Public display of guns- What do you think?

Funny this thread popped up. I watched Panther this weekend which is a movie about the Black Panther Party.

Many people forget that California used to have a law permitting the carrying of a loaded rifle or shotgun in public as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one. Once the Black Panthers' freely began exercising that right, the state of California enacted legislature banning the carrying of firearms in public.

It was signed into law by then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

I just like to remind right-wingers of that fact when they start frothing at the mouth over gun control and how lefties are "after their guns".

Personally, I'd rather know who is carrying a gun rather than have it whipped out at the moment of intent to use it to find out.

FSeven wrote:

Funny this thread popped up. I watched Panther this weekend which is a movie about the Black Panther Party.

Many people forget that California used to have a law permitting the carrying of a loaded rifle or shotgun in public as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one. Once the Black Panthers' freely began exercising that right, the state of California enacted legislature banning the carrying of firearms in public.

It was signed into law by then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

I just like to remind right-wingers of that fact when they start frothing at the mouth over gun control and how lefties are "after their guns".

Personally, I'd rather know who is carrying a gun rather than have it whipped out at the moment of intent to use it to find out.

Indeed, the roots of gun control in the US started in the South as a way to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves.

The reason I thought this was interesting was because it seemed like the same kind of "mainstreaming" idea that you see elsewhere from rights groups. These folks figure that the more often you see something, the more inclined you are to accept it as normal. We don't freak out when we see guys with knives on their belts, even though a knife can do serious damage to you. So if we see more guns, do we then just go, "Oh, it's a guy with a gun. I see guys with guns everyone, and I've yet to see anyone shoot anybody."

Malor wrote:
We all know that the "public" is filled with all sorts of nutballs who might or might not care about you or your loved ones.

That's America-as-seen-on-TV. Don't confuse that with real life.

And don't confuse a subset of responsible gun owners with all gun owners. Gun owners also include every nut that has gone on a mass shooting spree and the folks that whip out a gun whenever they think someone is 'disrespecting' them.

Even the responsible gun owners set me on edge as, demographically speaking, they are more likely to be part of the unhinged or rabidly anti-government groups and firmly believe in things like the "tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots".

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:
We all know that the "public" is filled with all sorts of nutballs who might or might not care about you or your loved ones.

That's America-as-seen-on-TV. Don't confuse that with real life.

And don't confuse a subset of responsible gun owners with all gun owners. Gun owners also include every nut that has gone on a mass shooting spree and the folks that whip out a gun whenever they think someone is 'disrespecting' them.

Even the responsible gun owners set me on edge as, demographically speaking, they are more likely to be part of the unhinged or rabidly anti-government groups and firmly believe in things like the "tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots".

You might want to look into the statistics of such claims.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I think they WERE outlawed, at some point.

Also true. Technically, a blade up to about 3 or 4 inches you can get away with, but the simple truth is get caught with one whilst out and about and a jail term is pretty likely. Again, people don't tend to carry knives, Leatherman's etc. just to have one, especially in towns.

If we have a grievance, we like to sort things out the old-fashioned British way. You either tut under your breath and walk on, or get steaming drunk and brawl outside the pub at chucking out time, depending on the point the evening has reached.

I see the whole open carry thing as an overt show of force. That's certainly one of the main reasons law enforcement officers carry them. The knowledge that they are armed and carry the authority of the local, state, or federal government often helps to de-escalate potentially violent situations before they get out of hand.

That said, I'm not sure that everyday situations are much improved by a proliferation of displays of threats of deadly force. I may feel more secure with a uniformed sworn law enforcement officer in the diner I'm eating in, but I know absolutely nothing about the motivations behind the civilian open carrier other than the fact that he feels he needs to make a point of impressing upon me the fact that he is armed. Those motivations could be innocent, but I suspect that more often than not, the expression is defiant and aggressive (i.e.: "FU I'm carrying. Get used to it. And don't try sh1t, cause I'll blow you away M-Fer".

I can see scenarios in which open carry would be entirely appropriate (e.g.: L.A. Riots), but the idea that making loaded firearms some sort of fashion accessory for the grown up bullied makes me very nervous.

OG_slinger wrote:

And don't confuse a subset of responsible gun owners with all gun owners. Gun owners also include every nut that has gone on a mass shooting spree and the folks that whip out a gun whenever they think someone is 'disrespecting' them.

They were not, however, all legal gun owners.

Paleocon wrote:

I may feel more secure with a uniformed sworn law enforcement officer in the diner I'm eating in, but I know absolutely nothing about the motivations behind the civilian open carrier other than the fact that he feels he needs to make a point of impressing upon me the fact that he is armed.

I agree in wondering about the motivation involved in carrying, but on the other hand I don't know how worried I should be about it. I can think of any number of times people have done stuff to me on the road that could easily have led to my death and dismemberment, but we make it pretty easy to drive a car regardless.

Gun owners also include every nut that has gone on a mass shooting spree and the folks that whip out a gun whenever they think someone is 'disrespecting' them.

Yeah, and how often does that actually happen? Not often. You are, again, confusing threats that are extremely rare and unusual with active, pressing problems that you actually need to deal with. The media lives to scare you; nothing gets eyeballs like fear and spectacle. One unhinged loon killing a dozen people is plastered all over the news, 24x7 repeats on every channel, where we lose hundreds every month from car crashes.

Even the responsible gun owners set me on edge as, demographically speaking, they are more likely to be part of the unhinged or rabidly anti-government groups and firmly believe in things like the "tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots".

So you don't agree with their political opinions, and you want to be sure they're disarmed?

Malor wrote:
Even the responsible gun owners set me on edge as, demographically speaking, they are more likely to be part of the unhinged or rabidly anti-government groups and firmly believe in things like the "tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots".

So you don't agree with their political opinions, and you want to be sure they're disarmed?

Folks who know me know that I'm a big fan of firearms. That said, I think there is a lot to this idea that political cranks are pretty over-represented among gun owners. I think there is something about being paranoid and/or bullied that makes one want to go out and get a gun. I'm not saying all gun owners fall into that category, but there always seem to be a short crapload of them whenever I walk the aisles of a gun show. It's always the balding fat dude that would die of a heart attack walking up the Capitol steps that thinks the gubmint is out to get him and his gun is the only thing stopping them.

Paleocon wrote:

Those motivations could be innocent, but I suspect that more often than not, the expression is defiant and aggressive (i.e.: "FU I'm carrying. Get used to it. And don't try sh1t, cause I'll blow you away M-Fer".

I guess I'm a bit biased because I've seen a lot of this. Mind you, it's coming from people who are self-described rednecks so guns, trucks, and hunting are part of the lifestyle. Being called "gay", "idiot", or "Democrat" is reason enough for some of my family to whip out a pistol and say "Say that again." Seriously. They won't be pointing it at you, most of the time, but they'll be holding it to make a point. Of course I was always raised to realize that sort of thing is idiotic. Guns are for killing. You pull it out of your holster you shoot somebody with it. You don't pull it out to impress or frighten. A lot of people don't know that. Those are the ones I worry about.

Yes, I'm coming at this completely from the angle of "I've known some people and I think..." But that's what I've grown up around. I also know several guys who are competitive shooters and I'm fine being around them and their hundreds of firearms. They just seem far less likely to get drunk, pick a fight, and pull a gun as soon as someone insults them.

Also, I realize open carry is legal in many places. The way I read the OP is that they're trying to convince all gunowners to walk around with pistols hanging off of them like they're in the Matrix. It's that critical mass of a bunch of idiots in one place with tons of guns in plain view that worries me.

Kehama wrote:

Being called "gay", "idiot", or "Democrat" is reason enough for some of my family to whip out a pistol and say "Say that again." Seriously.

Your home life scares the crap out of me.

KingGorilla wrote:

1. Trained and armed citizens deter invasion. Fact that the axis forces, in written communications held off on invading US soil because we all had guns.

Umm, say what?

Paleocon wrote:

That said, I'm not sure that everyday situations are much improved by a proliferation of displays of threats of deadly force. I may feel more secure with a uniformed sworn law enforcement officer in the diner I'm eating in, but I know absolutely nothing about the motivations behind the civilian open carrier other than the fact that he feels he needs to make a point of impressing upon me the fact that he is armed.

See, this is the part I don't understand. You automatically assign the "protector" role to the police officer, and the "aggressor" role to the civilian. The police officer is, in fact, not at all legally required to defend you in any way - this is well established law. And it is often the case that the police are the aggressors. In fact it's statistically far more likely for the police officer to abuse his authority than for the civilian to abuse his right to carry.

Seth wrote:

Your home life scares the crap out of me.

Before my wife and I were married my future father-in-law once put a bullet through the floor of his own living room and then rammed the hot barrel of the .38 snubnose under my chin while threatening to kill me. I've still got a nice little round scar there where my beard won't grow. That side of the family is nuts. Naturally he apologized after he found out the whole reason he'd gone after me was due to a simple gap in his knowledge of the facts. I think the fact that this was before I married my wife says something about my own defects but that's another topic.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

You might want to look into the statistics of such claims.

What makes you think I haven't?

Compare the CNN survey on the demographics of Tea Party members and surveys about the demographics of gun owners.

The tl;dr summary is that both are very likely be to white males who live in rural areas in the South and West. They are typically older, with either some college or a college degree and make good money. And they are more likely to self describe themselves as conservative or moderate. It's a pretty significant overlap, though the Tea Party folks skew ridiculously white.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, and how often does that actually happen? Not often. You are, again, confusing threats that are extremely rare and unusual with active, pressing problems that you actually need to deal with. The media lives to scare you; nothing gets eyeballs like fear and spectacle. One unhinged loon killing a dozen people is plastered all over the news, 24x7 repeats on every channel, where we lose hundreds every month from car crashes.

Extremely rare? I doubt you could find a month where there wasn't a news report about someone shooting multiple people.

If you want to compare gun deaths with car deaths, than please make sure you're comparing *all* the gun deaths, not just the ones from really crazy folks. The average gun death is reported just as much as deaths from traffic accidents.

Malor wrote:

So you don't agree with their political opinions, and you want to be sure they're disarmed?

These are the folks that showed up to political debates *armed*. Do you really want the political process to devolve into gun-totting groups squaring off against each other? And, yes, I would prefer that someone who talks openly about the need for violent revolution didn't have ready access to weapons, especially since their vision for America is just, well, scary for anyone who isn't a white Christian.

Badferret wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

1. Trained and armed citizens deter invasion. Fact that the axis forces, in written communications held off on invading US soil because we all had guns.

Umm, say what?

I beleive he was referencing this .

Not the best source, but I have seen several references. Important to note that if it was a more populous country considering a ground assault, it may well have been a different case.

They also say somewhere that one of the things that deterred the otherwise inevitable Soviet invasion (heh) was the fact that all roadsigns in US measured distance in miles, as opposed to kilometers like in the rest of the world... Russkie knew they simply won't be able to get around here.

Kehama wrote:

Mind you, it's coming from people who are self-described rednecks so guns, trucks, and hunting are part of the lifestyle.

HEY!

OG_slinger wrote:

Even the responsible gun owners set me on edge as, demographically speaking, they are more likely to be part of the unhinged or rabidly anti-government groups and firmly believe in things like the "tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots".

I wouldn't go that far. I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I have a concealed pistol license but only carry during hunting season. I do not want to water anything with this "patriots" blood.

gizmo wrote:

Not the best source, but I have seen several references. Important to note that if it was a more populous country considering a ground assault, it may well have been a different case.

I'd like to see a better source that the Japanese military leadership ever considered an invasion of the U.S., let alone gave up on it because of worries about armed civilians. According to this the quote from yamamoto talking about "a rifle behind every blade a grass" is a fabrication. I looked for a source on whether he said it or not, but googling turned up about a billion Second Amendment websites repeating it and I can't find anything else.

Not a lot of E-sources on that. I could, however, point you to the section of my college library where I saw many of those conversations/coded messages analysed last I was doing the research. Not just Japan, but from the Germans as well. If there is some more modern refuting info, I have not kept up on much of it. I prefer to focus on the legal ramifications. The Supreme court summed up a great argument. State states the second amendment is out dated, and many EU countries restrict or outlaw guns. Justices fire right back that those countries have also largely done away with jury trials and have cameras pointing at store fronts, schools, dwellings, do we want that as well?

Any time we open up that document we run the risk of f*cking it up royally. Not every time we get the 14th amendment. Sometimes we get the Alien and Sedition acts or prohibition.

As a psychiatrist who sees and treats crazy people every day, this idea terrifies me.

gewy wrote:

As a psychiatrist who sees and treats crazy people every day, this idea terrifies me.

As a sane person who sees and deals with stupid people every day, this idea terrifies me.

Yamamoto was far more impressed with the fact that we had wrecked automobiles sitting in landfills than he was about gun ownership. He postulated that a country with the sort of material wealth necessary to waste that much steel would clearly win a war eventually. He compared this to the fact that when houses in Tokyo burned down in the 1928 earthquake, folks were sifting through the ashes to salvage the nails.

Honestly, the civilian gun thing as a check against foreign invasion is way, way overplayed.

Dezlen wrote:
gewy wrote:

As a psychiatrist who sees and treats crazy people every day, this idea terrifies me.

As a sane person who sees and deals with stupid people every day, this idea terrifies me.

Yeah, that too...

It might hurt that I live in Alabama as well.

Malor wrote:

Yeah, and how often does that actually happen? Not often. You are, again, confusing threats that are extremely rare and unusual with active, pressing problems that you actually need to deal with. The media lives to scare you; nothing gets eyeballs like fear and spectacle. One unhinged loon killing a dozen people is plastered all over the news, 24x7 repeats on every channel, where we lose hundreds every month from car crashes.

Enough so that it's in the news almost monthly now. We're averaging a school shooting pretty regularly. Those are the shootings that get the most attention, not to mention the random "unload on your co-worker's event".

Maybe you could call the family of one of the victims of one of these "rare" shootings and ask them what the acceptable tolerance is for shooting sprees per year. If you're not a trained, licensed professional you've got no business in public place with a firearm of any kind.

The Constitution gives you the right to own a gun, it doesn't give you the right to wear it in Walmart, Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts. I'm not willing to put my family at risk because people want to pretend they're Wyatt Earp.

Maybe you could call the family of one of the victims of one of these "rare" shootings and ask them what the acceptable tolerance is for shooting sprees per year. If you're not a trained, licensed professional you've got no business in public place with a firearm of any kind.

The Constitution gives you the right to own a gun, it doesn't give you the right to wear it in Walmart, Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts. I'm not willing to put my family at risk because people want to pretend they're Wyatt Earp.

Hysterics and hyperbole won't make a good argument. The fact is, we've had open and concealed carry since this nation was created, and never seen a massive decrease in crime in places that ban them. DC and Chicago have crime. So does Texas and Philly. CC and OC give a sane, non felon the same advantages crazy people and criminals have. If you totally banned CC and OC, you won't stop crime or mass shootings. I'm not sure why anyone would think that someone deranged enough to go on shooting spree, wouldn't because it's illegal to OC or CC. I'm not giving up my right to CC because you're scared of firearms.

Mav, where's your Bale avatar?