A Gentleman's Guide to Open Carry

[ICantSpellDawg]

A Gentleman's Guide To Open Carry

"There is a difference between what is allowed, and what is prudent. Within the open carry movement there are a lot of people with good intentions who are actually detrimental to the larger cause of expanding gun rights. Carrying a rifle on your back into a Chipotle in a relatively safe suburban neighborhood is not an effective way to win hearts and minds for the cause."

Personally, I carry whenever allowed by my local County and State law (which is rarely). I am not able to do it openly. Do any of you have experiences with this?

"Speak up, speak often, and don't worry about those that at this point can not understand as they can never un-hear what we tell them." - Ron Paul

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why? Understatement and conciliation, only if it furthers the cause. Not as an end in and of itself. Your advice is to shrivel up and blow away. You should strategize for a living.

In my ideal world, everyone on the planet carries a guns and hardly anyone gets shot. Simply loosening gun laws won't do that, but that is the fun part to push.
If we beat the Statists back often enough, they may get desperate enough to make real compromise.

[a completely inoffensive name]

All you need to do is stick with the facts. Just ask the FBI whether gun crimes have gone down or up over the past two decades despite guns being more prevalent in the US.

But the fact is that all you talk about is how to go about making grand public displays of weaponry and beating back the "statists" as if people are as ideologically minded as you are when voting. This is why no one takes you seriously.

[Papewaio]

Most Aussies are smart arses yet very few of us get shot. Very few of us have firearms.

It's like insisting everyone carry their tools of trade. Firearms are tools and different ones are for different scenarios. I would find it strange to see a duck hunter with a shotgun carrying it into a pet store.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is bad manners to carry a weapon that is unlikely to be used for self defense into a store. I agree. The point of the article is to suggest this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It'll be ugly, and the side you don't want to win will in fact win.

So what. Bring it on. Nobody wins forever, In the end we're all goners. If you cut and run because you're afraid you'll lose, you are a coward. Rome was built and empire seemed inevitable. Then it collapsed.

I like our chances. Personally, I see the country as you and I know it dissolving in the next 50 years one way or the other.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If at first you don't secede...
Just kidding, we're not going anywhere. This time we'll stay lodged in there until they want out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know its a crass comparison, and aside from the mentality and the results they really don't have a lot in common. I think it would take a lot more years of this kind of garbage, plus an actual stepping up of this sort of thing on part of gun nuts, in order to bring about the kind of gun control that could lead to shootouts or what-have-you. We're a long ways from that. But the mentality among some gun owners that such a situation could ever, and I mean ever work out to their advantages just really boggles the mind. The Constitution has been circumvented so often and so blatantly over the last few decades that one should look at the 2nd Amendment as a privilege, not a right. I don't say that to endorse such a viewpoint, but to acknowledge that that is the reality whether one agrees with it or not.

That you would say that "our protected rights are circumvented as the rule" and then find yourself at the endpoint "therefore: we should grovel in conciliation at the foot of our masters" shows your mindset.

People on the right and the left realize that their government is barely pretending to have representative legitimacy anymore. Whether it is the 1% or the New World Order, the experiment of self government seems to be ending. You have a choice when faced with this, to grovel or to arm yourself. People have faced this choice before and have found themselves in both catastrophic result and unexpected success.

If we have a right to keep and bear arms, we have a right to do it. Manners are manners, but if someone thinks that they can assault people for exercising their rights they are wrong. You have implied that exercising your rights in distasteful ways gives people who scare easily the casus belli to abuse those rights. You are incorrect.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Urging caution for who? I am not following your thought process. I believe that open carrying long rifles while shopping is bad manners and harmful to the cause. I am in agreement that people scare easily and react irrationally and in ways profoundly ignorant of law and civil rights.

The Gay lobby was once told the same thing, just be gay at home and maybe people won't react as strongly. They did the opposite. Aggressive and stereotypical gay activity was frowned upon by advocates while seemingly innocent PDA's were encouraged. Family shows advocating monogomous gay relationships were pushed into the mainstream. People don't scare as easily and what was once the unthinkable is pumped into your household on a nightly basis. Clever marketing.

It also deconstructs your argument. We want firearms carried by the law abiding to be the norm. You can't make this happen if the arms are concealed... Or closeted. We need to force them into view in order to desensitize the reaction of fear. That is why the fight is worth it. You do this with small caliber pistols carried by handsome and relaxed men and women who confound the stereotypes. It is marketing civil rights.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Im petty sure that my previous post shows that my argument is more than that. And yes, I am most certainly using a similar strategy that was successfully used by other civil rights movements to great success.

[Papewaio]

Amendments can be amended right?

So I think GCs argument is that if the majority get annoyed enough then a vote could come along to alter the 2nd say only regulated militia ie those who are serving or served in the military can now bear arms. All others get their weapons bought back. That's what happens when the majority gets knocked out of its comfort zone. And quite off the pendulum swings too far in the process.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are speaking out of both sides. First you say that they will take away our guns if we don't shut up, now you are saying that would never happen because of logistics. People are within their right to try to amend the Constitution, but there is a reason that this is so rare. Even if they amended the Constitution, they still have to come and get them

[Lemur]

Meh, I find the entire positioning of the 2nd Amendment really weird and ahistorical.

Did the founders envision a standing army? Nope. They thought that was a thing to avoid.

Did the founders envision paramilitary police? Nope, unimaginable to them.

Did they want everything organized around citizen militias? Yep. They figured that was the way to avoid the self-evident evil of a standing army.

Our situation is so wildly out of whack with what they intendend, and by extension, what they meant when they wrote the short, simple sentence that is the Second Amendment.

All of this talk about YOU HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION is bullhockey. The everybody-gets-a-gun with minimal regulation thing? That is a recent invention. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment, unless you choose to read it in a brain-bendingly selective manner.

Reprint:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[The Lurker Below]

In my ideal world, everyone on the planet carries a guns and hardly anyone gets shot.

Aim low and you're sure to hit the mark.

[SwordsMaster]

Meh, I find the entire positioning of the 2nd Amendment really weird and ahistorical.

Did the founders envision a standing army? Nope. They thought that was a thing to avoid.

Did the founders envision paramilitary police? Nope, unimaginable to them.

Did they want everything organized around citizen militias? Yep. They figured that was the way to avoid the self-evident evil of a standing army.

Our situation is so wildly out of whack with what they intendend, and by extension, what they meant when they wrote the short, simple sentence that is the Second Amendment.

All of this talk about YOU HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION is bullhockey. The everybody-gets-a-gun with minimal regulation thing? That is a recent invention. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment, unless you choose to read it in a brain-bendingly selective manner.

Reprint:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Exactly, what the constitution enshrines is, in effect, something like Finland or Switzerland. Nothing to do with carrying guns shopping with you.

[Lemur]

Exactly, what the constitution enshrines is, in effect, something like Finland or Switzerland. Nothing to do with carrying guns shopping with you.

Yep, and all of the letters, speeches, and public records from the time support that position.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

James Madison: "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. [...] War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

George Washington: "a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country"

And on and on and on. The evidence is overwhelming. The Second Amendment is clearly, obviously an aspect of the founders' distrust/fear of maintaining a standing army. To cite 2A and not understand its context and intent is just insane.

[Pannonian]

Yep, and all of the letters, speeches, and public records from the time support that position.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

[lars573]

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

No. It was against Roman laws and customs to be fully geared for war (IE armed and armoured) inside the cities walls, save for certain events. But being simply armed was just fine (and probably prudent).

[Sir Moody]

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

So did most Medieval Kingdoms - In England you were permitted to wear a sword while outside a city but upon arrival in a city were required to immediately go to your place of residence (or Inn if visiting) and store the sword - being caught in the street wearing a sword and not heading directly to your place of residence or out of the city would result in fines or worse.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I understand the problem with watching someone walk into a Starbucks with a loaded rifle with their hand on the grip and finger on the trigger in low-ready-to-fire.

The question is - why are you afraid of law abiding people who have undergone a mental evaluation, had an in-person interview with law enforcement, and secured a 5 year renewable permit carrying a handgun? There is statistically very little danger to this in a nation where most people can own guns and illegally carry them as the will sees fit. Whether the law abiding carry those handguns concealed or open on their hip, does this have a real affect on you, or merely one of perception? Are you in any more danger?

You must recognize that there is a difference between a drug-adled criming carrying a firearm and someone who is licensed to do so. Even in Florida, you need to pass a safety course and have a renewable background check.

What is your problem with this?

[Husar]

We also teach our kids not to run around holding a fork or a knife so that it can get rammed into their head if they stumble and fall. I'm not sure whether it is safe to hold a gun like that when you stumble. Maybe when the safety is on, but since they have a finger on the trigger, I'd assume it is not. How does that compare with all those gun safety rules anyway?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Also, if their finger is actually resting on the trigger, they're doing it entirely wrong. The cops would even be justified in shooting if they came upon a bunch of rednecks with their fingers actually on the triggers.

I agree. This is why the photos of individuals actually holding onto their guns in low ready is a possibly criminal mis-use of a firearm in a non-threatening situation. Some of the photos are infuriating. If I ever held a firearm in a restaurant people would be right to feel threatened.

[Kadagar_AV]

I understand the problem with watching someone walk into a Starbucks with a loaded rifle with their hand on the grip and finger on the trigger in low-ready-to-fire.

The question is - why are you afraid of law abiding people who have undergone a mental evaluation, had an in-person interview with law enforcement, and secured a 5 year renewable permit carrying a handgun? There is statistically very little danger to this in a nation where most people can own guns and illegally carry them as the will sees fit. Whether the law abiding carry those handguns concealed or open on their hip, does this have a real affect on you, or merely one of perception? Are you in any more danger?

You must recognize that there is a difference between a drug-adled criming carrying a firearm and someone who is licensed to do so. Even in Florida, you need to pass a safety course and have a renewable background check.

What is your problem with this?

Why many people internationally are against guns, is that we don't want criminals to have access to them, but the police and military...

It's a moot point with the current political landscape though (in Sweden as well as in the USA), as criminal can arm up regardless of weapon laws.



I would, absolutely, prefer to live in a world where only the police and army have weapons. The more weapons out in society, the more murder and mistakes. You really can't argue against that and stay in the "sane" zone of thinking.

However, the realistic part of my brain have accepted that USA wont get there anytime soon, nor European countries.

I have also accepted that if the criminals arm up, so should the rest pf society.

BUT, and this is a pretty damn important point:

The goal should ALWAYS be to limit the weapons floating around in society. Heck, I even like the idea of kitchen knives that are rounded and blunt at the tip...

TLDR: A weapons sole function is to kill or intimidate. More weapons leads to a higher risk of anything between accidents and clean murder...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why many people internationally are against guns, is that we don't want criminals to have access to them, but the police and military...

It's a moot point with the current political landscape though (in Sweden as well as in the USA), as criminal can arm up regardless of weapon laws.



I would, absolutely, prefer to live in a world where only the police and army have weapons. The more weapons out in society, the more murder and mistakes. You really can't argue against that and stay in the "sane" zone of thinking.

However, the realistic part of my brain have accepted that USA wont get there anytime soon, nor European countries.

I have also accepted that if the criminals arm up, so should the rest pf society.

BUT, and this is a pretty damn important point:

The goal should ALWAYS be to limit the weapons floating around in society. Heck, I even like the idea of kitchen knives that are rounded and blunt at the tip...

TLDR: A weapons sole function is to kill or intimidate. More weapons leads to a higher risk of anything between accidents and clean murder...

I would vote for a world where everyone had arms, over the world where only the government and police had them. In my ideal world, mistakes and abuses are less rare, but even absent crime - the government is not to be trusted with absolute power over people.

But it is good to know that Europeans recognize that violent crime doesn't go away when civilian gun ownership is banned. Just the opposite.

[Ironside]

I would vote for a world where everyone had arms, over the world where only the government and police had them. In my ideal world, mistakes and abuses are less rare, but even absent crime - the government is not to be trusted with absolute power over people.

But it is good to know that Europeans recognize that violent crime doesn't go away when civilian gun ownership is banned. Just the opposite.

That's an overread. Basically a violent criminal will be a violent criminal if all people carry a gun, if only he carry a gun, or if he doesn't carry a gun. But if he doesn't carry a gun, he's less dangerous. Your gun world has people more equal in strength than if only the criminals carries a gun, but the stakes are way more lethal.

Basically, our small time criminals don't carry guns, yours do.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your aggravated assault rate is more than double the rate in the US. I hope that the US takes a different route to crime reduction from the one that the Europeans have. Imagine what your countrie's would look like if you had a massive population of off the boat total morons, their kids, and inner city blacks. We have that here. They arent responsible for all of the murders, but they are responsible for MOST. Do you know how crazy that is?

Our rate of white perpetrated murders is still too high, but it has been dropping for many years, as have homicides in general. The idea that we can stop blacks and hispanics from murdering one another at a rate as high as other countries with large Hispanic or black populations is a tall order, but we're working on it. Gun control won't do that, but education reform, drug law reform, public school pre-k and kindergarten might.

I'm not anti-immigrant or anti-black, but they drive our crime rates and make our country more barbaric. Personally, I'm fine with a bit of barbarism and I think that they bring a lot to the table, but it is like raising toddlers. Insane criminal toddlers with diseases. But if we do it right they could grow into adults and be better than the natives.

[Ironside]

Your aggravated assault rate is more than double the rate in the US. I hope that the US takes a different route to crime reduction from the one that the Europeans have. Imagine what your countrie's would look like if you had a massive population of off the boat total morons, their kids, and inner city blacks. We have that here. They arent responsible for all of the murders, but they are responsible for MOST. Do you know how crazy that is?

That's because the data is messed up. It's the data for minor, "normal" and aggrevated assult combined, since they aren't split up in the data. That's about 80.000-85.000 (data taken from Brå).
From those, about 2.500 needs to stay at the hospital. I'm missing the weapon threats, to get the proper comparision. But I can do an estimate:

In the US aggrevated assult is weapon threat and/or hospital stay for more than two days.

FBI got the stats for weapon used and the total number of aggrevated assults. In about 25% of the cases, it's done using only the human body (more common than firearms). We know that 100% of those victims ended up in the hospital, since it wouldn't be aggrevated otherwise. Now using that number will miss everyone that got severly wounded by a weapon, but gives us an upper limit on those threatened by weapons, but not seriously wounded.

Multiply 2.500 hospital visits by 4 and you'll get an upper limit of 10.000. It's probably around 5.000-7.500 in reality.

[Sir Moody]

That's an overread. Basically a violent criminal will be a violent criminal if all people carry a gun, if only he carry a gun, or if he doesn't carry a gun. But if he doesn't carry a gun, he's less dangerous. Your gun world has people more equal in strength than if only the criminals carries a gun, but the stakes are way more lethal.

Basically, our small time criminals don't carry guns, yours do.

This effectively sums up my thoughts on Gun control.

With strict gun control in place the vast majority of petty criminals will not be armed - this means petty crime is considerable less dangerous - with no Gun control or with limited gun control any crime could escalate no matter how petty...

In terms of Assault I would much rather be punched in the face than shot...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not opposed to certain types of "gun control", but the focus on semi auto rifles is nonsense. Most gun crimes and homicides are committed with revolvers or, to a lesser extent, semi auto handguns. To be honest, background checks for all sales are a good idea HOWEVER there are too many people acting in bad faith and attempting to use this to ban firearms and make ownership more and more difficult for individuals who are at a low risk of offense. This is why it would be best for everyone to compromise in the truest sense of the word; more background checks for expansion of renewable license concealed carry OR at the very least modifying the background check system using a pre-clearance system as suggested by Sen Tom Coburn.

If I hear an "OK" idea that will somewhat limit my right, I will fight it in principle unless my right is expanded elsewhere. Gun control should have a neutral effect on my right to keep and bear arms - if that means voting everything down, fine. If that means expand here, contract there, fine. No more damaging "compromise".

If you don't like it, push for amendment or repeal of the 2a. Or we could work together in good faith.

[Idaho]

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with = "lone gun", "libertarian". Action required: none

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with + Muslim = "terrorist". Action required: set up huge counter terrorism apparatus, go to war, throw away constitutional freedoms.