In reply to a poster who blames all of society’s ills on movies and video games, I did say that I do believe that there are some who strap on their irons everyday, hoping that something that will happen where they can be the good guy with the gun.
All? Not at all. Most? Hopefully not, and I don’t think so. But, some, absolutely.
And in that catagory you still have a split. You have the ones who want to be heroes. They want to be lauded for their actions in stopping the bad guy. I think that that is the majority of those who look forward to using their guns, and is at least in the back of the minds of many others who do as well.
I understand this. It is why I actually do carry first aid equipment and try to keep my certifications up to date. I do look forward to being in the news for having saved the lives of some kids in a bus accident or something. I like to think that I do it purely out of altruism, but in reality, there is certainly something to being hailed a hero.
Then you have the people that would like to kill someone, but don’t want to go to jail, so they look for the opportunity to engage in DGU. These, I believe are a small minority, however, they tend to seem more common because their questionable decisions make the news.
If they can both be cited as factors, then why not just do both at the same time? I’m not saying they necessarily are equal but I’ll entertain the argument at least. But i we were to assume that these two factors are both somehow responsible for an increase in violence, then we could explore ways to mitigate these factors while simultaneously trying to avoid infringing on the liberties of others.
Florida has the same rules. No open carry. They recognize that a major part of the crime deterrent created by allowing citizens to carry concealed is that criminals do not know who is armed and who is not. They also recognize that tourism is huge in Florida, and seeing people going about their daily business with guns holstered at the hip might make tourists uncomfortable and/or negatively affect that industry. Plus, it would likely alarm other residents of the state, especially the large retirement community. Out of sight, out of mind.
I do apologize, though. I would have given you this answer had I realized it wasn’t commonly understood. Most states do not allow open carry. I thought you were specifically referring to the states that actually allow it.
I won’t pretend to know the reasoning behind the law, but I will say it’s just common sense not to advertise the fact you are carrying a weapon. I wouldn’t advertise it if I were carrying a large amount of cash for the same reason - you make yourself a target.
I’ve noticed that a great many gun-related topics are not “commonly understood” on the SDMB. There’s probably no level of knowledge that should be assumed.
Yes, I was, thanks. The reasoning against open carry, as you describe it well, does seem to be result-driven, and for that matter by results contrary to safety, the putative reason for carrying at all. The one about the Bad Guys not knowing who’s carrying doesn’t make sense - they’re *going *to be deterred if they see a gun, but may not be if they don’t. The claim that people other than gun-carriers are going to think gun carriers are *themselves *a danger perhaps needs to be pondered a little more - why would they think so? Are they possibly at all correct that the Bad Guy just might be you? Especially if your primary concern is “making snowflakes cry”, for instance.
As for wanting to make a fashion statement, always having to wear a baggy jacket to cover an oddly-placed bulge seems pretty wardrobe-limiting, not to mention that it gets in the way of a quick draw. But you do you.
Do you want to deter the Bad Guy from even starting, or don’t you? Calling it common sense is not an explanation at all.
But I gave an explanation. I said it makes you a target. If you’re walking down the street with a gun on your hip, regular people will have a range of emotions about it, from positive to negative. A criminal will be thinking “Hey, free gun”.
Are you also opposed to cities and states being prevented from banning abortion or gay marriage? In other words, is your desire for federalism consistent even when those cities and states make choices you don’t like? Would you support Utah allowing the manufacture and sale of new machine guns to its citizens?
I’m not sure I follow. There were zero casualties. I don’t know how we’d get fewer than that.
Those statistics didn’t work out in the Petit family’s favor. They thought they were just dealing with a robber (and at first they were - until one of them decided to strangle the mom and the other one decided to rape one of the daughters).
I’m not intimately familiar with the details (I heard there’s a diversity training requirement :rolleyes:), but I’m generally supportive of movement in that direction, so I consider it an improvement over the status quo ante.
Perhaps you just misunderstood. I gave that (“it makes the snowflakes cry”) as one of the reasons I do NOT open carry. In other words, if I wanted to make snowflakes cry, I would open carry. I do not, and therefore (at least part of the reason) I do not open carry.
But if a criminal did think that, wouldn’t you be in a better position to shoot him if he inexplicably tries to rob somebody that he KNOWS has a gun if you were open carrying?
What criminal is going to think that? Criminals look for easy targets of opportunity. They don’t go around looking to engage in gunfights with armed people so they can acquire another sidearm.
This may be covered under “tacky” but people who carry a firearm around openly look like assholes. Like they are either so paranoid that they need to project force constantly or they simply want to project force for its own sake.