Just to get the blood pressure up a wee bit...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"
Click to expand...

Hmm...Like cell phones, cigarettes, and pocket knives? Some take a little time, some take longer.
Nice thing about guns and knives.... It takes a conscious act by the person weilding it to do it's harm.
The above quoted statement shows the emotionalism involved in their decision making process.
An person who's OC-ing is drawing attention to themselves. Whether they think about it or not, people notice. Now... Bad guys, by nature, don't want to be noticed, unless they're a raving nutter. A BG that's noticed is a BG that's going to end up in jail or dead. So that fact alone makes 99% of OC-ing individuals a Good Guy, or at least not a BG.
A GG gets noticed by a BG, BG decides against acting (most of the time), because he doesn't want to end up in jail or dead. Should BG not notice, or fail to care about GG, GG can possibly stop BG before things go from bad to very bad.

Please compare this to a police officer:
A cop gets noticed by a BG(presumably thats why they're uniformed and wear an OC'd gun), BG decides against acting (most of the time), because he doesn't want to end up in jail or dead. Should BG not notice, or fail to care about cop, cop can possibly stop BG before things go from bad to very bad.

So the only real difference between a lawful OC and a uniformed officer in the eyes of the general public is...... That's right!!! Arrest powers and the ability to do lots of paperwork. Oh, and sheer numbers of legal citizens.
So by the factual argument alone, we deduce one very important thing (at least): Lawful OC by average Americans can have a deterence effect on violent crime. That, in and of itself, is a reason to support it. Share and Enjoy.
 
"How do you expect an officer to deal with that - other than to point a gun at them and go through the process [of elimination]? There's no other way to make that determination safely without putting officers at risk."
Click to expand...


How do I expect them to deal with it? with common sense. all they have to do is add up the signs.

First sign, when the "man with a gun" call came in, I'm sure the dispatcher asked what the "man" was doing, at some point (and if not, they should have). when the answer was "just walking on the sidewalk", or "shopping" or "getting gas", thta should be clue number 1 that this guy is not planning on a robbery, rape or murder. Second clue: Is OC legal where the call came from? if so, add it to clue number 1. Last clue, when the cops arrive, and spot the "man with a gun", what do they observe him doing? If he's just walking donw the sidewalk normaly, or shopping, or pumping gas, or eating lunch, etc, that should be a HUGE clue that this guy isnt planning on committing any crimes, nor harming anyone. Therefore, pointing your guns at him "for police safety", hassling and/or arresting him, or basically doing anything other than walking up, saying hi, and explaining that there was a call, so you just want to touch base to make sure all is well before QUICKLY letting him go about his merry way, is unnessecarry, and flies in the face of all the evidence that, as LEO's, you should be capable of picking up on, and realizing 1+2+3= good guy peacefully going about his business while within the law.

Now, If I can figure all this out, shouldn't LEO's, especially the one's in charge, be able to figure this out? I thought that observation of tell-tale signs, evidence, etc was big part of thier training, and thier job? The last clue I mention should be MORE than enough, all on it's own, for anyone, LEO's included, with ANY common sense, to realize there is no problem and no crime or impending crime.
 
-770 out of 912 I believe this is a win.

I Open carry all over the Salt Lake Valley and rarely get a second look.
 
Incredible. How naive and down-right misinformed!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I know that we are in a battle to preserve our right to carry, and articles such as this are very troubling.

I take medicine for hypertension, but this article still gave me high BP. In fact, it really made me angry. One particular part made me especially mad and offended:

She basically said that gun owners and those who OC or CC undercut law enforcement and interfere with membership in a civil society. What crap. I would like to think that I (and my family) are law-abiding, productive members of society. How dare the author imply otherwise. I have taken steps to protect my family from harm (via CCW), and this hardly makes me uncivil and irresponsible.


p
 
"In light of Trolley Square, mall shootings, school shootings, anyone walking around with a gun potentially creates a lot of phone calls for us," Burbank says. "How do you expect an officer to deal with that ...
Click to expand...

How about this: Have the dispatcher ask the blissninny caller "Well, is he pointing it at anyone? No? Is it even out of the holster? No? Then it's legal; get a life. Good day."

Took 15 seconds. No officer even involved. What's so difficult to understand about that? :mad:
 
They deliberately left open a loophole for those who carry their guns out in the open.
Click to expand...


When the hell will people realize that it is only a true "loophole" if you can find a way to legally do something that a law prohibits.

Loophole is an erroneous term. It's not a loophole, it's a legal privilege awarded to those with no means to acquire a CCW.
 
Well didn't you know that someone made a "loophole" for freedom of speech. It definitely isn't a legal right.
 
Can anyone else not see the rating & comments? I wonder if they've closed them for this article. It was proving wildly unpopular. I went to college with Rebecca Walsh, and I think we even wrote for the school paper at the same time. I was in feature, and she was in news, so we didn't cross paths. I wish I'd have known she was an anti back then, so I could have straightened her out. ;)
 
Loophole is an erroneous term. It's not a loophole, it's a legal privilege awarded to those with no means to acquire a CCW.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not really that even. It's a RIGHT guaranteed via the 2nd amendment to the constitution, afforded to all citizens including those who decide to voluntarily give the state the power to regulate them by submitting a CCW application. :) But yeah, most certainly not a "loophole" in any way shape form or fashion.
 
I kind of agree with the police chief when he says that "he feels that it would be better if everyone just got CCWs". But, at the same time, I bet he feels that way because he would make alot of money off of everyone applying for one. That right there is the problem.
 
went to college with Rebecca Walsh, and I think we even wrote for the school paper at the same time. I was in feature, and she was in news, so we didn't cross paths. I wish I'd have known she was an anti back then, so I could have straightened her out
Click to expand...

I have read Walsh's articles a few times and her issues go far beyond being anti gun.

The tribune has a very clear agenda and thus this dribble being printed is sadly no suprise.
 
Anti gets it, but doesn't get it...

In the article, Steven Gunn makes a correct statement that contradicts his entire stance:
I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety. Most of them are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
Thus, according to him, Open Carry is protected by the First Amendment as a form of political speech!
 
Dang it, Siderite

I was just about to post that...

It is somehow okay, for Mr. Farakhan or a group of white supremecists to gather "in public" to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, typically causing great distress for the local public safety officers. Our Supreme Court has allowed that Old Glory can be defaced or burned under the 1st Amendment. Just about every day there's some 1st Amendment story in the news...

How is it that it's not okay to try "... to make a statement about the Second Amendment"? It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No one referred to in the story is brandishing their weapon, or terrorizing children and mothers, or staring down the innocent... They are citizens exercising their freedoms. I feel that they should be commended for "making a statement".

Carry on -- pun intended!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Gun toters want cops to holster harassment
Replies
15
Views
922
TallPine
T
9
  • Locked
CCW story headlined on CNN....UTAH!
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
ptmmatssc
P
D
  • Locked
Utah students hide guns, head to class, with them
Replies
4
Views
518
CountGlockula
CountGlockula
C
  • Locked
CNN covers Campus CCW Debate
Replies
2
Views
394
Justin
Justin
O
  • Locked
Gun owners miffed by SLC airport's confusing no-firearms signs
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
230RN
230RN
Back
Top