• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An Honest Look At Open Carry: Is It Time To Stop?

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
Open carry is it time to stop? Guns America article


Open carry has come under scrutiny in recent weeks after the murder of five Dallas police officers and in anticipation of a tumultuous Republican National Convention.


President of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, has requested Ohio Governor John Kasich to suspend the state’s open carry laws in the county.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
first and foremost the term 'honest' is misleading

this article, writen by a canadian, appears to direct his energy toward LG OCis but never makes that distinction thus leads the reader to believe the author means all firearm carry.

the forum is mentioned by name/hyperlink and i recommend john or mike contact the author and clarify their organization's stand, e.g. on LGOC, etc.

recommend the article is read thoroughly by members and comment here...

ipse

added, as usual citizens' commentary to the article is fasinating, yet scary from the content of their rants. wonder if the site censors them?
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,839
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Our law enforcement officers place their lives on the line every day to protect us—they don’t need us making their jobs any more difficult.
I have never known a law enforcement officer to ever start out their day with the idea of protecting us.

Pulling a car over at 2 a.m. in the morning for no other reason than a cracked tail light is an officer on a fishing expedition. I live in the second largest township in OH. It abuts a major city. The population of the township is 60,000+. The township has about 56 police officers and yet only issue about 2,300 traffic tickets a year. They know their job is to patrol our neighborhoods, not write tickets. Our township police are the exception to the rule.

I'm just say'n....
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
"The critical flaw in the system is the obscene notion of 'crime prevention'.
If you are not stopping an actual crime in progress, then any police act to 'prevent crime' is an improper excess of authority exercised against those who are not engaged in criminal acts.
It's a guaranteed death-spiral into totalitarianism. The only way to genuinely prevent all crime is to prevent all unsupervised activity.
It sounds like such a great idea -- who doesn't want to 'prevent crime'?
But in practice, it becomes crimes by the state against non-criminal individuals. A license to dominate, to improperly exercise improper 'authority'."

Cutting and pasting the same emphatic assertion, across 10 different threads starts to look like spamming. But goose and gander. Here is my copy and paste reply to your copy and paste emphatic assertion.

And using slippery slope arguments and reducto ad absurdum are both bad logic.

There are many things police and other officials can do to "prevent crime" that are not anywhere close to an improper excess of authority.

Imposing proper penalties on convicted criminals to reduce their desire or ability to re-offend is obvious.

Police assisting neighbors to form and operate effective Neighborhood Watch Programs is not an excess of authority.

Police providing home security audits and education people on how to make their property less appealing to criminals, when requested by the individual, is not an excess of authority.

A police officer doing paperwork in the parking lot of an all night convenience store, a school, or other location is not an excess of authority (so long as the property owner has invited them to do that). But it can help prevent crime.

A proper show of police force can be the difference between protests remaining peaceful and getting way out of hand.

A police officer in his cruiser with his lights flashing can provide enhanced safety to road crews working in construction zones, while also increasing the safety of the driving public.

Yes, a lot of injustice can occur under the guise of "crime prevention." A lot of injustice and harm can also occur if cops are entirely reactive, rather than doing what can properly be done in a proactive manner.

Enough with the emphatic assertion of bumper sticker logic demanding all-or-nothing solutions.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Cutting and pasting the same emphatic assertion...really mate, you have just done the exact same thing

snip.

Charles

mate, you have the audacity to exactly the same thing you just chastised nightmare for...

your focus on reality is really slipping isn't it...whew!!

hoping you are keeping your support group on your speed dial

best of luck

ipse
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Cops will routinely put themselves in harm's way but it's almost always on a fishing expedition. They have the person's license number, they can do the stop later in force.

If they think the stop is sketchy, call for backup.

If they'd use common sense and patience and not be so focused on 'getting their man right now' or doing stops which are fishing they would rarely face gunfire.

I agree with Color of law.

We also know from studies that being a LEO is NOT the most dangerous profession.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
It is time people stop carrying a gun.

Should carry 2 or 3 ... if a cop asks for your "gun" and not "guns" then you technically comply giving him your one gun and keeping the other(s).
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
It is time people stop carrying a gun.

Should carry 2 or 3 ... if a cop asks for your "gun" and not "guns" then you technically comply giving him your one gun and keeping the other(s).

Pointless. You dont' want to give up your gun because you don't want the cop keying in the wrong number when he runs the serial number and have it come up stolen and he then has cause to shoot you.

You dont' give it up because he can 'accidentally' shoot you while handling it. (don't laugh it's happened)

You dont' give it up because there's no rule he has to give it back.

And do on.

It should be ILLEGAL for a cop to try to disarm a LAC. It should carry heavy penalties for them to try and do it.

Why? Ask yourself if a cop stops another cop (it's happened) and they know cops are often once step away from being organized crime, does he ask the cop he's stopped to give up his gun? NO!! It's because he'd be laughed at back in the locker room.

Imagine that, choosing no-ridicule over safety.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Pointless. You dont' want to give up your gun because you don't want the cop keying in the wrong number when he runs the serial number and have it come up stolen and he then has cause to shoot you.

You dont' give it up because he can 'accidentally' shoot you while handling it. (don't laugh it's happened)

You dont' give it up because there's no rule he has to give it back.

And do on.

It should be ILLEGAL for a cop to try to disarm a LAC. It should carry heavy penalties for them to try and do it.

Why? Ask yourself if a cop stops another cop (it's happened) and they know cops are often once step away from being organized crime, does he ask the cop he's stopped to give up his gun? NO!! It's because he'd be laughed at back in the locker room.

Imagine that, choosing no-ridicule over safety.

What's a serial # ?

You wouldn't give him one of your oper8ing guns of course....
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Cops will routinely put themselves in harm's way but it's almost always on a fishing expedition. They have the person's license number, they can do the stop later in force.
If they think the stop is sketchy, call for backup.
If they'd use common sense and patience and not be so focused on 'getting their man right now' or doing stops which are fishing they would rarely face gunfire.
I agree with Color of law.
We also know from studies that being a LEO is NOT the most dangerous profession.

the reason the nice LEs put themselves into harm's way is prob conveyed during their training where they are taught they are superior to the community's citizens and the citizens are SUPPOSE immediately bow to their wishes/commands.

recent suspect commentary as well as listening to recent news videos, i have found i am unable to understand or process the nice LE's rapid fire lone commands or multiple commands given by multiple LEs all at the top of their voices so i am concerned about 'accidentally' falling into a situation where i might have to endure this situation.

while some might disagree, i am lucid, sane, sober, and understand the king's english, and not in a stress/crisis environment but it is difficult to imagine i could have something to hide from the nice LE, stressed about it, and then while having a firearm pointed at me, then try to process commands rapidly fired at me, by individuals wanting immediately compliance.

ipse
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
<snip>

while some might disagree, i am lucid, sane, sober, and understand the king's english, and not in a stress/crisis environment but it is difficult to imagine i could have something to hide from the nice LE, stressed about it, and then while having a firearm pointed at me, then try to process commands rapidly fired at me, by individuals wanting immediately compliance.

ipse

I think you stumbled across your own answer to a question not posed.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I, for one, appreciate the tone of the linked article. I think the author is honestly trying to look at and understand at least 2 different sides to the issue. That is far better than we usually get. Such a tone is much needed in many public policy debates facing us as a nation/society these days. It certainly beats the all-too-common method of just demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with you.

That said, I think the repeated references to "every Old West movie" is not helpful. Fiction is usually not a good place to start with public policy debates.

And a big chunk of the reasons for opposing OC boil down to irrational fears or incompetence of others. Imagine suggesting that a little white girl's fears (or those of her father) of sitting next to a large black man was even a valid consideration in whether schools should be segregated or not. And yet, 50 years ago, that was considered a valid consideration since everyone "knew" that big black men were over-sexed predators just looking to have their way with virginal young white girls. Kind of like the way some people today "know" that anyone with a gun who isn't wearing a badge is just one bad day away from going nuts and opening fire inside the mall or supermarket.

In a nation of 320 million persons and with both CC being common in most of the nation and OC legal in most, we're hard pressed to find cases of armed LACs making a situation worse, or causing any real confusion for cops, or getting themselves shot, or shooting each other. In 10 years of protecting the rights of Utah teachers to carry to work we have exactly on dead toilet in a faculty bathroom. Yet the gun haters continue to claim that cops are incompetent to know the difference between a good guy (with an OC) and a bad guy (who probably is either hiding his gun or actively shooting at the cops). Locally in Utah, they continue to claim that college educated teachers are too incompetent to safely have their guns at work. How many years do we have to have data completely contradicting these false claims before they are as unacceptable as someone claiming that if man were supposed to fly God would have given him wings?

So, points for tone, Demerits for not dealing with facts a little better.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Cops will routinely put themselves in harm's way but it's almost always on a fishing expedition. They have the person's license number, they can do the stop later in force.

If they think the stop is sketchy, call for backup.

In this part of the world, a cop making a suspected DUI or excessive speeding stop might well be 50 miles from the nearest backup. A trailer without working lights is a real safety hazard on rural, dark roads and a stop is fully warranted. Is the driver just a nice rancher or Good Sam Club member whose trailer electrical connection came lose? Or is he a violent felon, smuggling a few sex slaves, and he isn't go back to prison no matter what?

I spend a bit of time on the roads and I don't care to share them with dangerous drivers or with drivers who won't maintain some minimum safe level of operation of their vehicles.

The same kind of math that helps explain why carry laws can reduce violent crime even if only a small percentage of people carry, also applies to traffic stops.

If only 1 traffic stop in 1,000 is dangerous, how long can an officer go before he faces a dangerous stop? At 10 routine stops a day, an officer has about a 97% chance of having a dangerous stop in any given year. Call it 1 in 10,000 and he still has a 30% chance of facing a dangerous stop in any given year.

And what indicates that an otherwise routine stop is going to be dangerous such that he even knows he ought to call for back up? Should I only carry my gun or wear my seat belt when I think I might need them?

We also know from studies that being a LEO is NOT the most dangerous profession.

Actually, we know no such thing. What we know is LEOs are less likely to be killed on the job than are those working in about a dozen other careers. But it is somewhat simplistic, lazy, or dishonest to equate "statistical risk of being killed on the job" with "most dangerous job".

It may be that being a cop is actually more dangerous than many other jobs, but the type of danger faced can be mitigated through the very types of techniques that are being criticized. Maybe lumberjacks actually face life threatening risks less often than do police officers, but the particular risks faced by lumberjacks are harder to mitigate. Which job is actually more "dangerous", the one where you face a deadly risk twice a year but can survive if your skills are good enough, or the one where you face a deadly threat once in 10 careers but it is pure luck whether you survive or not?

Furthermore, death does not fully capture the full realm of "danger". How often do lumberjacks face the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS or Hep C from a dirty needle stick as part of their jobs? You ever get to go home and tell the wife no unprotected relations for the next 6 months until tests can come back clean? I'll bet that does wonders for a marital relationship.

How often do lumberjacks come into contact with others' blood in situations where donning protective gloves and goggles may not feasible? How often are crab fishermen exposed to the nasty chemicals used to cook up meth?

"Danger" encompasses a lot more than just death.

That doesn't mean cops get a pass to violate rights or demand I surrender my rights to make their jobs easier. They signed up for the job knowing what it entails and they are free to quit any day they like.

But those of us who recognize the dangers from violent criminals sufficiently to go through the hassle of carrying a gun even though odds are we'll never need it, should be a bit less hostile to those who sign up to try to get violent criminals off the street, to keep traffic reasonably safe, and otherwise maintain law and order in society. They deserve a little better than being accused of fishing expeditions being their biggest risk.

Charles
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
mate, not even going to re post you last commentary since it contained more misinformation regarding comparison between lumberjack (or any other occupation) and nice LEs and their contact with blood borne pathogens.

LEs normally wear 5.11 tactical type gloves or carry in a pocket either latex/poly gloves used where there might be contact with blood borne pathogens...

i'm sorry mate, there are many other non medical occupations where workers are at a significantly higher risk to occupational exposure to HIV then nice LEs. there are protocols in place to mitigate contamination. further, if exposure occurs and after medical evaluation to determine the level of exposure, Tenofovir 300 mg PO daily + Emtricitabine 200 mg PO daily Plus Raltegravir 400 mg PO twice daily or Dolutegravir 50 mg PO daily.

Several tests are being used more commonly that can detect both antibodies and antigen (part of the virus itself). These tests can find recent infection earlier than tests that detect only antibodies. These antigen/antibody combination tests can find HIV as soon as 3 weeks after exposure to the virus.

oh wait mate, OHSA has the same criteria for protection of individuals in a myriad occupations who might have contact w/bloody borne pathogens or clean up of same.

statistically, police have a very small chance of contracting HIV in the accomplishment of their duties.

ipse
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...statistically, police have a very small chance of contracting HIV in the accomplishment of their duties...

About the same as the WalMart employee that has to do a cleanup on aisle 5.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
l"But no right is unlimited"... the biggest lie of the article.

It's got nothing to do with limited rights. It's all about limited government. no one ever remembers that anymore.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
"The critical flaw in the system is the obscene notion of 'crime prevention'.
If you are not stopping an actual crime in progress, then any police act to 'prevent crime' is an improper excess of authority exercised against those who are not engaged in criminal acts.
It's a guaranteed death-spiral into totalitarianism. The only way to genuinely prevent all crime is to prevent all unsupervised activity.
It sounds like such a great idea -- who doesn't want to 'prevent crime'?
But in practice, it becomes crimes by the state against non-criminal individuals. A license to dominate, to improperly exercise improper 'authority'."

This is only part of the story. Don't forget about all of the "crime prevention" regulations we have. Traffic regs are a prime example. Injury or property damage prevention is not the business of government in a free republic.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I have never known a law enforcement officer to ever start out their day with the idea of protecting us.

Pulling a car over at 2 a.m. in the morning for no other reason than a cracked tail light is an officer on a fishing expedition. I live in the second largest township in OH. It abuts a major city. The population of the township is 60,000+. The township has about 56 police officers and yet only issue about 2,300 traffic a year. They know their job is to patrol our neighborhoods, not write tickets. Our township police are the exception to the rule.

I'm just say'n....

Isn't the idea of "necessity of government" justified in order to protect our "rights"? Not simply protecting us...
 
Top