California on homicide rate makes about as much sense as comparing my Uncle Bill, who smoked and lived to 89, to my Aunt Rita, who didn’t and died young of cancer. Or comparing the US homicide rate to “other industrialized nations” while ignoring all the other countries, more than half of which have more gun control and a higher homicide rate. But all and all, US state-to-state comparisons make more than sense than US to I’ll-pick-who-I-like-because-it-supports-my-viewpoint comparisons. And such studies do not support the gun controllers’ arguments, as I linked above.
By the way, Wyoming has a lower homicide rate than five Canadian provinces/territories that have both stricter gun control AND a lower population density. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NW Territories, and Nunavut.
Also, my immediate neighbors on both sides of me are less than 30 yards away as I type. They’re both armed, as is almost everyone I know (not sure about the Colorado transplants across the street.) I have no urge to murder them whatsoever. And my town’s homicide rate is zero.
Are you in an urban area?
This is disturbing – if the police detained him without even a reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had violated any laws, that detention, even if brief, violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The 4th amendment is nearly dead anyways.
If a person believes that carrying guns openly should be considered and perceived as normal, then they would want to do it in order to help make it more common, and therefore more normal to public perception. If, despite having the right to do so, people never carry guns openly, then seeing someone with a gun is automatically alarming because it is such an unusual sight.
Furthermore, if carrying a gun is automatically alarming, then it could be argued that someone doing so is ‘disturbing the peace’, just as someone engaging in all sorts of other (non-gun-related) bizarre but legal behavior, that causes others around them to be apprehensive or disturbed, may be.
Thus, those who think carrying guns should be a normal everyday sight that does not cause alarm would want to carry them simply to make it and keep it a normal everyday sight, and prevent it being such a rare occurrence that it causes alarm when someone chooses to do so. Even if they have no other purpose, making it ‘more normal’ for people to see guns being carried is in itself a reasonable purpose if one is advocating for that position, since it theoretically helps prevent the right from being eroded by virtue of being so rarely used.
At one point, the same might have been said of the Second.
As the Attorney General of Ohio recently reminded all law enforcement officers and agencies in his state:
The police sought to invoke their qualified immunity, but the 6th Circuit pointed out that the police conduct violated clearly established law, and thus stripped police of that immunity.
The AG’s guidance ends by pointing out that police certainly retain the ability to initiate a consensual encounter with a person who is openly carrying, as long as that person remains free to disregard the police inquiries and go about his business.
Not sure if ‘detained’ is really the correct word. The police “approached” him and began to talk to him. At that time the guy stopped walking and started talking with the police. If the guy had just ignored the police and continued walking, I don’t know what, if anything, the police would have done.
Gotcha.
Well, if that’s the case, my guess might be wrong. The police are absolutely entitled to come up and start talking to a person for any reason or no reason at all – as long as he’s free to disregard their inquiry and walk away.
Police are well aware of this rule; not all citizens are. So police are very good, sometimes, at exploiting that: stopping someone by using an attitude that seems to demand compliance but later piously asserting that the encounter, at that point, was consensual and the citizen free to walk away.
So it behooves the citizen who encounters police to specifically ask if he’s free to go.
Will Texas have a standard for open carry? Will a person have to qualify a couple of times a year with a certain proficiency? How about testing competency in regard to the law, lethal use of force, etc…?
Yeah, I’m joking. "He just needed killin’ " is a valid defense down there.
Cite?