ACORN
Member
Yeah, we know that crimes only happen in "designated areas"
Pistol-Packing Pennsylvania Mom Sues PC
- Thread starter dcal
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, we know that crimes only happen in "designated areas"
moooose102
Member
you know what? i have a ccw permit, but there is NO REASON that people should not open carry where legal. i do not know why public opinion of guns is so bad, it certainly helped get obama elected. we need to figure out how to change public opinion of firearms. they are not just for cops, bad guys and the military. hiding our guns is not going to change public opinion of them. we need to wear them out in the open, so people can see that average joe or jane can have a gun, and not be a threat. the stinking media is of no help to us. they are one of the huge anti-gun "powers" that have to be delt with. but until one of the major networks people is caught on tape being asaulted, with an armed citizen successfully interveining, that is not going to happen. maybe then, if that ever does happen, and if the networks do not cover it up and burn it, then MAYBE, public opinion MIGHT begin to come around.either that, or we need to figure out how to make guns "COOL".
From moooose102:
There are two reasons why you might want to think twice about it, both dependent on circumstances and location.
First, see this from a supposedly pro-gun writer; don't think for a moment that she is alone:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/7059-post10.html
Second, consider whom a gun-carrying perp is likely to shoot first--maybe the one person carrying openly?
Again, depends on circumstances. If you're in Cripple Creek and many people carry, no one is likely to "call the cops," and it is extremely unlikely that a gunman will start anything. But we can't make every place turn into Cripple Creek by strapping on iron. Too many other cultural considerations enter in to the equation.
Probably started with public statements by Milton Eisenhower and J. Edgar Hoover, but three assassinations in the 1960s and the media onslaught that followed didn't help any. And did I say "media?"
I'm not sure--some exit polls indicate that a minority of people who voted for him knew much about what he stands for.
Yep. We can start by presenting a positive impression, conducting ourselves responsibly, avoiding bombast, and, I think, by helping good young people get started in the shooting sports.
I'll tell you that seeing unkempt people in provocative T-shirts walking around at a gun show with unpleasant expressions and carrying Kalashnikovs turns off a lot of people, including NRA life members I know.
And people once shot so many holes in road signs where I live that the state law has been worded to prohibit such a stupid, destructive, and dangerous act.
That may well have the opposite of your desired effect.
But: we digress. The LEO was out of line. However, were open carry permitted here, I really don't think I would do it at a soccer game. What's the point?
There are two reasons why you might want to think twice about it, both dependent on circumstances and location.
First, see this from a supposedly pro-gun writer; don't think for a moment that she is alone:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/7059-post10.html
Second, consider whom a gun-carrying perp is likely to shoot first--maybe the one person carrying openly?
Again, depends on circumstances. If you're in Cripple Creek and many people carry, no one is likely to "call the cops," and it is extremely unlikely that a gunman will start anything. But we can't make every place turn into Cripple Creek by strapping on iron. Too many other cultural considerations enter in to the equation.
Probably started with public statements by Milton Eisenhower and J. Edgar Hoover, but three assassinations in the 1960s and the media onslaught that followed didn't help any. And did I say "media?"
I'm not sure--some exit polls indicate that a minority of people who voted for him knew much about what he stands for.
Yep. We can start by presenting a positive impression, conducting ourselves responsibly, avoiding bombast, and, I think, by helping good young people get started in the shooting sports.
I'll tell you that seeing unkempt people in provocative T-shirts walking around at a gun show with unpleasant expressions and carrying Kalashnikovs turns off a lot of people, including NRA life members I know.
And people once shot so many holes in road signs where I live that the state law has been worded to prohibit such a stupid, destructive, and dangerous act.
That may well have the opposite of your desired effect.
But: we digress. The LEO was out of line. However, were open carry permitted here, I really don't think I would do it at a soccer game. What's the point?
gregormeister
Member
I've been following this some as it is only an hour away or so to Harrisburg (I don't travel to urban areas if I don't have to)..anyhow, she is saying that now her baby sitting business is in shambles and its hurt her financially and mentally.
Honestly I have been reading the PUBLIC OPINION, which is the local rag around here. It has comment areas and the socialist voting hoplophobes have been in a frenzy and making comments to pro-gun commenters.
Now, in PA you can open or conceal carry. I wear my 357. mainly concealed by my shirt or coat in a Fobus holster. I do think it is smart to have a firearm at all times but maybe she should have used a little common sense in the wearing of her Glock in plain view of children and parents. If a tradgedy had unfolded and she had used her concealed Glock to end it, then maybe they'd praise her but its not the case.
I have said that since day one, but I still support her as it is her "Right"...maybe she just should have used better judgement as to where she wore it???
Honestly I have been reading the PUBLIC OPINION, which is the local rag around here. It has comment areas and the socialist voting hoplophobes have been in a frenzy and making comments to pro-gun commenters.
Now, in PA you can open or conceal carry. I wear my 357. mainly concealed by my shirt or coat in a Fobus holster. I do think it is smart to have a firearm at all times but maybe she should have used a little common sense in the wearing of her Glock in plain view of children and parents. If a tradgedy had unfolded and she had used her concealed Glock to end it, then maybe they'd praise her but its not the case.
I have said that since day one, but I still support her as it is her "Right"...maybe she just should have used better judgement as to where she wore it???
Deanimator
Member
I used to work for a government contractor where some employees and management felt the same way about yarmulkas.
FoMoGo
Member
Yet again... show me where this has happened.
There are MANY instances where people have been shot and either were unarmed or looked to be unarmed.
Most criminals are looking for the easy score.
A guy with a pistol on his hip doesnt scream "Easy Score"... it actually says "you may die from assaulting this guy".
This is one reason I open carry every time I leave the house.
The public also gets to see a man with a pistol who opens doors for them, speaks to them politely, and is helpful and courteous.
When I carry I see it as my personal responsibility to be the positive face of open carry. Others may not, but I do.
Jim
From FoMoGo: Quote:
I said "likely" and that can be evaluated through analysis--for a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, NASA didn't need to first have the Challenger blow up to understand most of the risks and try to mitigate them.
But since you asked....
In February 2008, a man with a stolen gun headed for the Kirkwood, MO city hall for the purpose of shooting whomever he could in a city council meeting. On his way across the parking lot he encountered a policeman, killed him, and took his gun. Upon entering the chamber the first person he shot was the armed policeman on guard. After that he was unopposed. ("Gun free zone," by the way.) Common sense, from the killer's point of view, wouldn't you say?
Yep. In this case the mayor and several others. Afterwards.
How's that? "You" die from starting anything like that, but not at the hand of the guy with the pistol on his hip, if "you" shoot him first--which is precisely what "you" would do. Right? I guarantee you that's what I would do, were I so inclined.
Common sense, wouldn't you say?
Now, I don't know whether there was anyone dangerous around to endanger she soccer mom, but if so wouldn't the same risks apply?
I said "likely" and that can be evaluated through analysis--for a Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, NASA didn't need to first have the Challenger blow up to understand most of the risks and try to mitigate them.
But since you asked....
In February 2008, a man with a stolen gun headed for the Kirkwood, MO city hall for the purpose of shooting whomever he could in a city council meeting. On his way across the parking lot he encountered a policeman, killed him, and took his gun. Upon entering the chamber the first person he shot was the armed policeman on guard. After that he was unopposed. ("Gun free zone," by the way.) Common sense, from the killer's point of view, wouldn't you say?
Yep. In this case the mayor and several others. Afterwards.
How's that? "You" die from starting anything like that, but not at the hand of the guy with the pistol on his hip, if "you" shoot him first--which is precisely what "you" would do. Right? I guarantee you that's what I would do, were I so inclined.
Common sense, wouldn't you say?
Now, I don't know whether there was anyone dangerous around to endanger she soccer mom, but if so wouldn't the same risks apply?
Last edited:
rbernie
Contributing Member
Logic suggests that he shot the policeman because the policeman's uniform identified him as an obvious potential threat.
I have yet to encounter an example where OC itself was the determining factor in somebody being targeted by a gunman.
I was thinking the same thing. I think criminals would rather bypass a potential gunfight when there is a obviously armed. That's the real reason police patrols are used. If they wanted to catch crime they would use only undercover officers.
That's certainly not a common motive of crime, but the action of a derranged person. It also implies that he will be killing the unarmed people next. So which is better, armed and dead first or unarmed and dead second?
FRom wrxguyusa:
Yep!
Which was in fact demonstrated.
I'm not proposing being unarmed at all. I'm simply pointing out that if someone is going to shoot people, he will most certainly take out the obvious threats first.
Now, if one were armed but not advertising oneself as a clear threat to a killer, and an armed man started shooting, one would at least have a chance. The perp's attention would not have been drawn to that person first.
To me that is simple common sense. The man with the gun in view must be taken out first for the assault to proceed. People carrying concealed among the others do not stand out, and they stand a chance.
Also, a couple of people could relatively easily attack from behind in a crowd situation, and the man with the visible side-arm is again the obvious target, not only because he has to be neutralized, but because the extra gun would be a nice prize.
Off duty police almost always carry concealed, and one reason is to give them a chance. When they are in uniform the carry openly because their presence helps enforce the law--which is their job. A fair number of them die each year in the performance of that job.
Civilians, on the other hand, have neither the duty, the same authority, the shield of indemnity, nor the training to do that job. They have the right to protect themselves, and I think in most cases they are likely safer doing so in effective anonymity, unnoticed.
Now, I will grant you that an alert citizen carrying openly probably would be safer against a man in the shadows with a box cutter at an ATM or in a car jacking situation, which may be somewhat more common than the gun-armed felon...provided, that is, that the perp is capable of reason. People who know tell me that many meth people are not dissuaded by much of anything short of a bullet.
Upon reflection, if I had the right to carry openly, I might consider doing so in certain situations at night at ATMs or service stations that are not well illuminated or well trafficked--but not at soccer games!
And as I said before, if a large number of people were carrying openly (and that will never be acceptable in some of our cultures) there would be no single threat to put out of action first, the criminal wouldn't stand a chance, and there wouldn't be any crime at all. Elmer Keith said that long ago.
I think we've gotten off track, but your excellent points deserved consideration.
The primary risks that the woman in PA assumed were those of attracting unwanted attention and causing an outcry, and both outcomes were in fact realized, as incompetent as the actions of the LEO turned out to be.
Yep!
Which was in fact demonstrated.
I'm not proposing being unarmed at all. I'm simply pointing out that if someone is going to shoot people, he will most certainly take out the obvious threats first.
Now, if one were armed but not advertising oneself as a clear threat to a killer, and an armed man started shooting, one would at least have a chance. The perp's attention would not have been drawn to that person first.
To me that is simple common sense. The man with the gun in view must be taken out first for the assault to proceed. People carrying concealed among the others do not stand out, and they stand a chance.
Also, a couple of people could relatively easily attack from behind in a crowd situation, and the man with the visible side-arm is again the obvious target, not only because he has to be neutralized, but because the extra gun would be a nice prize.
Off duty police almost always carry concealed, and one reason is to give them a chance. When they are in uniform the carry openly because their presence helps enforce the law--which is their job. A fair number of them die each year in the performance of that job.
Civilians, on the other hand, have neither the duty, the same authority, the shield of indemnity, nor the training to do that job. They have the right to protect themselves, and I think in most cases they are likely safer doing so in effective anonymity, unnoticed.
Now, I will grant you that an alert citizen carrying openly probably would be safer against a man in the shadows with a box cutter at an ATM or in a car jacking situation, which may be somewhat more common than the gun-armed felon...provided, that is, that the perp is capable of reason. People who know tell me that many meth people are not dissuaded by much of anything short of a bullet.
Upon reflection, if I had the right to carry openly, I might consider doing so in certain situations at night at ATMs or service stations that are not well illuminated or well trafficked--but not at soccer games!
And as I said before, if a large number of people were carrying openly (and that will never be acceptable in some of our cultures) there would be no single threat to put out of action first, the criminal wouldn't stand a chance, and there wouldn't be any crime at all. Elmer Keith said that long ago.
I think we've gotten off track, but your excellent points deserved consideration.
The primary risks that the woman in PA assumed were those of attracting unwanted attention and causing an outcry, and both outcomes were in fact realized, as incompetent as the actions of the LEO turned out to be.
I just watched the interview and "debate" with Meleanie and am happy to see that she won't be bullied. She won't be bullied by ninnies who believe that seeing a firearm is tantamount to having a criminal jam a gun in their face, she won't be bullied by a man who is obviously more concerned with what-ifs and potential slippery slope scenarios of mass mayhem (and defends his point of view by negating Meleanie's statistics by providing his own, when he obviously has more time to dedicate to researching laws and statistics than a mother and wife preoccupied with duties to house and home), and she also wouldn't be bullied by a NJ detective w/ 32 years experience enforcing anti constitutional laws who, apparently, believes that only law enforcement has the judgment and training to use lethal force.
I grew sick of listening to those two put down the common law abiding citizen! Meleanie did very well in the face of the others who were against her position from the start. They have a philosophical belief that they are superior to you, are impervious to harm, hold higher morales, and that law enforcement is always there, always better trained, and always correct. These are the people that believe a woman raped, strangled, killed, beaten, or having had her children kidnapped, is morally superior to a woman who carries a gun.
They are disgusting.
I grew sick of listening to those two put down the common law abiding citizen! Meleanie did very well in the face of the others who were against her position from the start. They have a philosophical belief that they are superior to you, are impervious to harm, hold higher morales, and that law enforcement is always there, always better trained, and always correct. These are the people that believe a woman raped, strangled, killed, beaten, or having had her children kidnapped, is morally superior to a woman who carries a gun.
They are disgusting.
DSAPT9
Member
Why is it when you see a Police Person with a firearm you think nothing of it but when you see someone open carry or a glimpse of a concealed firearm they must be a bad guy. Yet if you do a web search you find a number of articles showing “Bad Cops Doing Bad Things” murder, rape and extortion all with the use of a gun in the crime.
Why is it if I am pro gun and state my opinion in public I get called hate monger, killer of children and down right evil, yet if I am anti-gun I am compassionate, loving and caring. (The only gun person in a college English class)
In my humble opinion it is because we “the gun owners” have allowed it to happen. We would rather bow our heads and hide our guns rather than offend someone or fight for our legal rights. If you don’t fight even the small battles then those rights will be taken away. I have not followed this case but feel legal to carry is legal to carry. If not then every gun-toting cop I see threatens me because I don’t know if they are in the middle of a bad divorce and just lost all the retirement in the stock market and are about to go off on a shooting spree!
I live in a state that allows open as well as concealed carry and I work in a sporting good store behind the gun counter. We get folks coming in and out of the store with firearms all the time in both conditions. I can always tell the new folks to the area from anti-gun states, they always stand about 3 feet from the gun counter (don’t want to get to close to the evil guns), someone will walk by open carry and they looked shocked. I will explain it is there right to open carry. I always get the question aren’t you afraid I say no 2/3s of the employees conceal carry and practice a lot. The next question is: is crime that high you need to carry I say no because 1/3 of the state carries open or concealed at any one time and most home owners have a gun readily available if needed. We just believe in the rights we are given and legally carrying is one of them. The have been conditioned to believe “that all guns are bad” and that every state feels the same way. Why because of media and we don’t stand up for our rights.
We as gun owners seem to think that if we stay quiet we won’t be noticed and they will leave us alone. This is not true the reason people think gun owners are radical is be cause only a few will stand up and speak. We rely on the NRA or other organizations to be our voice. We only write our congresspersons when we hear about a change in a law. We should be writing them now saying we don’t want a change in gun laws now or in the future just a change in the current economy. Because the anti-gun folks are currently sending anti-gun letters to our congresspersons as we speak.
Why is it if I am pro gun and state my opinion in public I get called hate monger, killer of children and down right evil, yet if I am anti-gun I am compassionate, loving and caring. (The only gun person in a college English class)
In my humble opinion it is because we “the gun owners” have allowed it to happen. We would rather bow our heads and hide our guns rather than offend someone or fight for our legal rights. If you don’t fight even the small battles then those rights will be taken away. I have not followed this case but feel legal to carry is legal to carry. If not then every gun-toting cop I see threatens me because I don’t know if they are in the middle of a bad divorce and just lost all the retirement in the stock market and are about to go off on a shooting spree!
I live in a state that allows open as well as concealed carry and I work in a sporting good store behind the gun counter. We get folks coming in and out of the store with firearms all the time in both conditions. I can always tell the new folks to the area from anti-gun states, they always stand about 3 feet from the gun counter (don’t want to get to close to the evil guns), someone will walk by open carry and they looked shocked. I will explain it is there right to open carry. I always get the question aren’t you afraid I say no 2/3s of the employees conceal carry and practice a lot. The next question is: is crime that high you need to carry I say no because 1/3 of the state carries open or concealed at any one time and most home owners have a gun readily available if needed. We just believe in the rights we are given and legally carrying is one of them. The have been conditioned to believe “that all guns are bad” and that every state feels the same way. Why because of media and we don’t stand up for our rights.
We as gun owners seem to think that if we stay quiet we won’t be noticed and they will leave us alone. This is not true the reason people think gun owners are radical is be cause only a few will stand up and speak. We rely on the NRA or other organizations to be our voice. We only write our congresspersons when we hear about a change in a law. We should be writing them now saying we don’t want a change in gun laws now or in the future just a change in the current economy. Because the anti-gun folks are currently sending anti-gun letters to our congresspersons as we speak.
From DSAPT9:
So you have met the people who live and work near me!
Well done! Keep it up.
Yes, forty-five years of incessant media drum-beat, all one sided. However, I do not agree with your contention that "we" do not stand up for our rights. Look at the progress that has been made over the years. Look at progress in the area of castle laws. Also watch this animated portrayal:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/right-to-carry-history.gif
Also has to do with how one speaks. People "know" what they "know". Arm yourself with facts, speak calmly, and do not attack their sacred beliefs. Ask them the questions, have the answers, and let them do the thinking.
And so forth.
Here's something to download, print and study.
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Good luck. Glad to have you on our side.
So you have met the people who live and work near me!
Well done! Keep it up.
Yes, forty-five years of incessant media drum-beat, all one sided. However, I do not agree with your contention that "we" do not stand up for our rights. Look at the progress that has been made over the years. Look at progress in the area of castle laws. Also watch this animated portrayal:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/right-to-carry-history.gif
Also has to do with how one speaks. People "know" what they "know". Arm yourself with facts, speak calmly, and do not attack their sacred beliefs. Ask them the questions, have the answers, and let them do the thinking.
"What would you expect me to do if a man attacks me with a knife?"
"Do you know that everyone in this state with a carry permit has had his or her record checked and has taken ___ hours of training, part of which covers the law?"
"How many shootings do you think permit-holders have been involved in?
"Have you ever had to call 911? How long did it take?"
"Are you under the impression that the police are resonsible for protecting you?"
"Are you aware that the 'children' in that statistic include nineteen year old gang members?"
"Do you know how many policemen there are in this state? Total, including dispatchers, crime lab people, the folks in records? Do you know how many citizens are licensed to carry?"
"Why would you think I would even consider using a gun under that circumstance? Are you aware that deadly force....?"
"Why would you presume that a criminal has to be killed to be deterred? Why would you presume that the gun has to be fired?"
"Do you know that everyone in this state with a carry permit has had his or her record checked and has taken ___ hours of training, part of which covers the law?"
"How many shootings do you think permit-holders have been involved in?
"Have you ever had to call 911? How long did it take?"
"Are you under the impression that the police are resonsible for protecting you?"
"Are you aware that the 'children' in that statistic include nineteen year old gang members?"
"Do you know how many policemen there are in this state? Total, including dispatchers, crime lab people, the folks in records? Do you know how many citizens are licensed to carry?"
"Why would you think I would even consider using a gun under that circumstance? Are you aware that deadly force....?"
"Why would you presume that a criminal has to be killed to be deterred? Why would you presume that the gun has to be fired?"
And so forth.
Here's something to download, print and study.
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Good luck. Glad to have you on our side.
TEDDY
Member
carrying
since I came from a different time than most of you,I see things in a different light.before WW2 I could go in a store and buy a gun and pay and walk out,no checks no questions no age limits.could not buy a pistol,but I got all I wanted for $.50 or $1.00.new mossberg 22 was $7.50.then we got the new age 1968.and its been down hill.I walked in bought rifle got on bus rode home
no one was bothered.no one looked ,maybe a glance,like any one getting on.
took my gun to school and shot it at the range there.Mass has a permit to carry,anyhow.and if someone sees it so what it is legal.they do have the same problem some chiefs think they are god.sheriffs do not have any real power there.they deliver summons.
since I came from a different time than most of you,I see things in a different light.before WW2 I could go in a store and buy a gun and pay and walk out,no checks no questions no age limits.could not buy a pistol,but I got all I wanted for $.50 or $1.00.new mossberg 22 was $7.50.then we got the new age 1968.and its been down hill.I walked in bought rifle got on bus rode home
no one was bothered.no one looked ,maybe a glance,like any one getting on.
took my gun to school and shot it at the range there.Mass has a permit to carry,anyhow.and if someone sees it so what it is legal.they do have the same problem some chiefs think they are god.sheriffs do not have any real power there.they deliver summons.
Last edited:
mgregg85
Member
Wow, way to be a jerk. She was openly carrying, which is legal in her state.
David904
Member
I find it rather disturbing that there are those of us such as SINIXTAR who feel that by exercising a right in a manner convenient to you is somehow being an attention whore.
The second amendment doesn't specify that you have to bear your arms so nobody can see them. One should be able to exercise their rights without having somebody question the manner in which they do.
So she open carries... Big deal.
Perhaps it is more comfortable to carry outside the waistband. Perhaps the weather was a bit warm for layering up to cover the gun the law said she could carry in that prescribed manner.
She wasn't being inconsiderate or threatening. The others who complained were the offenders. They acted to violate her rights. Just because they don't like guns doesn't mean that she is suddenly a bad person or a threat that didn't exist prior to their knowledge she CCWed.
The smoking/open carry analogy is faulty. You are free to smoke in a public area where it is not otherwise prohibited. However, the byproduct of your enjoying that right is not only rude, but directly influences the health of those exposed to it. One could rightfully expect to experience a complaint if one were to smoke in a thoughtless manner such as in a doorway. A gun does nothing but sit inert in your holster unless you draw it to defend yourself. Therefor, as it isn't doing anything other than possibly offending someone's sensibilities, they have no grounds to call the police.
The second amendment doesn't specify that you have to bear your arms so nobody can see them. One should be able to exercise their rights without having somebody question the manner in which they do.
So she open carries... Big deal.
Perhaps it is more comfortable to carry outside the waistband. Perhaps the weather was a bit warm for layering up to cover the gun the law said she could carry in that prescribed manner.
She wasn't being inconsiderate or threatening. The others who complained were the offenders. They acted to violate her rights. Just because they don't like guns doesn't mean that she is suddenly a bad person or a threat that didn't exist prior to their knowledge she CCWed.
The smoking/open carry analogy is faulty. You are free to smoke in a public area where it is not otherwise prohibited. However, the byproduct of your enjoying that right is not only rude, but directly influences the health of those exposed to it. One could rightfully expect to experience a complaint if one were to smoke in a thoughtless manner such as in a doorway. A gun does nothing but sit inert in your holster unless you draw it to defend yourself. Therefor, as it isn't doing anything other than possibly offending someone's sensibilities, they have no grounds to call the police.
I made absolutely no such statement at all.
I do however believe that I can exercise my right - while at the same time being mindful not to make others feel uncomfortable.
There is a time and a place for everything, some people realize that. Unfortunately, some others do not.
Different situations call for different approaches to such situation.
DSAPT9
Member
When I sent my posting above I was getting ready for work. I have 2 jobs the one that pays the bill (maintenance tech at a factory) and the weekend hobby job behind the gun counter of a local sporting goods store. I deal with people from all walks of life, police, hunters, competition shooters, new shooters and Anti’s just looking for camping supplies but have to pass the gun counter to get there. I am there for one reason and that is to support and promote my love of firearms and their safe use. Because the pay sucks and no real benefits except I do get to play with and talk about firearms all day.
The reason I said we don’t stand up for our rights is for 2 reasons. One: when selling a firearm I do my very best to get to know the people and their reason for the purchase to help them look at all the options available and what would be the best fit. Like everything else one size does not fit all. For some its price, some a specific use and some it’s just for the “Cool Factor”. In this process I do a lot of questioning once they feel comfortable with me and the topic comes up on supporting their right and what they do to keep it. The basic answer I get is I do nothing because I don’t want the government to know I have them. Yes I try to change their mind in a friendly and professional manner and I feel I get through to a lost soul here and there.
The second is what you said: "
Progress I guess is in the eye of the beholder. As “Teddy” said in his post at one time you could walk in buy and walk out no paperwork, background check or hassle. This included Machine guns and mail order.
It all started changing in 1934 when a definition was given to firearms, barrel length, overall length and what not. O-ya machine guns, short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles had to have a tax stamp.
Then in 1968 sorry guys no more mail order and you have to sign for ammo and we have to keep records of the firearms transaction.
1986 this is when we stopped manufacturing Machines guns for civilians. The price of a Tommy gun went from $1500 to the current $20,000 that no one can afford. O-ya plus the 200-dollar federal stamp!
1994 a good year besides the assault weapons ban there was also an importation ban on a certain type of firearms and any copies of said firearms because they were deemed not a sporting firearm under the 1968 law.
Yes the assault weapons ban expired (for now) and we don’t have to sign for ammo and a few more states allow concealed carry but if the above is progress then I have to disagree with you. Any time a right is taken away it is not progress. Where were the voices and how did this happen. I am tired of compromise and I want my rights back.
Sorry for the rant but I feel very strongly about it as every one on this site does. God bless and have a great Turkey Day!!!
The reason I said we don’t stand up for our rights is for 2 reasons. One: when selling a firearm I do my very best to get to know the people and their reason for the purchase to help them look at all the options available and what would be the best fit. Like everything else one size does not fit all. For some its price, some a specific use and some it’s just for the “Cool Factor”. In this process I do a lot of questioning once they feel comfortable with me and the topic comes up on supporting their right and what they do to keep it. The basic answer I get is I do nothing because I don’t want the government to know I have them. Yes I try to change their mind in a friendly and professional manner and I feel I get through to a lost soul here and there.
The second is what you said: "
Progress I guess is in the eye of the beholder. As “Teddy” said in his post at one time you could walk in buy and walk out no paperwork, background check or hassle. This included Machine guns and mail order.
It all started changing in 1934 when a definition was given to firearms, barrel length, overall length and what not. O-ya machine guns, short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles had to have a tax stamp.
Then in 1968 sorry guys no more mail order and you have to sign for ammo and we have to keep records of the firearms transaction.
1986 this is when we stopped manufacturing Machines guns for civilians. The price of a Tommy gun went from $1500 to the current $20,000 that no one can afford. O-ya plus the 200-dollar federal stamp!
1994 a good year besides the assault weapons ban there was also an importation ban on a certain type of firearms and any copies of said firearms because they were deemed not a sporting firearm under the 1968 law.
Yes the assault weapons ban expired (for now) and we don’t have to sign for ammo and a few more states allow concealed carry but if the above is progress then I have to disagree with you. Any time a right is taken away it is not progress. Where were the voices and how did this happen. I am tired of compromise and I want my rights back.
Sorry for the rant but I feel very strongly about it as every one on this site does. God bless and have a great Turkey Day!!!
tuck2
Member
If I should happin to see a person carrying a firearm I would not know if they were a nut case or trying to make a point. Should I then get my 357 and put it in my belt. If some one else then sees two people with guns should they then get their gun? There could be two nuts. We can not have freedoms with being responsible..
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
I have yet to encounter an example where OC itself was the determining factor in somebody being targeted by a gunman.
do people being targeted to have their guns stolen count?if so you need to look harder
do people being targeted to have their guns stolen count?if so you need to look harder
FoMoGo
Member
I have personally never seen a "nut case" open carrying a pistol.
Most of the armed unstable people I have seen were concealing.
Jim
That's not much of an argument IMO.
A decent man who's carrying a gun will still hold the door for you and nod as you walk past whether his handgun is concealed or openly carried.
Also, why would a criminal/mentally incompentent person carry a gun openly? Even if you're legal you're likely to at least have a few friendly words with any police who happen to see your gun. If you're up to no good you're probaby going to want to avoid any interactions with the cops. That would entail NOT drawing attention to yourself, which means you'd probably want your gun about as concealed as possible. Of course, this might not apply to someone who's totally off his rocker but that doesn't really matter because a crazy person with a concealed gun is just as dangerous as a crazy person with a gun on his belt.
The other side of this argument is that bigger handguns are usually easier to shoot well.
If you're defending yourself you'll probably want to be shooting about as well as you can so you'd probably be better served by a full sized handgun than one of those pathetic little sub-compact things that many of us force ourselves to carry concealed.
Would you rather face a guy on a shooting spree with your P-32 or with a full sized 1911 or .357? Which do you think would be more accurate and effective? My money would be on the big guns.
But big guns are often hard to carry so you often have to choose a less powerful gun that you're more likely to miss with instead of a "big" gun.
IMO, open carry would make everyone safer because legally armed people are less likely to miss with big guns, reducing the danger to bystanders. They're also more likely to be able to stop the attack quickly, which means fewer shots fired by the bad guy, which means less chance of innocents getting hurt.
So when you see a legally armed person carrying openly, maybe you should go thank him/her for showing extra consideration for your safety.
From goon:
i cannot imagine an criminal carrying openly.
I don't know a lot about mental health but the mentally incompetent person may be another story.
Probably true in an area in which open carry is very common. But it's not just the size of the gun. The perp cannot neutralize all of the threats, and any crook who opened fire wouldn't stand a chance.
i cannot imagine an criminal carrying openly.
I don't know a lot about mental health but the mentally incompetent person may be another story.
Probably true in an area in which open carry is very common. But it's not just the size of the gun. The perp cannot neutralize all of the threats, and any crook who opened fire wouldn't stand a chance.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
