AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that you put yourself at greater risk, and you give the criminal a heightened sense of danger.

Based on the argument I have presented, I'm not sure that this is true. In the interest of self-preservation, I'd like to think that MOST criminals do not want to be involved in a gun fight. It stands to reason that you are more likely to walk away from a non-violent confrontation than a violent one, so why not avoid it?

If, however, the criminal is hell-bent on violence, you're already in a great deal of danger REGARDLESS of whether you're open carrying or not.

It's not so black and white, and I'm not saying that a criminal would never be deterred.

I guess I assume that armed criminals are prepared to take lives, and in some cases won't hesitate to eliminate obvious threats. There is a reason that the police tell you to give into whatever demands that an armed robber may have. You have a much better chance at surviving the incident if you are not a known threat.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:Again, you aren't producing a valid argument. Fear or black people is bigotry. Fear of deadly weapons carried openly by strangers is legitimate. They can easily kill you.

A stranger can kill me with or without a gun. The odds of me being shot and killed by an unfamiliar person are far lower than the plethora of other ways they are likely to kill me. I'll buy into the fear of strangers, but they don't need to be carrying a weapon for me to fear them.

Just because there are other ways in which you can be killed doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control violence and keep public places peaceful.

We have laws that require people to do all kinds of stuff. Think about traffic laws, for example. Most places have a noise limit for engines. Requiring gun owners to keep their weapons concealed is similar to requiring mufflers on cars.

CA is a special case because their concealed carry rights have been violated. That is their problem, not the ban on open carry.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:Ok you are focused on the wrong issues. It's not an issue of who can shoot more accurately, it's an issue of whether or not the person has been trained to properly handle a weapon.

FWIW in Indiana this isn't true. To obtain a carry permit there is no training requirement. Just a standard background check.

Yeah, we don't require it here in WA, either. There are a handful of states that don't. They should, and I would vote for that.

Matt,
You make all wonderful points extolling the virtue of conceal carry vs. open carry. No doubt. But I have a few observations.
I cant help but to think you have bought (a little) into the lie that exercising your right under state law is somehow wrong. You seem too worried about public perception, especially when you are doing nothing wrong (I am assuming you are obviously complying with all other state law). I think the reason why we got here in the first place is that the anti gun lobby instilled the (fear) thought that anyone with a firearm that does not have a uniform is doing something wrong. And I cant help but to think that lawful gun owners have played into that fear with the mentality of “thank you for not taking away all of our rights we are going to go off quietly and exercise our rights in secret as not to offend your sensibilities.” I think this kind of sets a bad precedence. It is the only time, that I can think of, where the exercising of a state right has to be done in view of public opinion. To use a loose analogy, what would say to a Muslim woman who is afraid to wear her head scarf in public for fear that she may be labeled as a Muslim Extremist or worse? Hide it under your cloths as to not alarm the public for fear that someone might get uneasy and call the police or beat you up? Said woman is not doing anything wrong. There is something to say about St. Paul's words of sinning boldly.
Now I know what people are going to say, head scarves don’t kill people. So before anyone goes down the road of situations spiraling out of control because you are open carrying a firearm, I would like to remind them that just because someone open carries, it does not negate the obligation of others to comply with their state’s law (criteria) for the use of deadly force [armed or not.] I get so sick of people trying to use this argument.
In our (religious circles) we would label you as a legalistic. Because you seeming take a freedom and make it law because of your opinion. It is one thing that I despise; trying to bind the conscience of others as if they doing something wrong, when it is a freedom (maybe the word ‘choice’ is a better term in this application). I use this term not for polemic name calling but to point out your behavior. Why can’t a person, complying with all state and local laws just open carry because they want to? I know, I live in an idealistic world here in Nicoland.

Cold_Zero wrote:Protesters would still have to abide by California code and I would be shocked if California code does not have restrictions on where people can carry.
You see Isaac’s rationale (it may not be your specific rationale, but you are supporting it)? We have a security issue, with people carrying firearms in and around government buildings. How do we fix it? Bad all open carrying of firearms. Makes perfect sense.

Makes a certain amount of sense in the event that it was a response to the protests (as if protests can't be done without guns...), especially if you suppose that they had a multitude of other reasons. I'm just trying to find a way for Palmer to be less crazy about how their motivations sound.

Cold_Zero wrote:I suspect the issue, as stated much earlier was they were trying to prevent gang bangers or teens from carrying unloaded weapons around and threatening people (which really would be covered under California code dealing with intimidation with a firearm). This is how government fixes a problem.. they go overboard and hurt the law abiding citizen.

And also to eliminate the false impression that someone poses a greater risk of serious harm, turning what might be an overreaction of, say, a police officer, into a tragic accident that's really bad for PR.

mattblancarte wrote:Just because there are other ways in which you can be killed doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control violence and keep public places peaceful.

Sure, but why not go after the low-hanging fruit first?

mattblancarte wrote:We have laws that require people to do all kinds of stuff. Think about traffic laws, for example. Most places have a noise limit for engines. Requiring gun owners to keep their weapons concealed is similar to requiring mufflers on cars.

But the main point is that criminals DON'T follow laws. That's why they're criminals. Up until very recently, handguns were not allowed in Chicago. Period. Yet not a day went by where I didn't see some kid being shot by a gang member armed with a handgun (edit: on the news, that is). So what is the law actually doing?

We also have laws regulating the speed at which cars travel. Do people still speed? If, as a country, we decided to lower the speed limit 10 MPH everywhere (from what it currently is now), how many people do you think would slow down?

AppleBonker wrote:So what is the law actually doing?

If nothing else, it gives police one more opportunity to intercept the gun before it's used in a crime.

Imagine premeditated murder.

Gangbanger A hears that Gangbanger B beat up Gangbanger A's cousin.
Gangbanger A wants revenge.
Gangbanger A buys a gun.
Gangbanger A buys ammunition.
Gangbanger A loads his gun.
Gangbanger A carries his gun with him.
Gangbanger A stalks Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A plans method of killing Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A approaches Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A confronts Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A threatens Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A aims his gun at Gangbanger B.
Gangbanger A shoots Gangbanger B.

I'm sure we could all agree that certain parts of that should be illegal, even before the actual shooting. If police were to arrive and intercept the crime at, say, the third to last step, we'd probably be okay I'd they had authority to act. So we acknowledge the benefit of giving authorization to police to intercept actions leading up to a greater crime, so when you ask what the benefit is to criminalizing another link in that chain, I wonder if you're really thinking hard about your question or just reflecting a common talking point.

But what goes into Tab C???

IBCoupe wrote:Gangbanger A buys a gun.

Most likely from some random on the street. Which is almost certainly illegal.

IBCoupe wrote:Gangbanger A carries his gun with him.

Almost certainly concealed, though he/she doesn't have a CCW.

IBCoupe wrote:Gangbanger A threatens Gangbanger B.

Already illegal.

IBCoupe wrote:Gangbanger A aims his gun at Gangbanger B.

Already illegal.

IBCoupe wrote:Gangbanger A shoots Gangbanger B.

Already illegal.

IBCoupe wrote:I'm sure we could all agree that certain parts of that should be illegal, even before the actual shooting

As I'm sure you already knew, plenty of that is already illegal (as pointed out above).

IBCoupe wrote:So we acknowledge the benefit of giving authorization to police to intercept actions leading up to a greater crime, so when you ask what the benefit is to criminalizing another link in that chain, I wonder if you're really thinking hard about your question or just reflecting a common talking point.

Oh, I am thinking hard. If 50% of that scenario is already illegal, is making another 10% illegal really going to help stop the crime? Seems like it might be easier to train the police to be less inept so they can catch one of the multitude of other crimes committed here?

All I learned in life I learned from Johnny Cash:

A young cowboy named Billy Joe grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wonderlust who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He laughed and kissed his mom
And said your Billy Joe's a man
I can shoot as quick and straight as anybody can
But I wouldn't shoot without a cause
I'd gun nobody down
But she cried again as he rode away

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He sang a song as on he rode
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar
And laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mothers words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

Filled with rage then
Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired
Before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor
The crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

AppleBonker wrote:Oh, I am thinking hard. If 50% of that scenario is already illegal, is making another 10% illegal really going to help stop the crime? Seems like it might be easier to train the police to be less inept so they can catch one of the multitude of other crimes committed here?

1. Might make a difference, and so asking "what's the benefit" is a fool's errand, is all I'm saying.

2. Why choose between better laws and better cops?

1. I'm not a huge fan of the "throw-sh*t-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks" form of policy making. It might make a difference. But it might not. It might negatively impact numerous people. It might not. Maybe these things should be investigated first? Doesn't that seem like a smart idea?

2. Define "better" when it comes to laws? I think there have been some points made here that would argue this as being a "better" law. It's certainly up for discussion. And if I think it is worse, who should we trust to determine which "better" to use?

1(a). How does one investigate that kind of thing if not by having it instituted somewhere?

1(b). What makes you think this Californian law isn't supported by any research?

2. Doesn't matter what "better" means. You created the dichotomy and I'm challenging it.

IBCoupe wrote:1(a). How does one investigate that kind of thing if not by having it instituted somewhere?

You mean like Chicago? Where handguns were banned, and now are not. And, oddly, there wasn't a huge spike in crime. Though, I suppose the carry laws are still in place. And again, oddly, Chicago isn't any safer than Indianapolis.

IBCoupe wrote:1(b). What makes you think this Californian law isn't supported by any research?

Cause that isn't the American way. We create a law at random, because, hey, it might help. And then when it doesn't have the desired consequences, we refine it some. And this process continues until the one-line law now has a novel-length list of exemptions/explanations/etc which essentially requires a law degree to understand. All the while, the criminal who wasn't abiding by the original law certainly doesn't care about any of the alterations to it. And the law-abiding citizen is now having to spend the time to analyze everything to determine what he/she can or can't do.

IBCoupe wrote:2. Doesn't matter what "better" means. You created the dichotomy and I'm challenging it.

Ok, I'll phrase it this way: I'd love to have better cops AND better laws. My argument is that this ISN'T a better law.

When Chicago has three times the population (2.7mil vs. 840k), twice the population density (4400/sq mi vs. 2200/sq mi), and almost twice the poverty rate as Indianapolis (19% vs. 11%), I'm not sure that "just as safe" would cut in your favor on this one, Adam. Indianapolis is also more homogenous, and a higher median household income. If Chicago is anywhere near as safe as Indianapolis, that's pretty bad for your argument (per one thousand people, Chicago's crime rate is only two higher than Indianapolis - 57 and 55 respectively).

And "it isn't a better law" is the right argument to make, and that's what I was aiming for when I asked "why choose."

So you're saying there are a number of other factors that play a role in levels of violence other than gun possession/carrying/whatever? Got it.

IBCoupe wrote:And "it isn't a better law" is the right argument to make, and that's what I was aiming for when I asked "why choose."

And maybe I'm just tired, but are you agreeing with me here? Or claiming that it is a better law?

AppleBonker wrote:So you're saying there are a number of other factors that play a role in levels of violence other than gun possession/carrying/whatever? Got it.

Of course there are. Doesn't mean that banning the carrying of gun possession doesn't come into effect. And I think I've made a pretty good case that, if, as you sort of suggested, the banning of guns is the one major policy difference between Chicago and Indianapolis, the banning of guns has done wonders for Chicago because, given its statistics, it ought to be much worse off that Indianapolis, and really, the crime rate is pretty equal.

AppleBonker wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:And "it isn't a better law" is the right argument to make, and that's what I was aiming for when I asked "why choose."

And maybe I'm just tired, but are you agreeing with me here? Or claiming that it is a better law?

Neither, really. That line of argument was my attempt to point out that better laws and better cops needn't be separate legislative priorities, and that increased gun control can exist right next to a law that increases police training standards.

And I'm not claiming it's a better law. I've tried in this thread to keep myself to claiming:

1. That this law is not an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment

and

2. There exists a plausible basis for this law.

Whether the law is prudent or effective is not something I'm all that interested in debating. I'm more interested in determining whether there's a reason for anyone to legitimately think that there might be. And I think I've demonstrated that.

Cold_Zero wrote:I cant help but to think you have bought (a little) into the lie that exercising your right under state law is somehow wrong. You seem too worried about public perception, especially when you are doing nothing wrong (I am assuming you are obviously complying with all other state law).

I don't think it's wrong to exercise your rights. There's a time and a place for all kinds of legal behaviors.

I can legally walk up to some nice old lady and call her a cuntbag. Just because I have the right to make non-threatening statements doesn't mean it's the "right" thing to do. Open carry falls into that same category, in my opinion. Whether you like it or not, people will react to an openly carried firearm.

I'm an Eagle Scout. Part of the Scout Law is to be courteous to others, and I take that seriously. Open-carry is not courteous because of how it affects OTHERS.

Applebonker said "eff 'em." That's a selfish attitude that I won't subscribe to.

Cold_Zero wrote:I think the reason why we got here in the first place is that the anti gun lobby instilled the (fear) thought that anyone with a firearm that does not have a uniform is doing something wrong.

Perhaps others use this logic, but I do not. I just assume that if someone is open carrying, they want attention. Why else would someone open carry? It's always the same selfish reasons.

Cold_Zero wrote:And I cant help but to think that lawful gun owners have played into that fear with the mentality of “thank you for not taking away all of our rights we are going to go off quietly and exercise our rights in secret as not to offend your sensibilities.” I think this kind of sets a bad precedence. It is the only time, that I can think of, where the exercising of a state right has to be done in view of public opinion. To use a loose analogy, what would say to a Muslim woman who is afraid to wear her head scarf in public for fear that she may be labeled as a Muslim Extremist or worse? Hide it under your cloths as to not alarm the public for fear that someone might get uneasy and call the police or beat you up? Said woman is not doing anything wrong. There is something to say about St. Paul's words of sinning boldly.
Now I know what people are going to say, head scarves don’t kill people. So before anyone goes down the road of situations spiraling out of control because you are open carrying a firearm, I would like to remind them that just because someone open carries, it does not negate the obligation of others to comply with their state’s law (criteria) for the use of deadly force [armed or not.] I get so sick of people trying to use this argument.

Well, I can't speak for everyone. I think open carry is stupid for all of the reasons I've told you. It's tactically stupid, inconsiderate of others, and akin to wearing a flashy outfit.

I'm not a huge fan of your hypothetical analogy. It's not based on real events, and thus, not convincing. No one will be banning head scarves out of fear.

Yes, head scarves don't kill people. Guns, however, can be used as a tool for killing. Thus, it's easy to understand why people may be bothered when seeing a stranger carry around a gun. How are they to know what the motivations for such behavior might be?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in regards to states' laws application to armed and unarmed citizens... Perhaps you could rephrase that for me?

Cold_Zero wrote:In our (religious circles) we would label you as a legalistic. Because you seeming take a freedom and make it law because of your opinion. It is one thing that I despise; trying to bind the conscience of others as if they doing something wrong, when it is a freedom (maybe the word ‘choice’ is a better term in this application).

Okay I am sorry, but this is ridiculous. You have the right to bear arms, sure. How you bear arms is not exactly spelled out, and can be revised. What kind of arms you can bear is also up for debate. I don't see you demanding that we have the right to carry rocket launchers. Furthermore, laws are always changing. Of course laws are based on opinion... what the hell else are they based on?

Bind the conscience as if they are doing something wrong? C'mon, dude. I'm just saying that open carry is stupid, in practice. I guess if you want to open carry to a gun-rally or something, it makes sense. Otherwise, it's just douchey behavior. I wouldn't vote to take open carry away from citizens, either! I already said that I would yield to the most liberal use of the second amendment! I'm just saying that there is actually some merit in banning open carry.

Like I said, you have the freedom of speech. You can legally call me a dirtbag for absolutely no good reason. That doesn't mean it's right to exercise freedom of speech in such a manner. Does that make sense?

Have you considered that the rights you have came to be because some folks hundreds of years ago had an opinion on freedom, and changed the definition? Don't try to tell me that the law is the law, and it shall not be revised. Sheesh!

Cold_Zero wrote:Why can’t a person, complying with all state and local laws just open carry because they want to? I know, I live in an idealistic world here in Nicoland.

They can! If the state law says you can open carry, you can open carry. It's pretty simple. CA just decided they don't like it, and it's understandable.

AppleBonker wrote:But the main point is that criminals DON'T follow laws. That's why they're criminals. Up until very recently, handguns were not allowed in Chicago. Period. Yet not a day went by where I didn't see some kid being shot by a gang member armed with a handgun (edit: on the news, that is). So what is the law actually doing?

We also have laws regulating the speed at which cars travel. Do people still speed? If, as a country, we decided to lower the speed limit 10 MPH everywhere (from what it currently is now), how many people do you think would slow down?

I'm not sure what your point is. We aren't talking about how to tackle crime. The Chicago example has nothing to do with the open carry debate. If you wanted to use that as an example as to why people should be allowed to arm themselves, I agree. Although, kids can't legally own and carry handguns. Kinda a moot point.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the traffic example. I'm not saying anyone should break the law... How does any of that have to do with open carry?

In no way am I proposing that citizens should not be allowed to arm themselves. You've attacked the wrong argument, because we agree on that.

IBCoupe wrote:And I'm not claiming it's a better law. I've tried in this thread to keep myself to claiming:

1. That this law is not an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment

and

2. There exists a plausible basis for this law.

Fair. You're too educated on these topics for me, so I sometimes have a hard time determining what your actual point is. Thanks for the layman's description.

mattblancarte wrote:Applebonker said "eff 'em." That's a selfish attitude that I won't subscribe to.

FWIW, that was said mostly in jest.

mattblancarte wrote:Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the traffic example. I'm not saying anyone should break the law... How does any of that have to do with open carry?

Simply pointing out that the law only seems to adversely affect those who are law-abiding, therefore rendering it pointless. Guess I wasn't terribly clear either.

AppleBonker wrote:Fair. You're too educated on these topics for me, so I sometimes have a hard time determining what your actual point is. Thanks for the layman's description.

Sorry for making it too complicated. Don't give my comments on that too much credit. I'm voicing the opinion of the people who lost the Heller case.

IBCoupe wrote:1. That this law is not an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment

and

2. There exists a plausible basis for this law.

On point 1, is there a specific legal opinion (what is the correct word?) that has been provided by a court (or State/US Supreme Court)?

Or is it still likely/in the works?

Z

Well, as i just wrote to Adam, the Supreme Court has incorporated the Second Amendment, and my interpretation is counter to the majority's.

In a couple of relatively recent Supreme Court cases, the Court has adopted Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment. My interpretation of the Second is better aligned with Justice Stevens, who dissented. I think Scalia, ever the originalist, decided for whatever reason not to look to the original meaning of the text, reading "bear arms" as "carry guns" rather than "defend your country," and as such, my interpretation is contrary to the Court's.

This thread reminds me of Drivin 'n Cryins hit song "Tellin Stories".

Hehe