Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Just when you think things can't get a whole lot stranger in this country... So lately around these parts, a group has been carrying their unloaded weapons, worn in a holster, into coffee shops and other places. It's legal to do so, as long as the coffee shops are cool with it, and as long as they allow their guns to be checked by police to make sure they are unloaded. As I understand it, the police can't run a check on the gun, which makes the whole exercise pretty useless. Oh, and they also carry rounds of ammunition on their person as well. Can't be in the gun, but it could be in their jacket pocket or whatever. I get that people have a right to own guns. As long as they don't act like fools with them, I'm basically okay with that. But bringing these weapons out and about like this is a disaster waiting to happen. Their aim (pardon the pun) is to make it legal to carry loaded weapons in public. I am sure these folks think they'll be a tremendous hero should bad guys show up. Maybe they will. But I can see someone overpowering one of these clowns, taking their guns and the ammunition, and all hell breaking loose. Innocent people, who just wanted to enjoy a coffee and read, shot dead because of a crime of opportunity.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14241180?source=rss&nclick_check=1" target="_blank">http://www.contracostatimes.co..._check=1</a>
Originally Posted By DAR I don't own a gun, never owned one and don't really have the desire to own one. But the last scenario I can't really see happening. Most criminals as blatant and brazen as they happen to be don't exactly want to get shot.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Most criminals as blatant and brazen as they happen to be don't exactly want to get shot.<< Maybe not criminals who are rational. Add a little meth into the equation and who knows. I just don't see these guys as being able to react as quickly as perhaps they think they'll be able to. I think they've seen too many Clint Eastwood movies for their own good.
Originally Posted By ecdc I've stated my case many times. I think target shooting and skeet shooting is a good time. I really don't mind if someone wants to own a gun for sport. I don't really get the whole hunting thing much at all, but I can even back off that. But these numbskulls who walk around with a firearm on them at all times have some seriously warped thinking. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a good many of them are just hoping something will happen so they can be the big hero. To me it just suggests a very strange view of the world as a dangerous place, with bad guys lurking around every corner. It's the illusion of macho, nothing more.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>To me it just suggests a very strange view of the world as a dangerous place<< Yep, and by carrying around firearms like this in a fairly provocative manner, it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt Why not just get a license to carry? My Dad is a gun dealer, always has one on him, Why? Because he can. I don't understand it either.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Why not just get a license to carry? >>> Because this is in California - almost nobody can get a concealed carry permit. California is not a "must issue" state.
Originally Posted By pecos bill It's just a political statement. These guys are expressing their displeasure of the ultra restrictive California gun laws. They believe that an armed society is a polite society. I suppose a certain few are macho, Dirty Harry wannabe dorks, but hopefully they are the small minority. Personally, I would be embarrassed to carry a gun around like that, not to mention getting shaken down by every cop who notices you.
Originally Posted By mele <<They believe that an armed society is a polite society.>> Makes sense. I mean, I wouldn't get mouthy with anyone who's packing. ;-) Unfortunately, there are other people who love that kind of drama and those are the ones who tend to cause the problems in the first place. I feel sorry for people who cling to their guns like this. What a frightening world they must live in. (And they make my life more frightening, too.)
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The biggest problem is that extremes like that cause extremes in the other direction. If enough people are hurt or even scared by the thought of someone carrying around a side arm (like the old west) then you will see a push for legislation that will complete end the right to own one. I do not own one, never have and never will, but I do recognize that to be able to insure our freedoms we must be allowed to own weapons. Without them anyone can just walk right in with one and instantly we have lost our ability to maintain our freedoms. In this case the sword is way mightier then the ballot. Take a look at any dictatorship or evil government was able to just walk in and take charge. Simple answer...no way to fight back. Even if you don't intend to, it is nice to know you have a way of defending yourself. These idiots will ruin it for all. The fastest way to lose rights is to abuse them in a way that will affect others.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The fastest way to lose rights is to abuse them in a way that will affect others.<< That's right. I think you're correct that if this open carry movement catches on, there's going to be an outcry (at least in some places) for stricter laws for guns. The frustrating thing is that it isn't like police don't have enough crime to deal with. Now you would have all these people walking around with guns with no way to know who is okay and who is not until it's too late. I'm really not an anti-gun person, like I said. But this open carry stuff is making me think twice, which is not their intent, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Take a look at any dictatorship or evil government was able to just walk in and take charge. Simple answer...no way to fight back.> Actually, THAT is simplistic. Hitler, for example, was elected. And the German people were by and large okay with it. He tried to take over in an armed coup and that didn't work. But he was elected in 1933, and at that time there were plenty of Germans (even Jews, whose right to own guns lasted till 1938) who owned guns, and yet Hitler "walked in a took charge." Yes, he did restrict ownership to "suspect" people including political enemies and Jews later, but... <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/co...wnership</a> "Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm. When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons. To summarize, Hitler did "effect total gun control," but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place. To focus exclusively on gun control is to lose sight of the larger picture. The Nazis controlled EVERYTHING. If you went through the Bill of Rights you'd find that most of them were abridged in Hitler's Germany. Did the loss of one particular right have more impact than the others? That's a question we here at the Mailbag can't answer. I doubt anybody can. " In more recent years, the divide between gun-owning and non-gunowning countries has not been democracies vs. dicatorships, really, (many European democracies have very restrictive gun laws but often outstrip the US in other freedoms) but western hemisphere (the Americas) vs. the eastern. And in Latin America, with some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, we've seen armed takeover after armed takeover. You may own a handgun, but it's not going to do that much against the army, and in fact I can't think of an example in which an armed populace somehow repelled such a coup from happening. So while the "we need guns to protect ourselves from our own government" thing sounds good in theory, in practice it's a great deal less simple. And for the record, I do not own a gun but have no problem with others owning them IF certain common-sense practices are in effect (waiting periods, background checks, and I would argue for mandatory training just as we mandate training to drive a car - like a gun, a useful tool when used correctly but potentially lethal in the hands of someone who doesn't know what the hell he's doing. I'm not anti-gun, just anti-idiot-owning-a-gun.)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< So while the "we need guns to protect ourselves from our own government" thing sounds good in theory, in practice it's a great deal less simple. >>> It was probably actually a valid point back in the day when the Second Amendment was written. What did an army have that the populace didn't? Maybe cannon, but not much else, and cannon aren't particularly useful in occupying an urban city and controlling the population. These days, armies have all kinds of things that individual citizens with small arms aren't going to be able to deal with effectively.
Originally Posted By officerminnie I live in an open carry state. It is perfectly legal to walk around with a LOADED gun in a holster, as long as no one complains that they feel intimidated or that their safety is in jeopardy. Also in our state it is alarmingly simple to obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Just pay the $55 fee, get fingerprinted so a background check can be completed, and if you pass that, you get a CPL good for 5 years. No class to learn firearms safety, no proof of proficiency, nuthin'. Go figure...
Originally Posted By DAR <<It was probably actually a valid point back in the day when the Second Amendment was written. What did an army have that the populace didn't? Maybe cannon, but not much else, and cannon aren't particularly useful in occupying an urban city and controlling the population.>> Drive-by's had to be a little harder to pull off back then.
