Public display of guns- What do you think?

Mav, where's your Bale avatar?

I had been epically lazy in replacing it. *final edit.

I wonder if the recent enthusiasm for the open carry and display of guns is related to the economy. This recession has hit men harder than women, and I wonder if in a country where male dominated jobs like construction and finance are being shed much more rapidly than female dominated jobs like education and nursing, if that threat to the traditional male role as head of the household hasn't translated into a lot of the political trends we're seeing, including this recent enthusiasm for open carry.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder if the recent enthusiasm for the open carry and display of guns is related to the economy. This recession has hit men harder than women, and I wonder if in a country where male dominated jobs like construction and finance are being shed much more rapidly than female dominated jobs like education and nursing, if that threat to the traditional male role as head of the household hasn't translated into a lot of the political trends we're seeing, including this recent enthusiasm for open carry.

Huh. Interesting idea.

Bear wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

A decent retention holster and the fear of getting shot, same thing that keeps some people from grabbing cops' weapons.

Do a Google search of "cop shot with own weapon", reality doesn't support the theory. If someone wants to shoot you, a strap or clip won't be a deterrent.

Look further into that bear and see how many were taken from their holster.

Bear wrote:

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.

You do know that most people who carry are trained and licensed, right? I'd much rather be dealing with a trained civilian than a rookie cop who just exited the police academy and is high on his own authority. Common sense gun handling is not restricted to certain people simply because they happen to be employed by the government.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder if the recent enthusiasm for the open carry and display of guns is related to the economy. This recession has hit men harder than women, and I wonder if in a country where male dominated jobs like construction and finance are being shed much more rapidly than female dominated jobs like education and nursing, if that threat to the traditional male role as head of the household hasn't translated into a lot of the political trends we're seeing, including this recent enthusiasm for open carry.

I suspect you're right. There is nothing quite like a good recession to bring out the paranoid and powerless in people. Men generally deal with that sort of thing a lot less well than women do. Parading around with a pistol on the hip may be some sort of compensation. A "F-U. I lost my job, but I still got this penis."

I discussed this topic with a guy on a train yesterday. In word of my commute dude, "guns themselves are not essential -- they're being used as bumper stickers". It's not about the self defense or specific 2nd amendment rights -- it's about the public assertion of one's views.

He proposed an explanation -- perhaps this public flaunting of weapons in OC form is the conservatives' response to (drumroll) the homosexual agenda, with gays daring to appear in public spaces together, "holding each others' hands and stuff". What a conservative to do so as to visibly affirm his views? Flags and Jesus are already being brandished at every opportunity, Hummers are kind of played out. What's the next best thing after Jesus?

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

What's the next best thing after Jesus?

Whiskey? Horses? A wagon?

*edit*

In all seriousness, it's a theory with merit. Along with the economic theory.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I discussed this topic with a guy on a train yesterday. In word of my commute dude, "guns themselves are not essential -- they're being used as bumper stickers". It's not about the self defense or specific 2nd amendment rights -- it's about the public assertion of one's views.

He proposed an explanation -- perhaps this public flaunting of weapons in OC form is the conservatives' response to (drumroll) the homosexual agenda, with gays daring to appear in public spaces together, "holding each others' hands and stuff". What a conservative to do so as to visibly affirm his views? Flags and Jesus are already being brandished at every opportunity, Hummers are kind of played out. What's the next best thing after Jesus?

I don't buy that. People in many states have been openly carrying for decades and only recently have "the gays" been coming out (snap!) in public in larger numbers.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I discussed this topic with a guy on a train yesterday. In word of my commute dude, "guns themselves are not essential -- they're being used as bumper stickers". It's not about the self defense or specific 2nd amendment rights -- it's about the public assertion of one's views.

He proposed an explanation -- perhaps this public flaunting of weapons in OC form is the conservatives' response to (drumroll) the homosexual agenda, with gays daring to appear in public spaces together, "holding each others' hands and stuff". What a conservative to do so as to visibly affirm his views? Flags and Jesus are already being brandished at every opportunity, Hummers are kind of played out. What's the next best thing after Jesus?

I don't buy that. People in many states have been openly carrying for decades and only recently have "the gays" been coming out (snap!) in public in larger numbers.

I think that symbols mean different things in different cultural and historical contexts though. Context always matters.

Whereas the carrying of a sixgun in the Kansas Territory in the 19th Century may have had both practical purpose and political meaning, strapping on your Glock to order your venti frappachino is really not the same action because of context.

I see open carry in very much the same light that I see gang tattoos -- only lacking the commitment.

Paleocon wrote:

I think that symbols mean different things in different cultural and historical contexts though. Context always matters.

Whereas the carrying of a sixgun in the Kansas Territory in the 19th Century may have had both practical purpose and political meaning, strapping on your Glock to order your venti frappachino is really not the same action because of context.

I see open carry in very much the same light that I see gang tattoos -- only lacking the commitment.

So people who open carry are violent people who just don't commit? How interesting. I've lived in AZ most of my life, a state with open carry laws. I know a LOT of law abiding peaceful people who would be rather insulted at this comparison.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think that symbols mean different things in different cultural and historical contexts though. Context always matters.

Whereas the carrying of a sixgun in the Kansas Territory in the 19th Century may have had both practical purpose and political meaning, strapping on your Glock to order your venti frappachino is really not the same action because of context.

I see open carry in very much the same light that I see gang tattoos -- only lacking the commitment.

So people who open carry are violent people who just don't commit? How interesting. I've lived in AZ most of my life, a state with open carry laws. I know a LOT of law abiding peaceful people who would be rather insulted at this comparison.

Once again, I have to say you need to examine the context.

If your friends who open carry do so out in the bush because of a real concern for their safety from coyotes or violent drug smugglers, that's one thing. If they're strapping on a glock to get a cup of coffee to make a point that they can, that's something else entirely. Just like ugly people in spandex, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

So people who open carry are violent people who just don't commit? How interesting. I've lived in AZ most of my life, a state with open carry laws. I know a LOT of law abiding peaceful people who would be rather insulted at this comparison.

I'm not sure they should be insulted. I think an intelligent person would be able to differentiate between someone who has been utilizing open carry laws for years and someone who just recently started doing it intentionally to make a point. Likewise, I am not insulted when people refer to Fred Phelps as a Theist. I understand that his theism and mine are worlds apart.

As far as "recent" displays. I would say there is nothing recent about a wacko at a tea bagger party shouldering a rifle.

In Wisconsin, there has long been a tension on their restrictive gun laws, particularly in the last 5 years as homicide rates have spiked, doubled in some years. And then there is the money. Michigan, Texas, many New England states make a good deal of money licensing teachers for CCW classes, fees paid to register the handguns, and in increased sales. It can provide an economic shot in the arm, without a "new tax."

KingGorilla wrote:

As far as "recent" displays. I would say there is nothing recent about a wacko at a tea bagger party shouldering a rifle.

In Wisconsin, there has long been a tension on their restrictive gun laws, particularly in the last 5 years as homicide rates have spiked, doubled in some years. And then there is the money. Michigan, Texas, many New England states make a good deal of money licensing teachers for CCW classes, fees paid to register the handguns, and in increased sales. It can provide an economic shot in the arm, without a "new tax."

Somehow I don't see a state -- any state -- taxing their way to fiscal responsibility through gun permits. It's just not enough revenue to matter. They're better off going with a lottery, slot machines, liquor taxes, or speeding cameras.

Paleocon wrote:

If they're strapping on a glock to get a cup of coffee to make a point that they can, that's something else entirely. Just like ugly people in spandex, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

That's part of what I think is behind this move from a political context. One of the things that you see disabled rights advocates push for is mainstreaming highly disabled kids in schools so that people grow used to them as kids. If you hide something away, it's mysterious. If you have everybody see something, then it becomes part of the normal background of every day life. I see the same thing in the way Hollywood wants to approach stories about gay people. Want hetero people to become accustomed to open display's of affection by homosexuals? Put it in TV shows. Show gay couples even though you know part of your viewership is disturbed by two dudes kissing. Because eventually the majority of people will get used to it.

Alternately, it could be some psycho-sexual thing without any kind of political strategy. It might be both, depending on who you're talking about.

If people have a right to carry anyways, I'd rather they display them. As a third person, what's the point of it being concealed? It doesnt really change anything. Is ignorance bliss? If they were to misuse it throw their weight around or to imply violence, then there are laws against that. There may be some initial uneasiness if this were to grow to a more commonplace display than folks are used to in some areas, but that would be natural too. I guess I just don't see the reasoning for keeping it concealed.

I'm sure that guns are like many things, in that it becomes a status symbol. Some people carry no-nonsense functional ones. Others will display bigger or sleeker ones that have some inherent boast within it and are possibly even less functional. Some might accessorize with it and wear artistic or highly decorated ones. But that is nature. We see it with cars, clothing, watches & accessories, and 'plumage etc.'

I guess there is room to pause and wonder though if those that would choose not carry and display guns would be seen as targets. I dont know if it works out that way in reality or not. Maybe there is some collateral benefit to being around other samaritans that do.

Paleocon, Milwaukee already has a casino, write tens of millions in parking tickets, and participate in loteries, not to mention all the bars, toll roads on 94.

And looking over the fence, Michigan, Texas are making tens of millions issuing permits for concealed weapons. They are still dirt poor, but that extra revenue exists.

KingGorilla wrote:

Paleocon, Milwaukee already has a casino, write tens of millions in parking tickets, and participate in loteries, not to mention all the bars, toll roads on 94.

And looking over the fence, Michigan, Texas are making tens of millions issuing permits for concealed weapons. They are still dirt poor, but that extra revenue exists.

You should just charge more for out of state hunting licenses and gouge all those rich folks from Minnesota!

Just a thought - does an open carry law permit you to wander the streets with a sword strapped to your hip, or is it limited to guns? I might apply for one if it would legimately allow me to carry a battle-axe into grocery store.

Jonman wrote:

Just a thought - does an open carry law permit you to wander the streets with a sword strapped to your hip, or is it limited to guns? I might apply for one if it would legimately allow me to carry a battle-axe into grocery store.

Is it illegal to carry an axe around as it is?

KingGorilla wrote:

Paleocon, Milwaukee already has a casino, write tens of millions in parking tickets, and participate in loteries, not to mention all the bars, toll roads on 94.

And looking over the fence, Michigan, Texas are making tens of millions issuing permits for concealed weapons. They are still dirt poor, but that extra revenue exists.

Or they could just follow California's example and let pot dispensaries open. Just a couple hundred semi-legal dispensaries brought in $18 million in tax revenue for California last year, more than double Texas' take on gun permits. I'd much rather have my state rely on something benign like a weed tax than needing to have 70,000 of its citizens begin carrying guns every year to balance the budget.

OG_slinger wrote:

Or they could just follow California's example and let pot dispensaries open. Just a couple hundred semi-legal dispensaries brought in $18 million in tax revenue for California last year, more than double Texas' take on gun permits. I'd much rather have my state rely on something benign like a weed tax than needing to have 70,000 of its citizens begin carrying guns every year to balance the budget.

And then they can spend all that money prosecuting the owners of those dispensaries, like in California.

Jonman wrote:

Just a thought - does an open carry law permit you to wander the streets with a sword strapped to your hip, or is it limited to guns? I might apply for one if it would legimately allow me to carry a battle-axe into grocery store.

Because no trip to the grocery store is complete without being sweat on by some loser from a Renaissance faire.

Paleocon wrote:

Whereas the carrying of a sixgun in the Kansas Territory in the 19th Century may have had both practical purpose and political meaning, strapping on your Glock to order your venti frappachino is really not the same action because of context.

That's the thing. Most people I know that carry guns as a matter of course, concealed or not, justify it as "You never know when you're going to need it." Imagined scenarios of being in line at the bank and a bank robber comes in. Typing away on your computer at work and a crazy former employee starts shooting up the place. In church and masked terrorists storm in and pull guns on everyone demanding they renounce Christ. Buying a frappachino when a riot breaks out in the streets... There's no level of justification that would be seen as too outrageous. There is no safe place where a gun would not be needed. Sleeping with handguns under your pillow or a shotgun under your bed. Armed 24/7. It's the only way to be sure.

Jonman wrote:

Just a thought - does an open carry law permit you to wander the streets with a sword strapped to your hip, or is it limited to guns? I might apply for one if it would legimately allow me to carry a battle-axe into grocery store.

Now THAT would be awesome. I wonder how modern society would view a movement for people to start openly carrying swords and battle axes? Renn fair attendees UNITE!

I'm fairly certain that most people would be a little uncomfortable if the people sitting next to them in Starbucks had to remove their broadsword or katana prior to sitting down.

But think of how entertaining a road rage incident could be. What starts out as a simple failure to yield could end with a swordfight!

Personally, I'm going to start carrying a bag of scorpions with me. They're not illegal and I don't need a permit. If the need arises I can just throw the bag of scorpions onto a would be attacker.

Bear wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Just a thought - does an open carry law permit you to wander the streets with a sword strapped to your hip, or is it limited to guns? I might apply for one if it would legimately allow me to carry a battle-axe into grocery store.

Now THAT would be awesome. I wonder how modern society would view a movement for people to start openly carrying swords and battle axes? Renn fair attendees UNITE!

I'm fairly certain that most people would be a little uncomfortable if the people sitting next to them in Starbucks had to remove their broadsword or katana prior to sitting down.

But think of how entertaining a road rage incident could be. What starts out as a simple failure to yield could end with a swordfight!

Personally, I'm going to start carrying a bag of scorpions with me. They're not illegal and I don't need a permit. If the need arises I can just throw the bag of scorpions onto a would be attacker.

The thing I like about the sword example is that every argument to support open carry of guns can be applied to swords too, but the idea of someone in a coffee shop with a katana is patently absurd.

I may be misremembering my trip to Japan and the info we got there, but doesn't a certain level of martial art provide you (in Japan at least) the right to carry a sword in public?

Kehama wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Whereas the carrying of a sixgun in the Kansas Territory in the 19th Century may have had both practical purpose and political meaning, strapping on your Glock to order your venti frappachino is really not the same action because of context.

That's the thing. Most people I know that carry guns as a matter of course, concealed or not, justify it as "You never know when you're going to need it." Imagined scenarios of being in line at the bank and a bank robber comes in. Typing away on your computer at work and a crazy former employee starts shooting up the place. In church and masked terrorists storm in and pull guns on everyone demanding they renounce Christ. Buying a frappachino when a riot breaks out in the streets... There's no level of justification that would be seen as too outrageous. There is no safe place where a gun would not be needed. Sleeping with handguns under your pillow or a shotgun under your bed. Armed 24/7. It's the only way to be sure.

Just personally, I sorta buy "Prevention Because You Don't Know Who's Carrying". Sorta. But open carrying as prevention just seems stupid, less likely to make the bad guys think twice, more likely to let the bad guys know who to take out first. Locally, the only time I can think of where even the presence of a concealed weapon helped anything, it was the Trolley Square shooting back in 2007, and the concealed weapon was carried by an off-duty police officer.

Swords'd be cool, though.

Bear wrote:

Personally, I'm going to start carrying a bag of scorpions with me. They're not illegal and I don't need a permit. If the need arises I can just throw the bag of scorpions onto a would be attacker.

You can call me Johnny Acid.

Jonman wrote:

The thing I like about the sword example is that every argument to support open carry of guns can be applied to swords too, but the idea of someone in a coffee shop with a katana is patently absurd.

Absolutely. Ninja don't drink coffee.

mudbunny wrote:

I may be misremembering my trip to Japan and the info we got there, but doesn't a certain level of martial art provide you (in Japan at least) the right to carry a sword in public?

I know they had a strict ban on it for a while when they were trying to get rid of the samurai but that was much more of a cultural thing; if the sign of a samurai was a fancy hat they would have made the hats illegal instead. I don't know what ever became of that ban over the generations.

From what I know of Japan, I imagine at a certain level you're allowed to carry a katana because if someone tried to stop you you could cut an entire office building in half so quickly it would look like you never drew your sword.