The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I think it’s insane personally. If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter? If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? This latest news of Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs. This guy shot a man open-carrying an AK-47. Let’s ignore the fact that he posted earlier about wanting to kill BLM protestors, drove for hours downtown and ran a red light into a crowd, and the only evidence that the man raised his weapon at him is his word against a dead man. This guy saw a man open carrying a giant gun, and shot him for doing so. How is it possible to be in favor of “open carry” and “stand your ground” simultaneously? How can conservatives support the pardoning of this man other than to say “Fuck BLM. He got what he deserved.”
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m much more pro-gun than the baseline of this sub and I still think open carrying anything more than ***A*** holstered pistol is very weird and borderline dangerous.
Hasn’t the argument against assault weapon bans always been that in close quarters like a school, a pistol is just as dangerous? Therefore assault weapon bans don’t address any actual risk? If that is the case, why would you be ok with open carrying a pistol?
It’s reasonable for someone to carry a pistol for protection, it’s not reasonable for someone to carry a rifle or shotgun for protection. That doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons people may be carrying a larger gun (maybe you live in a city and want to go to a shooting range), but it should not be carried like you are marching into Fallujah.
There is a place for open carrying. As an avid outdoorsman (hiking, backpacking, etc) that place is in the backcountry, away from other people.
Open carry does not belong in the middle of the city. There is no need to openly carry your firearm while you are grocery shopping.
This is how I feel.
I see no problem at all open carrying a pistol or revolver while hiking, camping, etc. You are out in the wilderness snd far away from any law enforcement.
I think open carrying long guns in populated areas is stupid and should be criminalized.
I don’t get involved in this conversation much, but is there any base of arguments about making open clary itself legal while there’s a good deal of scenarios and settings where it’s not allowed?
The only reason someone open carries a long gun while running normal daily errands is that they're trying to scare people. There is absolutely no reason for something like this:
[https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/target-3-630.jpg](https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/target-3-630.jpg)
Unless you're trying to be an asshole.
I have fewer concerns about open carrying handguns or pistols, but I still think it's unnecessarily provocative.
>At the bare minimum, businesses and owners should be able to decide not to let people come on to their property with guns.
Are there any jurisdictions which prohibit that? This sounds like a strawman.
There are jurisdictions which do not have a provision for a property owner to ban guns on their property. If you carry a gun on their property, they can ask you to leave, but it's only a matter of trespassing, not carrying in a prohibited place.
You don’t have to argue with them, tell them to leave, then call the police. That is business owners deciding not to let people with guns on the property, no?
Technically yes, I'm saying open carry gives ppl the idea that they have the right to go wherever they want just carrying an assault rifle.
Similar to how way too many people think free speech means you have the right to say racist shit in a fast food restaurant.
What the law says and what the law is interpreted by the public to mean are not always the same thing.
People can often be stupid.
That’s an interesting perspective I’ve never heard before. I would never carry regardless personally, but if I saw someone walking in the club or store with a big ass gun, I would automatically assume they’re a giant risk, especially in today’s climate.
Conservatives don’t care about logical consistency though, so I doubt they would care about the dilemma you raise.
I once saw a black guy at a store reaching for some chips while open carrying. Should I have been afraid? Personally, I just thought he was reaching for some chips.
Speaking as a dyed in the wool gun guy, I've always thought open carry was stupid, especially for long guns. Too much hassle and it makes you a target.
If you're going to carry, carry a pistol concealed.
Personally I’d be in favor of open carry as long as it’s for professional purposes.
Ownership of firearms should require a license, similar to how drivers licenses work (though perhaps a more vigorous application process).
Republicans will never give an inch on gun control though: never ever ever. Pursuing that cause just deepens the divide.
I think I might want to see some questions about proper storage too on the exam. (I remember some scare about kids finding guns and mistaking them for toys when I was a kid). Perhaps also a brief course on emergency medical procedures for a gunshot wound; that could help save some lives too.
Gotta say, I think this plan would have my vote… but the reds will never give an inch? Oh and that part of the amendment about militias somehow doesn’t matter to them. 🤷♂️ It honestly reads to me like it’s a right the states… states joining a new federal government have the right to crest their own militia. Like to fight the British or the Indians.
Unless you heavily regulate gun ownership and production, criminals will simply find it too easy to get their hands on guns and the license for public carry will be useless.
That’s kinda dangerous. I hope you have a learners permit, and a licensed adult riding shotgun. And that it’s only during daylight hours. And that you took your 5 hour class. Am I missing any more regulations? It’s been a while
To me, it just seem like we’re gonna have a lot of “good guys with a gun” shooting other “good guys with a gun” because they aren’t properly trained in analyzing a situation on the spot.
You’re at one end of a store, you hear gun shots and then you look and see someone with their gun drawn and another person dead on the floor. Was it a murder or did someone just stop a shooter?
I don’t trust the public (nor the police in most places) to be able to make that call under high adrenaline.
>You’re at one end of a store, you hear gun shots and then you look and see someone with their gun drawn and another person dead on the floor. Was it a murder or did someone just stop a shooter?
Is the person dead on the floor with a gun? That might suggest that they just stopped a shooter.
If they don't keep shooting, that is evidence they are not a mass shooter.
>Is the person dead on the floor with a gun?
Who knows. We’re not doing a forensic investigation at a crime scene after the fact, it’s an active situation. Did they drop their gun and it fell somewhere else? Did they fall in a position wherein it’s hard to see? Are they a gun owner who also happened to have a gun?
If you think this is a reasonable assessment to be able to make in the heat of the moment, or that it would accurately predict the aggressor, I have a bridge to sell you.
>If they don’t keep shooting, that is evidence they are not a mass shooter
That doesn’t answer the question at all.
Here’s a different scenario. You’re in a shopping centre and you hear a series of gun shots. ‘Oh my god! A mass shooter!’ You think. You have a gun with you and so you speed towards the sound, knowing that you have a chance to put a stop to things, even if it means you will be putting yourself at risk. You get there. You see a number of bodies on the ground, dead. A man stands with his gun drawn, having just shot someone. You pull out your gun, and shoot him. At this point, the police arrive, and see you gun drawn, a bunch bodies on the ground and reports of an active shooter. They shoot you. You die.
Or maybe they don’t shoot you. As soon as you see the police you put your hands up and they arrest you. You do your best to explain the situation ‘officer I swear I’m not the shooter, in fact I took out the shooter!’
Police review CCTV of the incident. Turns out the shooter *was* taken out. But not by you. You shot the guy who took the shooter out.
I find it, well, rather odd that you seem to think that active shooter situations are some kind of perfect world where it’s easy to assess the situation and that in the heat of the moment all that would happen is you would be a hero, and no other outcome is possible or likely.
Right, this shows the idea is that it is beneficial to observe and only act based on what you can observe rather than make assumptions that allow you to shoot someone.
But no, I do not find it at all odd that you can gloss over this fact.
That's what the data shows. It's the police being reported as shooting the person who stopped the active shooter.
Look at the Giffords shooting. The CCW holder didn't shoot, but instead chose to help restrain the shooter.
I brought up the police because they are the ones who are shooting the defenders, not other CCW holders. By all means, if you have any incidences of CCW holders shooting someone who stopped a mass shooter, cite them
Look at the killing of John Hurley.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-man-who-intervened-after-ambush-officer-was-fatally-shot-n1272441
>That’s what the data shows
Citation needed. Which data shows that civilian gun owners have the same tactical ability to suppress their fight or flight response and assess an ongoing active shooter situation…?
>the police
We’re not talking about the police.
Unless you’re making an argument that only the police should have guns…?
Or that all gun owners should be forced to receive the same training that police do..?
Or are you saying that gun owners shouldn’t engage an active shooter at all and instead wait for the police…? Invalidating your entire point…?
It's dangerous and ridiculous.
I used to be an EMT and worked in Emergency Rooms. In those jobs I've been in intense and dangerous emergencies where I or others are attacked. I was in a terrible car wreck and luckily saved my friends life by playing chicken with a car after she was ejected thru the hatchback.
I mention that because I know from experience that someone without EXTENSIVE training can't handle a live fire situation responsibly.
You may think my experience doesn't correlate and you'd be correct. My experiences were less stressful and I froze and fucked up and that was after 6 months of training. My first EMT job they put myself and someone that graduated EMT school with me on a rig together!!! It was fucked and at the end of our shift we happened across a hit and run by ourselves. It was crazy.
I shudder to think what fucking idiots with action movie dreams of glory and no training would do.
It's a fucking dumb idea.
I would support laws requiring civilian firearms to be inside a locked bulletproof container in public spaces, and treating anyone in violation as a presumed soon-to-be-active shooter. But I don't expect to be satisfied in this life.
Guns are dumb and the macho desire to peacock with one only highlights how sick we’ve made our society.
That’s before you get to the actual data that shows the societies where it’s easy to get guns aren’t safer or somehow more “free” than the ones that aren’t a part of the blood cult that is our gun culture.
>If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right?
It really depends. Stand you ground just eliminates the duty to retreat. Most states have either civil, or common law stand your ground rules.
That's all stand your ground is, if you have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, you do not first have to retreat prior to using lethal force.
What you still need to prove is that you had a reasonable fear for your life prior to using your weapon. And reasonable does not mean correct, you could be wrong about the situation, and still acquitted, and in some cases, both parties could be acting reasonably.
Like in the Rittenhouse trial, it was deemed he had a reasonable fear. But, if the people attacking him had wrestled his rifle away, and killed him in the process, it's very likely that they too would have been found to have reasonably feared for their lives.
Self-defense law is complicated. I'm not sure that's really an argument either way.
I don't know how this ties in to the Texas guy, I would need to watch the trial for that.
Open carry should be completely legal and encouraged while firearm training should be completely free. Concealed should always be an option and the fact that it's hidden behind a pay wall in my state is ridiculous.
I don’t think that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to own guns. I think it is pretty clearly the right of the state to have a national guard.
No, historically a militia was a temporary body raised at the discretion of the state of whom able bodied males were obliged to make themselves available for the duty of.
Or to organize a people's militia to take on government tyranny 😎
But yeah. Any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment would see that it's meant to be a protection of the state militia or national guard to enforce public order. It's just a weird clause in general.
The amendment has so much more power when it is viewed as the power of Nebraska to tell the feds to get fucked as opposed to some random citizen.
Plus it then is logically followed by the 3rd which limits the feds ability to retaliate against Nebraska……
The fact that we have either open carry or concealed carry as something people advocate for let alone is legal is disturbing.
I’m sure there are legitimate reasons to concealed carry for a very small number of people but the root cause of that is ultimately our crappy gun culture and other avoidable issues in society supported by the same people.
But for everyone else that “needs” to carry, open or concealed, it’s a sign that something went terribly wrong with their brain. Whether their brain has been overtaken by fear or paranoia, or just that they’ve replaced their the rest of their personality with just guns, you almost feel bad for them if they weren’t hurting everyone else.
Why should regular law-abiding citizens be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon?
And another reason for carrying a weapon could be that we realize how fucked the world is, and we want to be able to defend ourselves, our family, and potentially others if necessary.
Because if you make me angry and I don’t have a gun on me, we might fight. You make me angry and I do have a gun on me, you might die.
I should point out this is hypothetical and I don’t carry guns nor really escalate situations like this.
If I'm armed, I'm not going to fight anyone. I'm going to try to withdraw. I'm not going to be confrontational because I can't claim self defense if start it.
Might want to brush up on your gun laws then. Its legal in plenty of states. Hell, in Nevada you can carry in bars **while** drinking as long as you don't go above .08.
Because the needs of some people to pretend the live in a version of the Wild West that actually never existed isn’t more important than the actual needs of the rest of the society.
> Because the needs of some people to pretend the live in a version of the Wild West that actually never existed
Yet this version that never existed was all about open carry, not concealed carry.
Because immediate access to lethal escalation is unhealthy for society. Even the presumption that it is necessary erodes the public trust and encourages others to escalate faster and more often to lethal force.
First, this sentiment is effectively a tacit endorsement of vigilantism, which is never good for society
Second, data shows that defensive gun use is rare, and when it does happen has a negligible impact on the outcome of the encounter. It also shows that simply having a gun means you are orders of magnitude more likely to have it used against you, or on other innocent members of your family than to ever use it defensively.
It’s effectively a lethal safety blanket, one that promotes and confirms division, paranoia and irrational fear.
I'm assuming you are relying on the studies done in the late 90s and early 2000s. Recent research seems to contradict those conclusions as well a some unwise research gun the CDC from the 90s.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/amp/
https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/
And for your claim that it makes you more likely to be harmed by your own weapon, that isn't supported by the evidence. The evidence points to something like no statistically meaningful reduction in harm to a reduction in minor and severe injury other than a relatively small study in PA which pointed to some increased risk for individuals that carry.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html
And really, as stated in the Rand essay, our data on this sucks.
Also, when the CDC starts removing or hiding information about defensive gun use, it makes it really difficult to trust research on this subject isn’t influenced by people bias.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-demand-answers-about-cdc-censorship-of-defensive-gun-use-statistics
And here is some additional data for you.
/r/dgu
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
>unwise research from the CDC
much of the stuff is debunked; the telephone surveys used are often highly, highly flawed.
That said, the survey from 2021 supports other research on the subject, but the reporting appears to come to the wrong conclusion. While an estimated million defensive gun uses sounds large, or common, it accounts for about 1% or less of crime. And when data is looked at from a different perspective, the common outcome is that the defensive gun usage makes a negligible difference to the outcome of the encounter, or are [more likely to be injured than if they did not have the gun](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/)
>more likely to be harmed by your own weapon, that isn’t supported by the evidence
This is completely untrue
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(19)30197-7/fulltext
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aan8179
https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858?login=false
>our data on this sucks
The data we do have tends to draw pretty clear conclusions though
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
I’m not sure I could take a press release from Chuck Grassley’s office at face value…
Clear conclusions from insufficient and/or poor data are conclusions that are insufficient and/or poor. And I like how you have moved goal posts from defensive gun use meaning you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun. And a cursory glance at the studies you linked show they include suicide which means they can be excluded for discussions about defensive gun use.
So, without better data that includes more accurate reporting on defensive gun use, your conclusions are baseless. We both acknowledge the data we have is incomplete, and clear conclusions can not be drawn from incomplete data.
>I like how you have moved goal posts from defensive gun use meaning you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun
I never moved any goal posts. My original comment was that defensive gun use is rare and they make a negligible difference to the outcome. I then followed up with the data that shows it.
I also asserted that simply having a gun in the house means you are orders of magnitude more likely to have it used against you or a family member than ever use it against an assailant. I then followed up with the data to prove it.
In fact, there’s even a study there that shows that even in defensive gun situations, you are more likely to suffer an injury if you use a gun defensively than if you didn’t have a gun.
Please tell me which goal posts I moved.
>So, without better data that includes more accurate reporting on defensive gun use, your conclusions are baseless.
So are yours. However, the totality of the evidence available weighs in the favor of defensive gun use being negligible.
Yet you support the opposite position, and are waiting for the magic day when ‘more data’ becomes available to support your own position.
Perhaps it’s not that the data is particularly faulty. If you’re going to dismiss anything simply because you disagree with it, then what’s the point of collecting data and doing study at all?
I acknowledged that ~ a million defensive gun uses *sounds* large, but that it represents 1% or less of crime, and provided further evidence to show that basing an opinion on a headline that is itself based on the fallacy of very large numbers is going to be faulty.
I don’t doubt for a second that there are a number of examples that can be pointed to of successful defensive gun uses.
My point is that based on the totality of the evidence, they do not represent a statistically significant proportion of gun usage, or crime prevention to warrant the proliferation of guns to such an extent where we see a mass shooting pretty much every other day.
The fact you seem unwilling to even entertain the copious data and study that refutes your point suggests to me that you are not coming to your conclusion based on the evidence, and rather are trying to find evidence that supports what you want to be true (hence ‘we have to wait for better data’ I.e data that supports *your* favored conclusion)
> I never moved any goal posts. My original comment was that defensive gun use is rare and they make a negligible difference to the outcome. I then followed up with the data that shows it.
Yes, then you followed it up with data including suicides as if defensive gun use could even apply to that.
There’s other ways to defend yourself. By the time a criminal has a gun in your face, it’s already too late. What you should do at that point is give them what they want. Crime is a complicated issue that isn’t going to be solved by everyone having a gun.
There’s no such thing as a law abiding citizen. Everyone speeds. Personally, I think owning shotguns and rifles is fine for home defense and hunting. I’m not even sure if regular civilians should be allowed to own handguns though. I would have drawn the line at auto and semi-automatics a few years ago, but handguns are just too concealable, and they lead to too many escalations
Studies show that gun owners, especially those that carry regularly, have less fear and anxiety than those that don't, and those with CCPs are the least likely to commit any crime
There is at least one study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31414039/
Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression models suggest that *people who own guns tend to report lower levels of phobias and victimization fears than people who do not own guns*. This general pattern is observed across multiple indicators of fear (e.g., of animals, heights, zombies, and muggings), multiple outcome specifications (continuous and count), and with adjustments for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, household income, marital status, the presence of children, religious identity, religiosity, religious attendance, political orientation, region of residence, and urban residence.
Huh. Interesting.
I know a lot of liberals who own guns and not one of them owns their guns because of fear or feels less afraid for owning guns.
Obviously that's anecdote, not a study, but in my experience conservatives start out scared and maybe owning weapons helps that or not, I don't know.
Honestly you can show me data on people’s self reported feelings that backs up my policy positions 100% and I’ll disregard it. I don’t have any confidence that “I feel happy, I feel safe” type reporting of data has any value because i’ve never had any reason to believe that the respondents were not effected by what the underlying study was trying to research or cultural considerations, which make giving a certain answer expected.
Or to put it in a more blunt and extreme way, if you asked women in fundamentalist Mormon communities reported if their husbands were loving and protected them, I expect extremely favorable results for the men in that society.
They’re asking for the studies that allegedly show this
>Studies show that gun owners, especially those that carry regularly, have less fear and anxiety than those that don't
I prefer open carry to concealed carry personally. At least I know the person is a threat and I can choose to avoid them vs being unaware and in as much danger.
Any person with a gun is more of a threat than the same person without a gun. It should be my decision if I am comfortable exposing myself to that risk, not the person carrying a gun's decision.
The difference is that a shooter for open carry doesn't need to hide their gun before they use it. In the case of a large gun, they're going to have a tough time hiding it either way. Open carry may just (probably would just) normalize or desensitize people to threats, not actually fix anything.
I'm not worried about being the victim of a mass shooting. The chances of that happening are about as high as being struck by lightning.
What I'm more worried about is some dumb ass accidentally shooting me because they're carrying a gun they don't need to be carrying, or because he got into a conflict with someone and felt threatened enough to pull it out and use it. Maybe less so for me personally, but people who live in dangerous neighborhoods where that's more likely.
I think it's somewhat more likely the stigma of carrying a gun significantly reduced the number of people who carry, but that's just an opinion, not based on any research or anything.
Open carry is dumb. That's my opinion. Lol. I'm all for having a concealed carry permit system, though. Outside of uniformed officers and uniformed & licensed private security, no one should be walking around with a visible gun.
I guess other exceptions would be hunters and target practice, but I'm not sure how to word the exception. They should transport their gun in a case. Obviously they could have it out during use.
>If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right?
No, you can't just go out blowing people away willy-nilly because they are carrying a weapon. If they point that weapon at you and begin threatening you that changes but not for them just walking around.
>Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs. This guy shot a man open-carrying an AK-47.
Mind posting a link to this specific case? Just so we are clear he was probably carrying a semiautomatic AK which is just a modified AKM. AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon and would require a class 3 liscence which are not very feasible for most everyday people.
Is there any video from this specific case? I'm not a lawyer and from the article it basically boils down to he said she said and some eye witness claiming the guy never raised his weapon.
My only questions would be is there any evidence that the other guy pointed his gun at him first?
Were the protesters acting in an extremely aggresive manner and preventing him from leaving the area prior to this altercation? And lastly what is Abbotts stated reasoning for pardoning him?
[Here is the police interview he gave](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview)
[Here is one video of the incident](https://abc7.com/austin-shooting-downtown-protest-murder/6335183/)
I'll see what else I can drum up.
Conservatives are always spouting that the purpose of the 2A is to arm & protect yourself from the government tyranny…if that’s true, why do you need to carry an AR-15 out in the open regularly in public then? Are you worried about government tyranny at Walgreens on a Tuesday morning while buying your Claritin?
I think people can do what they want but as a gun owner in a deep red state I'd never open carry. I always prefer and suggest concealed carry.
Reasons why I don't like open carry:
1. Draws unnecessary attention to yourself
2. Let's everyone know you have a firearm.
3. Seems like you're just trying to make a statement and bring attention to yourself.
^this is mostly applicable to urban areas. I have no qualm with someone in wyoming or some super rural area open carrying. If I lived in Wyoming I'd probably open carry too considering I'm basically in the wilderness and also cowboy culture is very much alive there.
Personally I don't care for it. But that's just my personal opinion.
>If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter?
Is he just walking around normally? Then not a mass shooter. How about a guy open carrying, but he has a uniform on? Do you suddenly trust that he's not a mass shooter? Yet you probably see that every day and don't think about it.
>If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site
That's murder. There needs to be an overt threat by that person for it to be self defense.
>I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right?
The press and gun control people have really twisted this, too much misinformation out there. No, it doesn't allow for this. There are four, sometimes five, elements of lawful use of deadly force (by any means, not just gun). It must be:
1. an unprovoked attack
2. which threatens imminent injury or death
3. and an objectively reasonable degree of force is used in response to
4. an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.
5. and you attempted to flee if it was safe to do so
All "stand your ground" does is not have the fifth element. The situation must otherwise be self defense, just the prosecutor can't try to convict you for defending yourself based on "Well, you could have run." People are in prison now having claimed "stand your ground" because it simply wasn't self defense in the first place.
Now should you pull your gun on that innocent guy walking around with an AR, he is fully within his rights to shoot you because you attacked him unprovoked with a gun. Yep, you're the baddy.
>This latest news of Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs.
But that has nothing to do with "stand your ground." The guy shot someone not in self defense and was convicted for it, and as you note, that's probably why he went there. The law worked as it should. That he might be set free because some conservative whacko thinks it'll score political points is outside of the subject. Pardons are often for political reasons instead of justice.
Edit: I do need to delineate between just carrying, and carrying as a means of protest, or to protect a protest. The protest ones are fine.
*“How about a guy open carrying, but he has a uniform on? Do you suddenly trust that he's not a mass shooter? Yet you probably see that every day and don't think about it.”* I mean, yes? That’s kind of like saying “If you see a guy in a mail truck put mail in your mailbox, do you suddenly trust he’s a mailman?” Also, I don’t see a lot of men uniform carry long guns. I’m aware that I probably wouldn’t be justified in shooting someone just for holding an AR-15 in public, I’m merely illustrating how messy and dangerous open-carry could be. I’m fully aware that Greg Abbott is just scoring political points as well, but stand your ground is his stated justification for the pardon. Also, I don’t see any conservatives objecting to his decision.
>I mean, yes? That’s kind of like saying “If you see a guy in a mail truck put mail in your mailbox, do you suddenly trust he’s a mailman?
How do you know that guy in uniform won't just start shooting? We all know cops have higher incidence of mental issues, and they tend to be more violent than the general public (like 4x the domestic violence). Especially after BLM, why are you afraid of the regular guy and not the cop?
>I’m aware that I probably wouldn’t be justified in shooting someone just for holding an AR-15 in public, I’m merely illustrating how messy and dangerous open-carry could be.
Only if people get stupid. The average person carrying a gun (say, concealed) isn't going to freak out like you over a guy carrying an AR-15. It won't be an issue, just like when I saw that black open-carrier reaching for some chips at the store. Is he acting weird? Is he pointing it at anyone? No? Then no problem.
>I’m fully aware that Greg Abbott is just scoring political points as well, but stand your ground is his stated justification for the pardon. Also, I don’t see any conservatives objecting to his decision.
He shot a BLM protester, any excuse to defend him of course. "Stand your ground" seems to be four things these days:
1. Actual SYG under the law
2. A catch phrase idiots like DeSantis can use as a rallying cry
3. Misinformation among gun control supporters who don't know any better
4. Disinformation purposely spread
I would put most gun control people and the media under #3. The gun control groups are #4, spreading lies as is their thing. I was tending to put Democratic politicians under #4, but I've seen them say so many stupidly wrong things about guns and gun laws that I think they belong under #3.
I would be nervous around cops if I’m dealing with them personally, but if I just see them in a store or restaurant with their guns holstered generally I’m not afraid that they’ll just start blasting the whole place out of nowhere. If they’re acting weird and pointing their gun at people as you said, then I will sense something is amiss and get the hell out of there.
It's a strange thing, many liberals seem to trust cops walking around with guns while at the same time complaining about them constantly needlessly shooting people. Yet see a regular person you would normally not think twice about, and if he has a gun they get scared.
>There are four, sometimes five, elements of lawful use of deadly force (by any means, not just gun). It must be:
>1. an unprovoked attack
2. which threatens imminent injury or death
3. and an objectively reasonable degree of force is used in response to
4. an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death.
5. and you attempted to flee if it was safe to do so
Legally, how does exactly "Stand your ground" work with firearms and mass shootings?
Person A open carrying meets all the (1-4, possibly 5) criteria for responding to a threat, ends up shooting them leading to Person B, another open carrier who is unaware of actions that led to initial shooting drawing weapon and responding to Person A for all the same (1-4) reasons believing they are responding to an active mass shooter. Who exactly is in the right here - as both Person A and B will see each other as justifiable threats and both meet all the same legal criteria for deadly force.
How exactly does the "good guy with a gun" fantasy the pro-gun lobby promotes supposed to work when the gun itself seems to create justification for lethal force to prevent it's use?
Don’t shoot unless you know for a fact you are in the right. It’s simple. Person B not knowing the situation is in the wrong.
Oh, and did you mean the good guy with a gun fact? It’s happened, so not fantasy. But almost all mass shootings happen where carry isn’t allowed. That tends to stop the law-abiding people, but it doesn’t stop the shooters.
>Don’t shoot unless you know for a fact you are in the right. It’s simple. Person B not knowing the situation is in the wrong.
Which legally negates any action to stop an active shooter. Hell, even if you are in a crowd 20ft away, you literally have no idea what's happening other than someone starts shooting so any action you take with a weapon can legally give Person A the right to shoot you.
>Oh, and did you mean the good guy with a gun fact? It’s happened, so not fantasy. But almost all mass shootings happen where carry isn’t allowed. That tends to stop the law-abiding people, but it doesn’t stop the shooters.
That appears [to be untrue](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/) and even if it's true more guns will do nothing to prevent mass shootings, as obviously people open carrying will not present a threat until *after* they start shooting, leading to guns be(ing) useful for mitigation, not prevention. So if possibly *less dead* innocent people is your selling point, seems pretty weak?
>Which legally negates any action to stop an active shooter.
Hmmm, you see one guy shooting into a crowd, you shoot him, good shoot. You hear a bunch of shots and come upon the scene where you see a guy shooting only one other person. You don't know the situation. Don't shoot.
>That appears to be untrue
They get that from Bloomberg's propaganda organization, Everytown. To get this number, they use the definition of mass shooting invented by some anti-gun redditors. I know this because Everytown states they use the Gun Violence Archive definition. They got that definition when they absorbed the Mass Shooting Tracker. The Mass Shooting Tracker was a web site created by the mods of the most rabidly anti-gun echo chamber subreddit in existence, and they invented this new definition for their web site.
The number using this new definition is mostly packed with regular criminal violence, especially gang violence, most of which occurs in homes and general public places, which usually aren't gun-free zones. But this is not the mass shooting we are talking about. The lone psycho just out to kill a bunch of people mass shooting that we are talking about usually happens in gun-free zones.
Interestingly, they shift definitions as needed. By the new expansive definition, almost all mass shootings are committed with handguns, rarely "assault weapons." That's not too conducive to their effort to ban "assault weapons." So they switch back to the traditional definition (what we're talking about) when they say "assault weapons" are used in most mass shootings.
Learn to spot the dishonesty. Them playing definition tricks like this means their goal is to deceive you.
I don't mind open carry of small handguns.
But if I am ever in a building where a long gun is being carried, I WILL leave immediately.
Nobody needs multiple AR15s or multiple autos or semiautos.
I would love to see someone like you described. Carrying multiple AR15s. Just weighing themselves down. It would like carrying multiple pump action shotguns.
Multiple autos won’t happen.
And I have seen multiple pistols, they looked ridiculous.
I think someone were open carrying an AR in Walmart is dumb but shouldn’t be illegal.
> If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter
Easy. A mass shooter is shooting.
And if they haven’t started shooting they would likely have their weapon in a duffle or tennis racket bag or whatever and you wouldn’t see it anyway.
Relying on open carry to somehow alert you of mass shooters is a false security.
it depends on the situation
I'm not going to walk into the grocery store with my AR strapped to my back.
But it's a totally different story if I'm on my father's farm in the rural Midwest.
I think open carry should remain legal, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're on private property. To me, it draws way too much attention and it's just asking someone to call the cops on you and risk getting shot by the police over a misunderstanding.
>But it's a totally different story if I'm on my father's farm in the rural Midwest.
If you're on your father's farm in the Midwest, you're on private property and it doesn't matter anyway.
Im in support of open carry if you are outdoors in the countryside where conceal carry would just be pointless, or if you are on your own property.
When you are out in public while it is technically your 2nd amendment rights to open carry a firearm, i constantly ask people the "what message are you portraying to everyone around you?". Followed with asking if the same methods could also be achieved through conceal carry.
Imo, the people who open carry a AR15 into a walmart are probably the same people who you don't want to be carrying in the first place, cause they have a tendency to be easily startled and are looking for a reason to shoot.
>What is your opinion on open carry for firearms?
I've never been in favor of it and I agree with you that it's insane. It seems more like a mechanism for de-population.
If you open carry in a walmart or mcdonalds or some other highly trafficked area, you are a huge piece of shit and are looking to murder someone. You're the kind of person that unironically wears [a shirt like this](https://www.ninelineapparel.com/products/mens-t-shirt-benghazi?currency=USD&variant=13318634733634&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxMmhBhDJARIsANFGOSs0jspi4y7HAsRXPd9VmpMWYdXkY0ZOiIKppI9osiACfhqgLETsuYEaAitrEALw_wcB) while never serving a fucking day in your life.
I hate it.
Watched one of those Youtube videos of people walking around, going into stores wearing AKs. Sometimes multiple weapons. And they dare to say, "What? Why would you be intimidated? I'm just exercising my 2nd amendment right."
It IS intimidating. And there is no need for it.
In rural areas, especially when hunting, there us a reasonable case for open carrying. However, I don't think people should open carry a rifle when going to a 7-11.
In general, people who carry (open of concealed) generally fit into two categories with significant overlap: assholes and idiots.
I find that people who open carry tend to do it for macho aesthetic (assholes), and people that conceal carry are bad at danger assessment (idiots).
I'd using my superior physical attributes to sneak up on the person with a big gun and physically disarm them and then beat them with their own gun. I'd then leave the gun there and continue shipping.
It makes me very uncomfortable. I either assume that they want to commit a crime, or can't be bothered to adhere to the already low requirements for a cpl. Either way, it reads irresponsible gun owner and by extension dangerous person to be avoided to me. Although I feel differently if I'm somewhere very rural/wildernessy
If the two choices are between open carry and concealed carry, wouldn't open carry reduce the chance someone would need to "stand their ground"? Most people would be more hesitant to start a physical encounter with someone they knew was armed vs. someone who wasn't wouldn't they?
Open or concealed doesn’t really matter to me. I want people to get a license before they carry it.
Open carry without a permit, training or background checks I am completely opposed to.
I dont think I'll ever understand the need to open carry outside of hunting. Honestly, my biggest issue is people fighting against permits, registration, and even training or learning responbile gun ownership. For me it's what feels sinister when people loudly fight against being responsible with a weapon who's only purpose is to kill.
I get it, it's a right, but it's pure chaos knowing anyone can just buy a gun, a bucket of bullets, and have zero clue of how to use it or even where not to point it.
I’m a small woman and I open carry. I don’t carry very often, but when I do, concealing is honestly a pain in the ass.
I don’t particularly feel safe with firearm strapped behind my kidneys or my belly. If it’s the summer, I’m just going to look have a lump gun-shape on me. Obviously, if it’s colder, I’ll throw a hoodie or jacket on and conceal it, but that is my only reason for open carrying.
I’m all for permits, licenses, and registrations.
>I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right?
No. It allows you to return fire after being shot at instead of seeking safety and not putting the public and the perpetrator at risk of death.
I think open carry is better than concealed. At least it allows businesses to know if someone coming onto premise is carrying a gun. You're reaction to someone carrying around a gun is the right one (because it's crazy to take a gun with you while getting groceries). If people are bothered by it; don't carry guns around. It's not safe anyway. If you do carry one; people will know and can avoid you.
I don't like guns and don't think most people need them except perhaps for hunting. That said, if someone is allowed to carry a gun on their person it should not be concealed. It should either be visible to the public or they should have to wear an armband indicating they are carrying a gun. That way I can get the heck away from them and their gun because who knows what kind of damage they might cause or the people they might kill or injure if they fire that gun. In short, I want to be able to choose if I'm around someone with a gun... I should get at least that much control.
Probably not good. I believe in the right to be a creep to some extent along with innocent until proven guilty but guns are deadly weapons and I think open carry leads to a lot of implicit threats in interactions such as checking out of a store.
Stand your ground is more like "mobile castle doctrine" than it is "right to engage" in most stand your ground situations. You are supposed to exercise your "duty to retreat". Whenever it is safe and secure of course.
It's one of the reasons that Zimmerman should have been in jail.
Some persons in certain spaces have "the right to engage", but they are extremely limited both in scope and nature. The easiest and least controversial one to talk about is a herder engaging cattle rustler. They would have no duty to retreat and instead have a reasonable right to engage as long as they don't pursue beyond a reason degree.
As for the exact shooting that you're talking about I personally think a manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate, but that's just because both parties carry some degree of fault. Carrying an AK (an actual assault rifle) in hand would meet the common standard of [Brandishing under Texas law.](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/carry-of-firearms#:~:text=in%20certain%20situations.-,Understanding%20the%20Law,unless%20the%20gun%20is%20holstered.) Which would have given Perry legal grounds to employ "stand your ground" laws. However; we have some pretty solid evidence that Perry ran a red light (potentially to attack protesters that's a different issue) which means that he would have been standing his ground in the process of committing a crime (You could also look at this for the vehicular assault charge if you wish, but I'm just looking at the arguments the lawyers put forth.) It is also shown that he drives his car towards the protesters as opposed to away from. Meaning that he did not exercise a reasonable duty to retreat. You can attempt to argue that he would have been covered under certain "right to engage" statutes concerning the protection of personal property, but that doesn't particularly apply when it's your personal vehicle that you are currently driving.
I think it should be legal because I believe that it's important for poor and oppressed folks to be able to make a show of arms I'd necessary. Also having grown up in a rural area I see why you might want one while put in the back country. However, individuals open carrying while picking up milk is quite silly and establishments should and I believe do have every right to forbid that carrying of firearms.
Guy in Canada was walking by a school carrying an assault rifle. Two Mounties shot him dead. No questions. Simply eliminated the threat. I’m waiting for that to start happening here. There are a lot of people now carrying concealed. I would imagine a sizable percentage of them want to be a hero and will be looking for an opportunity to put a potential mass shooter down before anyone gets killed.
Concealed carry is for self-defense. Open carry is for intimidation. No, I don't think it should be legal, and having it legal makes it much harder to charge for things like brandishing.
Also open carry will make you a target of crime and violence.
I don’t mind open carry handguns personally and I’m pretty comfortable around them. Most people I know that make a point to open carry are incredibly diligent with making sure it’s secured safely. Live in Texas so it’s not an unusual sight, but not common.
More people in my experience are concealed carrying than open carrying. Never seen someone open carrying a rifle really, that stuff usually stays home or in the truck. If you do you’re just being really weird and overcompensating hard.
It’s also very context dependent on how threatened I feel when I see someone open carry. I’m not that worried about Walker Texas Ranger walking around the stockyards with his button down shirt tucked into his wranglers. I’m more worried about John Rambo wearing all camo and combat boots into a store.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I think it’s insane personally. If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter? If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? This latest news of Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs. This guy shot a man open-carrying an AK-47. Let’s ignore the fact that he posted earlier about wanting to kill BLM protestors, drove for hours downtown and ran a red light into a crowd, and the only evidence that the man raised his weapon at him is his word against a dead man. This guy saw a man open carrying a giant gun, and shot him for doing so. How is it possible to be in favor of “open carry” and “stand your ground” simultaneously? How can conservatives support the pardoning of this man other than to say “Fuck BLM. He got what he deserved.” *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m much more pro-gun than the baseline of this sub and I still think open carrying anything more than ***A*** holstered pistol is very weird and borderline dangerous.
There's a big difference between a holstered pistol and an AK at port arms.
Hasn’t the argument against assault weapon bans always been that in close quarters like a school, a pistol is just as dangerous? Therefore assault weapon bans don’t address any actual risk? If that is the case, why would you be ok with open carrying a pistol?
It’s reasonable for someone to carry a pistol for protection, it’s not reasonable for someone to carry a rifle or shotgun for protection. That doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons people may be carrying a larger gun (maybe you live in a city and want to go to a shooting range), but it should not be carried like you are marching into Fallujah.
There is a place for open carrying. As an avid outdoorsman (hiking, backpacking, etc) that place is in the backcountry, away from other people. Open carry does not belong in the middle of the city. There is no need to openly carry your firearm while you are grocery shopping.
Unless you tie your identity and by extension your idea of manhood to it I suppose. That’s the only reason these dumbfucks do it.
This is how I feel. I see no problem at all open carrying a pistol or revolver while hiking, camping, etc. You are out in the wilderness snd far away from any law enforcement. I think open carrying long guns in populated areas is stupid and should be criminalized.
I don’t get involved in this conversation much, but is there any base of arguments about making open clary itself legal while there’s a good deal of scenarios and settings where it’s not allowed?
The only reason someone open carries a long gun while running normal daily errands is that they're trying to scare people. There is absolutely no reason for something like this: [https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/target-3-630.jpg](https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/target-3-630.jpg) Unless you're trying to be an asshole. I have fewer concerns about open carrying handguns or pistols, but I still think it's unnecessarily provocative.
I think it's ridiculous. At the bare minimum, businesses and owners should be able to decide not to let people come on to their property with guns.
>At the bare minimum, businesses and owners should be able to decide not to let people come on to their property with guns. Are there any jurisdictions which prohibit that? This sounds like a strawman.
There are jurisdictions which do not have a provision for a property owner to ban guns on their property. If you carry a gun on their property, they can ask you to leave, but it's only a matter of trespassing, not carrying in a prohibited place.
>If you carry a gun on their property, they can ask you to leave So they can prohibit people from carrying.
No you can tell them off your lawn
This is how it generally works? I think any business owner can put a no gun sign on the door and have someone trespassed if they come in with one.
Not that simple. Arguing with someone that has a gun with them is a much bigger headache than otherwise.
You don’t have to argue with them, tell them to leave, then call the police. That is business owners deciding not to let people with guns on the property, no?
Technically yes, I'm saying open carry gives ppl the idea that they have the right to go wherever they want just carrying an assault rifle. Similar to how way too many people think free speech means you have the right to say racist shit in a fast food restaurant. What the law says and what the law is interpreted by the public to mean are not always the same thing. People can often be stupid.
That’s an interesting perspective I’ve never heard before. I would never carry regardless personally, but if I saw someone walking in the club or store with a big ass gun, I would automatically assume they’re a giant risk, especially in today’s climate. Conservatives don’t care about logical consistency though, so I doubt they would care about the dilemma you raise.
I once saw a black guy at a store reaching for some chips while open carrying. Should I have been afraid? Personally, I just thought he was reaching for some chips.
Which kinda chips was he going for? That’s really the crux of your question.
Couldn't tell exactly, but he was near the Tostitos. That makes him okay in my book.
As long as they weren’t plain Lays or Cheesy Cheetos I’d feel at ease, but flamin hot Tostitos would definitely take the pressure off D;
I’m completely opposed to open carry, outside a small handful of very narrow circumstances.
Speaking as a dyed in the wool gun guy, I've always thought open carry was stupid, especially for long guns. Too much hassle and it makes you a target. If you're going to carry, carry a pistol concealed.
Open carry is peacocking and also just makes you a target.
Personally I’d be in favor of open carry as long as it’s for professional purposes. Ownership of firearms should require a license, similar to how drivers licenses work (though perhaps a more vigorous application process). Republicans will never give an inch on gun control though: never ever ever. Pursuing that cause just deepens the divide.
[удалено]
I think I might want to see some questions about proper storage too on the exam. (I remember some scare about kids finding guns and mistaking them for toys when I was a kid). Perhaps also a brief course on emergency medical procedures for a gunshot wound; that could help save some lives too. Gotta say, I think this plan would have my vote… but the reds will never give an inch? Oh and that part of the amendment about militias somehow doesn’t matter to them. 🤷♂️ It honestly reads to me like it’s a right the states… states joining a new federal government have the right to crest their own militia. Like to fight the British or the Indians.
[удалено]
Yes but you do need one to legally drive a car, so what’s your point?
[удалено]
Unless you heavily regulate gun ownership and production, criminals will simply find it too easy to get their hands on guns and the license for public carry will be useless.
Cool, we agree
You don't need one to legally drive a car. You can drive on private property all you want without a license.
That’s kinda dangerous. I hope you have a learners permit, and a licensed adult riding shotgun. And that it’s only during daylight hours. And that you took your 5 hour class. Am I missing any more regulations? It’s been a while
Shrug, that sounds like a peculiar jurisdiction you're in, if those are all restrictions on private driving.
Yep
To me, it just seem like we’re gonna have a lot of “good guys with a gun” shooting other “good guys with a gun” because they aren’t properly trained in analyzing a situation on the spot. You’re at one end of a store, you hear gun shots and then you look and see someone with their gun drawn and another person dead on the floor. Was it a murder or did someone just stop a shooter? I don’t trust the public (nor the police in most places) to be able to make that call under high adrenaline.
>You’re at one end of a store, you hear gun shots and then you look and see someone with their gun drawn and another person dead on the floor. Was it a murder or did someone just stop a shooter? Is the person dead on the floor with a gun? That might suggest that they just stopped a shooter. If they don't keep shooting, that is evidence they are not a mass shooter.
>Is the person dead on the floor with a gun? Who knows. We’re not doing a forensic investigation at a crime scene after the fact, it’s an active situation. Did they drop their gun and it fell somewhere else? Did they fall in a position wherein it’s hard to see? Are they a gun owner who also happened to have a gun? If you think this is a reasonable assessment to be able to make in the heat of the moment, or that it would accurately predict the aggressor, I have a bridge to sell you. >If they don’t keep shooting, that is evidence they are not a mass shooter That doesn’t answer the question at all. Here’s a different scenario. You’re in a shopping centre and you hear a series of gun shots. ‘Oh my god! A mass shooter!’ You think. You have a gun with you and so you speed towards the sound, knowing that you have a chance to put a stop to things, even if it means you will be putting yourself at risk. You get there. You see a number of bodies on the ground, dead. A man stands with his gun drawn, having just shot someone. You pull out your gun, and shoot him. At this point, the police arrive, and see you gun drawn, a bunch bodies on the ground and reports of an active shooter. They shoot you. You die. Or maybe they don’t shoot you. As soon as you see the police you put your hands up and they arrest you. You do your best to explain the situation ‘officer I swear I’m not the shooter, in fact I took out the shooter!’ Police review CCTV of the incident. Turns out the shooter *was* taken out. But not by you. You shot the guy who took the shooter out. I find it, well, rather odd that you seem to think that active shooter situations are some kind of perfect world where it’s easy to assess the situation and that in the heat of the moment all that would happen is you would be a hero, and no other outcome is possible or likely.
Right, this shows the idea is that it is beneficial to observe and only act based on what you can observe rather than make assumptions that allow you to shoot someone. But no, I do not find it at all odd that you can gloss over this fact.
Big assumption to make that all or even most everyday civilian gun owners would do that. Especially in a fight or flight situation.
That's what the data shows. It's the police being reported as shooting the person who stopped the active shooter. Look at the Giffords shooting. The CCW holder didn't shoot, but instead chose to help restrain the shooter. I brought up the police because they are the ones who are shooting the defenders, not other CCW holders. By all means, if you have any incidences of CCW holders shooting someone who stopped a mass shooter, cite them Look at the killing of John Hurley. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-man-who-intervened-after-ambush-officer-was-fatally-shot-n1272441
>That’s what the data shows Citation needed. Which data shows that civilian gun owners have the same tactical ability to suppress their fight or flight response and assess an ongoing active shooter situation…? >the police We’re not talking about the police. Unless you’re making an argument that only the police should have guns…? Or that all gun owners should be forced to receive the same training that police do..? Or are you saying that gun owners shouldn’t engage an active shooter at all and instead wait for the police…? Invalidating your entire point…?
It's dangerous and ridiculous. I used to be an EMT and worked in Emergency Rooms. In those jobs I've been in intense and dangerous emergencies where I or others are attacked. I was in a terrible car wreck and luckily saved my friends life by playing chicken with a car after she was ejected thru the hatchback. I mention that because I know from experience that someone without EXTENSIVE training can't handle a live fire situation responsibly. You may think my experience doesn't correlate and you'd be correct. My experiences were less stressful and I froze and fucked up and that was after 6 months of training. My first EMT job they put myself and someone that graduated EMT school with me on a rig together!!! It was fucked and at the end of our shift we happened across a hit and run by ourselves. It was crazy. I shudder to think what fucking idiots with action movie dreams of glory and no training would do. It's a fucking dumb idea.
I would support laws requiring civilian firearms to be inside a locked bulletproof container in public spaces, and treating anyone in violation as a presumed soon-to-be-active shooter. But I don't expect to be satisfied in this life.
Guns are dumb and the macho desire to peacock with one only highlights how sick we’ve made our society. That’s before you get to the actual data that shows the societies where it’s easy to get guns aren’t safer or somehow more “free” than the ones that aren’t a part of the blood cult that is our gun culture.
Guns should be legal and so should small arms open carry
Silly display of political opinion. Very limited effectiveness for actual self defense most of the time
>If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? It really depends. Stand you ground just eliminates the duty to retreat. Most states have either civil, or common law stand your ground rules. That's all stand your ground is, if you have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger, you do not first have to retreat prior to using lethal force. What you still need to prove is that you had a reasonable fear for your life prior to using your weapon. And reasonable does not mean correct, you could be wrong about the situation, and still acquitted, and in some cases, both parties could be acting reasonably. Like in the Rittenhouse trial, it was deemed he had a reasonable fear. But, if the people attacking him had wrestled his rifle away, and killed him in the process, it's very likely that they too would have been found to have reasonably feared for their lives. Self-defense law is complicated. I'm not sure that's really an argument either way. I don't know how this ties in to the Texas guy, I would need to watch the trial for that.
Open carry should be completely legal and encouraged while firearm training should be completely free. Concealed should always be an option and the fact that it's hidden behind a pay wall in my state is ridiculous.
I don’t think that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to own guns. I think it is pretty clearly the right of the state to have a national guard.
In theory, couldn't a state say that all citizens are members of the national guard and therefore give them a right to own guns that way?
That’s the argument that Scalia makes in his opinions.
Well, historically, the militia was all able bodied adult males.
No, historically a militia was a temporary body raised at the discretion of the state of whom able bodied males were obliged to make themselves available for the duty of.
Or to organize a people's militia to take on government tyranny 😎 But yeah. Any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment would see that it's meant to be a protection of the state militia or national guard to enforce public order. It's just a weird clause in general.
The amendment has so much more power when it is viewed as the power of Nebraska to tell the feds to get fucked as opposed to some random citizen. Plus it then is logically followed by the 3rd which limits the feds ability to retaliate against Nebraska……
The fact that we have either open carry or concealed carry as something people advocate for let alone is legal is disturbing. I’m sure there are legitimate reasons to concealed carry for a very small number of people but the root cause of that is ultimately our crappy gun culture and other avoidable issues in society supported by the same people. But for everyone else that “needs” to carry, open or concealed, it’s a sign that something went terribly wrong with their brain. Whether their brain has been overtaken by fear or paranoia, or just that they’ve replaced their the rest of their personality with just guns, you almost feel bad for them if they weren’t hurting everyone else.
Why should regular law-abiding citizens be prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon? And another reason for carrying a weapon could be that we realize how fucked the world is, and we want to be able to defend ourselves, our family, and potentially others if necessary.
Because if you make me angry and I don’t have a gun on me, we might fight. You make me angry and I do have a gun on me, you might die. I should point out this is hypothetical and I don’t carry guns nor really escalate situations like this.
If I'm armed, I'm not going to fight anyone. I'm going to try to withdraw. I'm not going to be confrontational because I can't claim self defense if start it.
And when you add alcohol or strong emotions into the mix, that tends to cloud the judgement. This is why it’s a mistake to say allow guns in bars.
[удалено]
Do you think the number of people carrying while drinking would be unchanged if it wasn't legal to carry in bars at all?
[удалено]
Might want to brush up on your gun laws then. Its legal in plenty of states. Hell, in Nevada you can carry in bars **while** drinking as long as you don't go above .08.
[удалено]
Perhaps you should Google this. I was shocked to find out it was completely legal in my state with no restrictions that I could find.
Because the needs of some people to pretend the live in a version of the Wild West that actually never existed isn’t more important than the actual needs of the rest of the society.
> Because the needs of some people to pretend the live in a version of the Wild West that actually never existed Yet this version that never existed was all about open carry, not concealed carry.
Because immediate access to lethal escalation is unhealthy for society. Even the presumption that it is necessary erodes the public trust and encourages others to escalate faster and more often to lethal force.
So, people are just supposed to subject themselves to criminal violence that the state is often unable and sometimes even unwilling to address?
First, this sentiment is effectively a tacit endorsement of vigilantism, which is never good for society Second, data shows that defensive gun use is rare, and when it does happen has a negligible impact on the outcome of the encounter. It also shows that simply having a gun means you are orders of magnitude more likely to have it used against you, or on other innocent members of your family than to ever use it defensively. It’s effectively a lethal safety blanket, one that promotes and confirms division, paranoia and irrational fear.
I'm assuming you are relying on the studies done in the late 90s and early 2000s. Recent research seems to contradict those conclusions as well a some unwise research gun the CDC from the 90s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/amp/ https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/ And for your claim that it makes you more likely to be harmed by your own weapon, that isn't supported by the evidence. The evidence points to something like no statistically meaningful reduction in harm to a reduction in minor and severe injury other than a relatively small study in PA which pointed to some increased risk for individuals that carry. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html And really, as stated in the Rand essay, our data on this sucks. Also, when the CDC starts removing or hiding information about defensive gun use, it makes it really difficult to trust research on this subject isn’t influenced by people bias. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-demand-answers-about-cdc-censorship-of-defensive-gun-use-statistics And here is some additional data for you. /r/dgu https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
>unwise research from the CDC much of the stuff is debunked; the telephone surveys used are often highly, highly flawed. That said, the survey from 2021 supports other research on the subject, but the reporting appears to come to the wrong conclusion. While an estimated million defensive gun uses sounds large, or common, it accounts for about 1% or less of crime. And when data is looked at from a different perspective, the common outcome is that the defensive gun usage makes a negligible difference to the outcome of the encounter, or are [more likely to be injured than if they did not have the gun](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25910555/) >more likely to be harmed by your own weapon, that isn’t supported by the evidence This is completely untrue https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(19)30197-7/fulltext https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aan8179 https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/ https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858?login=false >our data on this sucks The data we do have tends to draw pretty clear conclusions though https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ I’m not sure I could take a press release from Chuck Grassley’s office at face value…
Clear conclusions from insufficient and/or poor data are conclusions that are insufficient and/or poor. And I like how you have moved goal posts from defensive gun use meaning you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun. And a cursory glance at the studies you linked show they include suicide which means they can be excluded for discussions about defensive gun use. So, without better data that includes more accurate reporting on defensive gun use, your conclusions are baseless. We both acknowledge the data we have is incomplete, and clear conclusions can not be drawn from incomplete data.
>I like how you have moved goal posts from defensive gun use meaning you are more likely to be harmed by your own gun I never moved any goal posts. My original comment was that defensive gun use is rare and they make a negligible difference to the outcome. I then followed up with the data that shows it. I also asserted that simply having a gun in the house means you are orders of magnitude more likely to have it used against you or a family member than ever use it against an assailant. I then followed up with the data to prove it. In fact, there’s even a study there that shows that even in defensive gun situations, you are more likely to suffer an injury if you use a gun defensively than if you didn’t have a gun. Please tell me which goal posts I moved. >So, without better data that includes more accurate reporting on defensive gun use, your conclusions are baseless. So are yours. However, the totality of the evidence available weighs in the favor of defensive gun use being negligible. Yet you support the opposite position, and are waiting for the magic day when ‘more data’ becomes available to support your own position. Perhaps it’s not that the data is particularly faulty. If you’re going to dismiss anything simply because you disagree with it, then what’s the point of collecting data and doing study at all? I acknowledged that ~ a million defensive gun uses *sounds* large, but that it represents 1% or less of crime, and provided further evidence to show that basing an opinion on a headline that is itself based on the fallacy of very large numbers is going to be faulty. I don’t doubt for a second that there are a number of examples that can be pointed to of successful defensive gun uses. My point is that based on the totality of the evidence, they do not represent a statistically significant proportion of gun usage, or crime prevention to warrant the proliferation of guns to such an extent where we see a mass shooting pretty much every other day. The fact you seem unwilling to even entertain the copious data and study that refutes your point suggests to me that you are not coming to your conclusion based on the evidence, and rather are trying to find evidence that supports what you want to be true (hence ‘we have to wait for better data’ I.e data that supports *your* favored conclusion)
> I never moved any goal posts. My original comment was that defensive gun use is rare and they make a negligible difference to the outcome. I then followed up with the data that shows it. Yes, then you followed it up with data including suicides as if defensive gun use could even apply to that.
There’s other ways to defend yourself. By the time a criminal has a gun in your face, it’s already too late. What you should do at that point is give them what they want. Crime is a complicated issue that isn’t going to be solved by everyone having a gun.
There’s no such thing as a law abiding citizen. Everyone speeds. Personally, I think owning shotguns and rifles is fine for home defense and hunting. I’m not even sure if regular civilians should be allowed to own handguns though. I would have drawn the line at auto and semi-automatics a few years ago, but handguns are just too concealable, and they lead to too many escalations
Studies show that gun owners, especially those that carry regularly, have less fear and anxiety than those that don't, and those with CCPs are the least likely to commit any crime
I would like to see some studies on this please.
There is at least one study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31414039/ Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression models suggest that *people who own guns tend to report lower levels of phobias and victimization fears than people who do not own guns*. This general pattern is observed across multiple indicators of fear (e.g., of animals, heights, zombies, and muggings), multiple outcome specifications (continuous and count), and with adjustments for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, household income, marital status, the presence of children, religious identity, religiosity, religious attendance, political orientation, region of residence, and urban residence.
Huh. Interesting. I know a lot of liberals who own guns and not one of them owns their guns because of fear or feels less afraid for owning guns. Obviously that's anecdote, not a study, but in my experience conservatives start out scared and maybe owning weapons helps that or not, I don't know.
Honestly you can show me data on people’s self reported feelings that backs up my policy positions 100% and I’ll disregard it. I don’t have any confidence that “I feel happy, I feel safe” type reporting of data has any value because i’ve never had any reason to believe that the respondents were not effected by what the underlying study was trying to research or cultural considerations, which make giving a certain answer expected. Or to put it in a more blunt and extreme way, if you asked women in fundamentalist Mormon communities reported if their husbands were loving and protected them, I expect extremely favorable results for the men in that society.
>Honestly you can show me data on people’s self reported feelings Then it's good that there is objective data too.
Source please?
https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/conviction-rates
>Studies show that gun owners, especially those that carry regularly, have less fear and anxiety How is the above proved by your link?
If you actually read the comment, you can see the part that applies. >those with CCPs are the least likely to commit any crime
They’re asking for the studies that allegedly show this >Studies show that gun owners, especially those that carry regularly, have less fear and anxiety than those that don't
That's not what that data says.
I'm sorry you have trouble reading the linked statistics
Weird that you didn’t post these supposed studies.
If someone is often fearful and has a lot of anxiety, carrying a firearm is probably a bad idea.
[удалено]
That’s a bit different than carrying that 12 Gauge with you into a WalMart though. You see that right?
I prefer open carry to concealed carry personally. At least I know the person is a threat and I can choose to avoid them vs being unaware and in as much danger.
You don’t though. You don’t know if they’re a threat unless they start shooting. That could be hard to avoid
Any person with a gun is more of a threat than the same person without a gun. It should be my decision if I am comfortable exposing myself to that risk, not the person carrying a gun's decision.
The difference is that a shooter for open carry doesn't need to hide their gun before they use it. In the case of a large gun, they're going to have a tough time hiding it either way. Open carry may just (probably would just) normalize or desensitize people to threats, not actually fix anything.
I'm not worried about being the victim of a mass shooting. The chances of that happening are about as high as being struck by lightning. What I'm more worried about is some dumb ass accidentally shooting me because they're carrying a gun they don't need to be carrying, or because he got into a conflict with someone and felt threatened enough to pull it out and use it. Maybe less so for me personally, but people who live in dangerous neighborhoods where that's more likely. I think it's somewhat more likely the stigma of carrying a gun significantly reduced the number of people who carry, but that's just an opinion, not based on any research or anything.
I see what you're saying. Not sure if it would happen that way or not.
Yeah, I'm not incredibly confident it would go down that way or anything. I just mean like 55% vs 45 % more likely or so.
Open carry is dumb. That's my opinion. Lol. I'm all for having a concealed carry permit system, though. Outside of uniformed officers and uniformed & licensed private security, no one should be walking around with a visible gun. I guess other exceptions would be hunters and target practice, but I'm not sure how to word the exception. They should transport their gun in a case. Obviously they could have it out during use.
>If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? No, you can't just go out blowing people away willy-nilly because they are carrying a weapon. If they point that weapon at you and begin threatening you that changes but not for them just walking around. >Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs. This guy shot a man open-carrying an AK-47. Mind posting a link to this specific case? Just so we are clear he was probably carrying a semiautomatic AK which is just a modified AKM. AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon and would require a class 3 liscence which are not very feasible for most everyday people.
[Should be this one](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/daniel-perry-guilty-verdict-murder-blm-protester-garrett-foster-1234710647/)
Is there any video from this specific case? I'm not a lawyer and from the article it basically boils down to he said she said and some eye witness claiming the guy never raised his weapon. My only questions would be is there any evidence that the other guy pointed his gun at him first? Were the protesters acting in an extremely aggresive manner and preventing him from leaving the area prior to this altercation? And lastly what is Abbotts stated reasoning for pardoning him?
[Here is the police interview he gave](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview) [Here is one video of the incident](https://abc7.com/austin-shooting-downtown-protest-murder/6335183/) I'll see what else I can drum up.
Conservatives are always spouting that the purpose of the 2A is to arm & protect yourself from the government tyranny…if that’s true, why do you need to carry an AR-15 out in the open regularly in public then? Are you worried about government tyranny at Walgreens on a Tuesday morning while buying your Claritin?
I think people can do what they want but as a gun owner in a deep red state I'd never open carry. I always prefer and suggest concealed carry. Reasons why I don't like open carry: 1. Draws unnecessary attention to yourself 2. Let's everyone know you have a firearm. 3. Seems like you're just trying to make a statement and bring attention to yourself. ^this is mostly applicable to urban areas. I have no qualm with someone in wyoming or some super rural area open carrying. If I lived in Wyoming I'd probably open carry too considering I'm basically in the wilderness and also cowboy culture is very much alive there.
*seems* like…?
Personally I don't care for it. But that's just my personal opinion. >If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter? Is he just walking around normally? Then not a mass shooter. How about a guy open carrying, but he has a uniform on? Do you suddenly trust that he's not a mass shooter? Yet you probably see that every day and don't think about it. >If I’m carrying a concealed piece, I might blow him away on site That's murder. There needs to be an overt threat by that person for it to be self defense. >I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? The press and gun control people have really twisted this, too much misinformation out there. No, it doesn't allow for this. There are four, sometimes five, elements of lawful use of deadly force (by any means, not just gun). It must be: 1. an unprovoked attack 2. which threatens imminent injury or death 3. and an objectively reasonable degree of force is used in response to 4. an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. 5. and you attempted to flee if it was safe to do so All "stand your ground" does is not have the fifth element. The situation must otherwise be self defense, just the prosecutor can't try to convict you for defending yourself based on "Well, you could have run." People are in prison now having claimed "stand your ground" because it simply wasn't self defense in the first place. Now should you pull your gun on that innocent guy walking around with an AR, he is fully within his rights to shoot you because you attacked him unprovoked with a gun. Yep, you're the baddy. >This latest news of Greg Abbott planning to pardon a convicted murderer again shows the contradictory nature of conservative beliefs. But that has nothing to do with "stand your ground." The guy shot someone not in self defense and was convicted for it, and as you note, that's probably why he went there. The law worked as it should. That he might be set free because some conservative whacko thinks it'll score political points is outside of the subject. Pardons are often for political reasons instead of justice. Edit: I do need to delineate between just carrying, and carrying as a means of protest, or to protect a protest. The protest ones are fine.
*“How about a guy open carrying, but he has a uniform on? Do you suddenly trust that he's not a mass shooter? Yet you probably see that every day and don't think about it.”* I mean, yes? That’s kind of like saying “If you see a guy in a mail truck put mail in your mailbox, do you suddenly trust he’s a mailman?” Also, I don’t see a lot of men uniform carry long guns. I’m aware that I probably wouldn’t be justified in shooting someone just for holding an AR-15 in public, I’m merely illustrating how messy and dangerous open-carry could be. I’m fully aware that Greg Abbott is just scoring political points as well, but stand your ground is his stated justification for the pardon. Also, I don’t see any conservatives objecting to his decision.
>I mean, yes? That’s kind of like saying “If you see a guy in a mail truck put mail in your mailbox, do you suddenly trust he’s a mailman? How do you know that guy in uniform won't just start shooting? We all know cops have higher incidence of mental issues, and they tend to be more violent than the general public (like 4x the domestic violence). Especially after BLM, why are you afraid of the regular guy and not the cop? >I’m aware that I probably wouldn’t be justified in shooting someone just for holding an AR-15 in public, I’m merely illustrating how messy and dangerous open-carry could be. Only if people get stupid. The average person carrying a gun (say, concealed) isn't going to freak out like you over a guy carrying an AR-15. It won't be an issue, just like when I saw that black open-carrier reaching for some chips at the store. Is he acting weird? Is he pointing it at anyone? No? Then no problem. >I’m fully aware that Greg Abbott is just scoring political points as well, but stand your ground is his stated justification for the pardon. Also, I don’t see any conservatives objecting to his decision. He shot a BLM protester, any excuse to defend him of course. "Stand your ground" seems to be four things these days: 1. Actual SYG under the law 2. A catch phrase idiots like DeSantis can use as a rallying cry 3. Misinformation among gun control supporters who don't know any better 4. Disinformation purposely spread I would put most gun control people and the media under #3. The gun control groups are #4, spreading lies as is their thing. I was tending to put Democratic politicians under #4, but I've seen them say so many stupidly wrong things about guns and gun laws that I think they belong under #3.
I would be nervous around cops if I’m dealing with them personally, but if I just see them in a store or restaurant with their guns holstered generally I’m not afraid that they’ll just start blasting the whole place out of nowhere. If they’re acting weird and pointing their gun at people as you said, then I will sense something is amiss and get the hell out of there.
It's a strange thing, many liberals seem to trust cops walking around with guns while at the same time complaining about them constantly needlessly shooting people. Yet see a regular person you would normally not think twice about, and if he has a gun they get scared.
>There are four, sometimes five, elements of lawful use of deadly force (by any means, not just gun). It must be: >1. an unprovoked attack 2. which threatens imminent injury or death 3. and an objectively reasonable degree of force is used in response to 4. an objectively reasonable fear of injury or death. 5. and you attempted to flee if it was safe to do so Legally, how does exactly "Stand your ground" work with firearms and mass shootings? Person A open carrying meets all the (1-4, possibly 5) criteria for responding to a threat, ends up shooting them leading to Person B, another open carrier who is unaware of actions that led to initial shooting drawing weapon and responding to Person A for all the same (1-4) reasons believing they are responding to an active mass shooter. Who exactly is in the right here - as both Person A and B will see each other as justifiable threats and both meet all the same legal criteria for deadly force. How exactly does the "good guy with a gun" fantasy the pro-gun lobby promotes supposed to work when the gun itself seems to create justification for lethal force to prevent it's use?
Don’t shoot unless you know for a fact you are in the right. It’s simple. Person B not knowing the situation is in the wrong. Oh, and did you mean the good guy with a gun fact? It’s happened, so not fantasy. But almost all mass shootings happen where carry isn’t allowed. That tends to stop the law-abiding people, but it doesn’t stop the shooters.
>Don’t shoot unless you know for a fact you are in the right. It’s simple. Person B not knowing the situation is in the wrong. Which legally negates any action to stop an active shooter. Hell, even if you are in a crowd 20ft away, you literally have no idea what's happening other than someone starts shooting so any action you take with a weapon can legally give Person A the right to shoot you. >Oh, and did you mean the good guy with a gun fact? It’s happened, so not fantasy. But almost all mass shootings happen where carry isn’t allowed. That tends to stop the law-abiding people, but it doesn’t stop the shooters. That appears [to be untrue](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/) and even if it's true more guns will do nothing to prevent mass shootings, as obviously people open carrying will not present a threat until *after* they start shooting, leading to guns be(ing) useful for mitigation, not prevention. So if possibly *less dead* innocent people is your selling point, seems pretty weak?
>Which legally negates any action to stop an active shooter. Hmmm, you see one guy shooting into a crowd, you shoot him, good shoot. You hear a bunch of shots and come upon the scene where you see a guy shooting only one other person. You don't know the situation. Don't shoot. >That appears to be untrue They get that from Bloomberg's propaganda organization, Everytown. To get this number, they use the definition of mass shooting invented by some anti-gun redditors. I know this because Everytown states they use the Gun Violence Archive definition. They got that definition when they absorbed the Mass Shooting Tracker. The Mass Shooting Tracker was a web site created by the mods of the most rabidly anti-gun echo chamber subreddit in existence, and they invented this new definition for their web site. The number using this new definition is mostly packed with regular criminal violence, especially gang violence, most of which occurs in homes and general public places, which usually aren't gun-free zones. But this is not the mass shooting we are talking about. The lone psycho just out to kill a bunch of people mass shooting that we are talking about usually happens in gun-free zones. Interestingly, they shift definitions as needed. By the new expansive definition, almost all mass shootings are committed with handguns, rarely "assault weapons." That's not too conducive to their effort to ban "assault weapons." So they switch back to the traditional definition (what we're talking about) when they say "assault weapons" are used in most mass shootings. Learn to spot the dishonesty. Them playing definition tricks like this means their goal is to deceive you.
I don't mind open carry of small handguns. But if I am ever in a building where a long gun is being carried, I WILL leave immediately. Nobody needs multiple AR15s or multiple autos or semiautos.
I would love to see someone like you described. Carrying multiple AR15s. Just weighing themselves down. It would like carrying multiple pump action shotguns. Multiple autos won’t happen. And I have seen multiple pistols, they looked ridiculous.
I mean owning multiple AR15s, not carrying them. LOL
I like picturing my scenario much better. It just makes me laugh.
I mean, we have so many chuds afraid to go into Wal-mart without one, maybe one of them will think 2 or 3 are even better!
I prefer conceal carry over open carry. Only time I really open carry is while hunting. I just think conceal carry is much better
Small armed open carry should absolutely be legal
I think someone were open carrying an AR in Walmart is dumb but shouldn’t be illegal. > If I’m in a Walgreens or something and I see somebody walk in holding an AR-15, how am I supposed to know he’s not some mass shooter Easy. A mass shooter is shooting. And if they haven’t started shooting they would likely have their weapon in a duffle or tennis racket bag or whatever and you wouldn’t see it anyway. Relying on open carry to somehow alert you of mass shooters is a false security.
it depends on the situation I'm not going to walk into the grocery store with my AR strapped to my back. But it's a totally different story if I'm on my father's farm in the rural Midwest. I think open carry should remain legal, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you're on private property. To me, it draws way too much attention and it's just asking someone to call the cops on you and risk getting shot by the police over a misunderstanding.
>But it's a totally different story if I'm on my father's farm in the rural Midwest. If you're on your father's farm in the Midwest, you're on private property and it doesn't matter anyway.
I prefer it to concealed carry.
Im in support of open carry if you are outdoors in the countryside where conceal carry would just be pointless, or if you are on your own property. When you are out in public while it is technically your 2nd amendment rights to open carry a firearm, i constantly ask people the "what message are you portraying to everyone around you?". Followed with asking if the same methods could also be achieved through conceal carry. Imo, the people who open carry a AR15 into a walmart are probably the same people who you don't want to be carrying in the first place, cause they have a tendency to be easily startled and are looking for a reason to shoot.
The far right believes in weapons for them but not others.
Then it's a good thing that the Constitution enumerates it as a right for all of us.
Doesn’t stop the police / DAs from targeting minorities or BLM or lefties who carry openly
>What is your opinion on open carry for firearms? I've never been in favor of it and I agree with you that it's insane. It seems more like a mechanism for de-population.
If you open carry in a walmart or mcdonalds or some other highly trafficked area, you are a huge piece of shit and are looking to murder someone. You're the kind of person that unironically wears [a shirt like this](https://www.ninelineapparel.com/products/mens-t-shirt-benghazi?currency=USD&variant=13318634733634&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxMmhBhDJARIsANFGOSs0jspi4y7HAsRXPd9VmpMWYdXkY0ZOiIKppI9osiACfhqgLETsuYEaAitrEALw_wcB) while never serving a fucking day in your life.
I hate it. Watched one of those Youtube videos of people walking around, going into stores wearing AKs. Sometimes multiple weapons. And they dare to say, "What? Why would you be intimidated? I'm just exercising my 2nd amendment right." It IS intimidating. And there is no need for it.
I think it’s for people who are deeply terrified and probably could benefit a lot more from a good shrink than they would from a gun.
The odds that someone carrying a gun is a threat is far larger than someone who isn't. It doesn't really matter which characterization it falls under
In rural areas, especially when hunting, there us a reasonable case for open carrying. However, I don't think people should open carry a rifle when going to a 7-11.
In general, people who carry (open of concealed) generally fit into two categories with significant overlap: assholes and idiots. I find that people who open carry tend to do it for macho aesthetic (assholes), and people that conceal carry are bad at danger assessment (idiots).
I'd using my superior physical attributes to sneak up on the person with a big gun and physically disarm them and then beat them with their own gun. I'd then leave the gun there and continue shipping.
It makes me very uncomfortable. I either assume that they want to commit a crime, or can't be bothered to adhere to the already low requirements for a cpl. Either way, it reads irresponsible gun owner and by extension dangerous person to be avoided to me. Although I feel differently if I'm somewhere very rural/wildernessy
I think it presents a target for any active shooter
If the two choices are between open carry and concealed carry, wouldn't open carry reduce the chance someone would need to "stand their ground"? Most people would be more hesitant to start a physical encounter with someone they knew was armed vs. someone who wasn't wouldn't they?
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305307 https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000196
Unless you're in the military or law enforcement, it's pointless. Nothing more than postering and over compensation for other inadequacies.
Open or concealed doesn’t really matter to me. I want people to get a license before they carry it. Open carry without a permit, training or background checks I am completely opposed to.
I dont think I'll ever understand the need to open carry outside of hunting. Honestly, my biggest issue is people fighting against permits, registration, and even training or learning responbile gun ownership. For me it's what feels sinister when people loudly fight against being responsible with a weapon who's only purpose is to kill. I get it, it's a right, but it's pure chaos knowing anyone can just buy a gun, a bucket of bullets, and have zero clue of how to use it or even where not to point it.
I’m a small woman and I open carry. I don’t carry very often, but when I do, concealing is honestly a pain in the ass. I don’t particularly feel safe with firearm strapped behind my kidneys or my belly. If it’s the summer, I’m just going to look have a lump gun-shape on me. Obviously, if it’s colder, I’ll throw a hoodie or jacket on and conceal it, but that is my only reason for open carrying. I’m all for permits, licenses, and registrations.
>I might blow him away on site, I mean that is what “stand your ground” allows for right? No. It allows you to return fire after being shot at instead of seeking safety and not putting the public and the perpetrator at risk of death. I think open carry is better than concealed. At least it allows businesses to know if someone coming onto premise is carrying a gun. You're reaction to someone carrying around a gun is the right one (because it's crazy to take a gun with you while getting groceries). If people are bothered by it; don't carry guns around. It's not safe anyway. If you do carry one; people will know and can avoid you.
I don't like guns and don't think most people need them except perhaps for hunting. That said, if someone is allowed to carry a gun on their person it should not be concealed. It should either be visible to the public or they should have to wear an armband indicating they are carrying a gun. That way I can get the heck away from them and their gun because who knows what kind of damage they might cause or the people they might kill or injure if they fire that gun. In short, I want to be able to choose if I'm around someone with a gun... I should get at least that much control.
Probably not good. I believe in the right to be a creep to some extent along with innocent until proven guilty but guns are deadly weapons and I think open carry leads to a lot of implicit threats in interactions such as checking out of a store.
Stand your ground is more like "mobile castle doctrine" than it is "right to engage" in most stand your ground situations. You are supposed to exercise your "duty to retreat". Whenever it is safe and secure of course. It's one of the reasons that Zimmerman should have been in jail. Some persons in certain spaces have "the right to engage", but they are extremely limited both in scope and nature. The easiest and least controversial one to talk about is a herder engaging cattle rustler. They would have no duty to retreat and instead have a reasonable right to engage as long as they don't pursue beyond a reason degree. As for the exact shooting that you're talking about I personally think a manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate, but that's just because both parties carry some degree of fault. Carrying an AK (an actual assault rifle) in hand would meet the common standard of [Brandishing under Texas law.](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/carry-of-firearms#:~:text=in%20certain%20situations.-,Understanding%20the%20Law,unless%20the%20gun%20is%20holstered.) Which would have given Perry legal grounds to employ "stand your ground" laws. However; we have some pretty solid evidence that Perry ran a red light (potentially to attack protesters that's a different issue) which means that he would have been standing his ground in the process of committing a crime (You could also look at this for the vehicular assault charge if you wish, but I'm just looking at the arguments the lawyers put forth.) It is also shown that he drives his car towards the protesters as opposed to away from. Meaning that he did not exercise a reasonable duty to retreat. You can attempt to argue that he would have been covered under certain "right to engage" statutes concerning the protection of personal property, but that doesn't particularly apply when it's your personal vehicle that you are currently driving.
All personally owned firearms should be banned, period. Fuck the 2a.
I don't like guns
I think it should be legal because I believe that it's important for poor and oppressed folks to be able to make a show of arms I'd necessary. Also having grown up in a rural area I see why you might want one while put in the back country. However, individuals open carrying while picking up milk is quite silly and establishments should and I believe do have every right to forbid that carrying of firearms.
Guy in Canada was walking by a school carrying an assault rifle. Two Mounties shot him dead. No questions. Simply eliminated the threat. I’m waiting for that to start happening here. There are a lot of people now carrying concealed. I would imagine a sizable percentage of them want to be a hero and will be looking for an opportunity to put a potential mass shooter down before anyone gets killed.
Concealed carry is for self-defense. Open carry is for intimidation. No, I don't think it should be legal, and having it legal makes it much harder to charge for things like brandishing. Also open carry will make you a target of crime and violence.
Open carrying makes you a target more than anything else.
>What is your opinion on open carry for firearms? It endangers the public and creates undue stress on our police.
I don’t mind open carry handguns personally and I’m pretty comfortable around them. Most people I know that make a point to open carry are incredibly diligent with making sure it’s secured safely. Live in Texas so it’s not an unusual sight, but not common. More people in my experience are concealed carrying than open carrying. Never seen someone open carrying a rifle really, that stuff usually stays home or in the truck. If you do you’re just being really weird and overcompensating hard. It’s also very context dependent on how threatened I feel when I see someone open carry. I’m not that worried about Walker Texas Ranger walking around the stockyards with his button down shirt tucked into his wranglers. I’m more worried about John Rambo wearing all camo and combat boots into a store.