One Possible Issue With Open Carry

[Cinemachinery]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11 ... do-springs

Witnesses watched in horror as Harpham picked his victims off. One of them, the bicyclist, pleaded for his life before being killed.

"I heard the (young man) say, 'Don't shoot me! Don't shoot me!' " Naomi Bettis, a neighbor who witnessed the killing, said Monday.

Bettis said she recognized the gunman as her neighbor—whom she didn't know by name—and that before the initial slaying she saw him roaming outside with a rifle. She called 911 to report the man, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms.

"He did have a distraught look on his face," Bettis said. "It looked like he had a rough couple days or so."

[Gendo]

That's a little like saying that laws allowing black people to walk around the streets freely in white neighborhoods cause a problem, because if someone calls the cops and says "there's a black person in my neighborhood", then they'll just be told "well that's legal here." If the black person happens to then commit a crime, it doesn't mean that the law or the 911 dispatchers were wrong.

[Blade Azaezel]

My first response to that rebuttal is "fuck's sake, Gendo". I haven't formulated a second one yet

[Cassius Clay]

Ummm...not the greatest analogy, brah.

[Gendo]

What? There are people (like George Zimmerman) who do racist crap like call the cops because a black person is in their neighborhood. It is a good thing that these people are told to deal with it. The point is that a person being black doesn't increase the chances that they are about to commit a crime.

If my point has come across as racist as opposed to being against racism, I would like to understand why and apologize...

[Boomer]

If the man was acting erratic or threatening then I think calling 911 is completely justified, despite whatever laws are in place.

Also, a man walking around brandishing a gun in a neigorhood poses a legitimate threat where ones worry is justified, a black guy walking in a white neighborhood does not.

[Gendo]

If the man was acting erratic or threatening then I think calling 911 is completely justified, despite whatever laws are in place.

Absolutely.

Also, a man walking around brandishing a gun in a neigorhood poses a legitimate threat where ones worry is justified, a black guy walking in a white neighborhood does not.

I think this is the heart of the disagreement.... is there any evidence that having a visible gun makes a person a legitimate threat vs someone who does not have a visible gun?

[Cassius Clay]

@Gendo Hey, I know you're a good dude and you have good intentions, but there are a so many levels of tone deafness to the analogy that might be difficult to unpack. I did laugh when I read it tho.

I'll just simply say that an armed white man is equivalent to an unarmed black man in a white neighborhood to Gendo.

[Boomer]

I think this is the heart of the disagreement.... is there any evidence that having a visible gun makes a person a legitimate threat vs someone who does not have a visible gun?

*sigh* Probably not.

[Cassius Clay]

But, more seriously, this is one of the problems with using oppressions to make analogies(even when comparing two similar oppressive systems).

Sometimes you trivialize an issue when you make an awkward comparison/analogy. Like when extreme animal rights activists compare animal abuse to the plight of black people in America. Even if the analogy might be structurally/functionally sound, it comes across as ridiculous and callous....the connotations, brah. Or when people compare other fucked up situations to rape.

The funniest thing about it is that all you really ended up saying in the comparison is that the 911 dispatchers weren't wrong because it's legal. So many levels of unnecessary. (I mean it's a very simple point and there were many other ways to make that point, but you ended choosing an offensive and complicated way to make it. Given that I think you're a good/humble guy with good intentions...that's pretty damn funny. Does this count as extreme Gendoing?).

[Islandmur]

Gendo in effect you are saying that a black man walking around in a neighborhood is akin to a man carrying a gun. A man carrying a gun is a possibility of danger, a man (black / white / blue / purple) walking around isn't in itself suspicious.

Before saying that there was a carry law in the state, the dispatcher should have ascertained that this man wasn't a danger to begin with. If he had asked more questions the woman might have told him the man seemed not himself and that might have given him pause for concern. As it is he simply dismissed her.

Likewise, a call that there seems to be a "suspicious" man, agitated, crazy, drunk etc... walking about would have been cause for concern.

Color of skin isn't a point here. Even George Zimmerman knew that which is why he claims that Trayvon was acting suspicious looking into houses. Had he stated that Trayvon was just walking around, i hope the outcome would have been different.

[Gendo]

But, more seriously, this is one of the problems with using oppressions to make analogies(even when comparing two similar oppressive systems).

Sometimes you trivialize an issue when you make an awkward comparison/analogy. Like when extreme animal rights activists compare animal abuse to the plight of black people in America. Even if the analogy might be structurally/functionally sound, it comes across as ridiculous and callous....the connotations, brah. Or when people compare other fucked up situations to rape.

The funniest thing about it is that all you really ended up saying in the comparison is that the 911 dispatchers weren't wrong because it's legal. So many levels of unnecessary. (I mean it's a very simple point and there were many other ways to make that point, but you ended choosing an offensive and complicated way to make it. Given that I think you're a good/humble guy with good intentions...that's pretty damn funny. Does this count as extreme Gendoing?).

Ok, I totally get this now. And I'm sorry for the analogy I chose.

[Gendo]

A man carrying a gun is a possibility of danger,

I've admitted that my analogy was wrong, but I still think this statement is wrong. I mean, of course it's a possibility of danger, but so is any person in any situation.

[Monk]

A man carrying a gun is a possibility of danger,

I've admitted that my analogy was wrong, but I still think this statement is wrong. I mean, of course it's a possibility of danger, but so is any person in any situation.

No, sorry. I don't buy this argument. A person with a gun has much greater potential to do harm than a person without a gun.

[Gendo]

A man carrying a gun is a possibility of danger,

I've admitted that my analogy was wrong, but I still think this statement is wrong. I mean, of course it's a possibility of danger, but so is any person in any situation.

No, sorry. I don't buy this argument. A person with a gun has much greater potential to do harm than a person without a gun.

Well yes. But in the same way that a 250 pound athlete has much greater potential to do harm than a young child. Of course, to a much greater degree. But the point is that there's a difference between potential to do harm, and a legitimate threat that should be reported to the police.

*Edit* Also, a man with a visible gun doesn't have greater potential to do harm than a man with a concealed gun.

[Blade Azaezel]

you have more potential for curtailing danger if people aren't allowed guns and you spot someone carrying, than if everyone is carrying and you don't know what to assume. I don't see how you can make this an issue.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I really don't think we should start enacting laws against "potential" threats because that would piss off Tom Cruise.

Though really, that is a slippery slope to be climbing because there is no evidence to support the theory that people who open carry pose a risk to the safety of others.

And Az...the people that hurt others with guns are not out brandishing them for all to see so the comment that you have more potential for curtailing danger if people aren't allowed guns and you spot someone carrying a gun is all sorts of illogical.

[Gendo]

About time the gun nuts show up to back me up.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Nut, just nut. I have only one nut. The rest of my nuts were relocated because they were feeling sad from disuse.

Honestly, the whole gun debate is so saturated with emotional responses and personal anecdotes from all sides that having any real discussion is almost impossible. The only thing I can do is review whatever data is out there and available to us so as to form some kind of opinion on the state of gun ownership. I am much more likely to be injured or killed by accidental poisoning than I am by a gun.

I don't personally like walking around the park with a bunch of gun toting citizens but that is an emotional response only because I know I am more likely to be hit by lightening on a clear day than be shot by one of those civilians. I think it's the media and their fear mongering because people gobble it up like hot cakes and so we have this clear as mud issue that is gun control.

[Cassius Clay]

But, more seriously, this is one of the problems with using oppressions to make analogies(even when comparing two similar oppressive systems).

Sometimes you trivialize an issue when you make an awkward comparison/analogy. Like when extreme animal rights activists compare animal abuse to the plight of black people in America. Even if the analogy might be structurally/functionally sound, it comes across as ridiculous and callous....the connotations, brah. Or when people compare other fucked up situations to rape.

The funniest thing about it is that all you really ended up saying in the comparison is that the 911 dispatchers weren't wrong because it's legal. So many levels of unnecessary. (I mean it's a very simple point and there were many other ways to make that point, but you ended choosing an offensive and complicated way to make it. Given that I think you're a good/humble guy with good intentions...that's pretty damn funny. Does this count as extreme Gendoing?).

Ok, I totally get this now. And I'm sorry for the analogy I chose.

[Monk]

Well yes. But in the same way that a 250 pound athlete has much greater potential to do harm than a young child. Of course, to a much greater degree. But the point is that there's a difference between potential to do harm, and a legitimate threat that should be reported to the police.

Come now. Let's stop being obtuse. A 250 lb athlete isn't going to go on a mass killing spree with his bare hands. The problem is when you see someone with a gun, you don't know what his/her intentions are, so the difference in potential threat does need to be accounted for.

*Edit* Also, a man with a visible gun doesn't have greater potential to do harm than a man with a concealed gun.

Yeah, that might mean something to me if I somehow approved laws that protect concealed gun carries.

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah...I don't get the arguments that seem to suggest that a fear of guns is completely irrational. I'm aware that there are gun-control advocates on the left that make irrational sweeping statements, that might be naively misinformed, that rely on faulty/myopic statistics and POVs, or that might not quite understand/appreciate constitutional rights....but I don't think it is irrational to feel threatened by anyone walking around with a weapon that can kill you in a second. At least I have a chance with the 250-pound dude(funny thing though is that people do often feel threatened/intimidated by big, muscular people). I just see a lot of arguments from pro-gun folk that try to act like the potential of guns to do drastic harm is completely irrelevant. That's how you get irrational comparisons to a 250-pound athlete, or a black guy in a white neighborhood . And it seems to me that you can easily push that line of argument to an eventual absurdity...like does a guy walking around with a bazooka have the same potential for harm as an unarmed guy?...what about a guy driving a tank around?....what about a guy walking around with a nuke? Obviously guns have purposes other than killing people(as opposed to the other things), and I'm not a believer in promoting hysteria about guns(I do agree there is a lot of irrational fear of guns), but lets stop pretending the potential damage guns can do is completely irrelevant(or that a person is irrational for being concerned when they see a disturbed-looking civilian running around with a gun, especially when it's not a common occurrence).

There was a knife attack a few days ago at a school. I think 5 people were injured. And, of course, there were morons in the comments section sarcastically saying "we need to ban knives!", mocking the reactions of anti-gun folks when there's a mass shooting...but they somehow overlook the point that NO ONE WAS KILLED.

Edit: Just noticed that my framing/language is a little off. When I'm speaking about taking the potential harm/legitimate threat argument to an eventual absurdity, I mean that we should stop pretending that the difference in potential harm is completely irrelevant.

[CashRules]

That article includes links to two other articles that help explain the "gun problem", at least to some extent:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -columbine

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... s-copycats

From the first article, although I doubt Mother Jones will admit it anymore than FOXNEWS will admit the thousands of times they've been wrong, it's clear that whatever problems these shooters (and potential shooters) may have, those problems exist and then they go looking for a gun. So it's not a case of "Hey look, I've got a gun so I think I'll shoot some innocent people.", it's "Those people piss me off because I'm an out cast for whatever reason, now I want to get a gun to shoot them." Okay then, do something about THOSE people, suggest programs to help identify potential situations such as this rather than waiting for people to die so the blame can be cast on all gun-owners when 99.99% of gun owners have no intention of harming anybody and are much more likely to help innocent people than to harm them.

The second article confirms what I and a few others have been saying for years, the media glorifies these instances so that such people are even more likely to carry out such atrocities.

As far as the article in the OP is concerned, the media will almost always cover only the tragedies to paint gun owners in as negative a light as possible. I have no idea how many people in Colorado were saved by someone with a gun but I'll bet it's significantly more than three. Before somebody completely misses the point and says "But they used guns to stop PEOPLE WITH GUNS" I'll add that I'd be willing to bet that the number of attacks with knives or other non-firearm weapons that were stopped by people with guns on that day was more than three just in the state of Colorado. I actually find it distasteful to break it down into raw numbers when people have been killed but it's the anti-gunners who force such distastefulness because they are the ones who make such ridiculous claims as "A firearm in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." They make these claims and then have the audacity to accuse gun-rights advocates of bloodlust. Why is the killing of the intruder the supposed goal? I just want to stop the fucker, hopefully without having to even fire a shot. If I was ever put into a situation where I was forced to kill someone it would weigh heavily on my conscience for the rest of my life, even if the person I killed was a prison escapee/mass murderer who I killed because he had a gun pointed at my sister's head.

That being said, I could even be persuaded if someone presented a rational, logical argument against public carrying of rifles and shotguns so that both open carry and concealed carry were limited to handguns. The purpose of armed citizens is to be able to react quickly in case a situation develops where the person needs to defend himself or others. A quick reaction with a rifle is not exactly plausible.

There is a huge problem on both sides of this "debate" that needs to be addressed, the lack of rationality and logic. Anti-gunners present a case that relies on the virtual ass-raping of statistics and they are able to get away with such dishonesty in large part because the majority of the people they are debating are uneducated fuckwits who I take no pride in having on "my side". So, instead of replying with logical presentations, the fuckwits respond with ultra right-wing slogans and myths that should never be used in any form of discussion. So the anti-gunners have the problem that few, if any, of their arguments can stand up to any real scrutiny and on the rare occasion they are faced with that real scrutiny they obfuscate and ignore those replies in favor of the more easily defeated arguments. Meanwhile, the pro-gun side has the problem of it's most vocal members being goddamned morons who should just shut the fuck up and stop trying to think.