Open Carry, Concealed Carry and Crazy Carry

[Old Fart]

By Francis Wilkinson

I often focus on the dangers of reckless people with guns, rather than criminals with guns, for two reasons. First, reckless people seem very plentiful. Second, they are invariably ignored in gun-rights rhetoric. The gun-rights movement advances a Manichean vision of criminals and "law-abiding citizens," with the latter always and everywhere in need of heavy firepower to defeat the former.

National Rifle Association Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre's rhetoric about criminals -- "so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons" -- is basically pornographic at its peaks. But LaPierre is silent about the legion of gun-toting clods, bumblers, stoners, wife-beaters, fools and drunks who kill, or injure, Americans every day. (Once in possession of a gun, you don't need to be actively stupid to produce tragedy; you can be passively stupid.)

John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, also tends to divide the world into responsible citizens you can trust with a gun on one side, and hardened criminals on the other, with little room for nincompoops in between. But he is intelligent, gracious and patient in explaining, for example, the political -- and surprising constitutional -- differences he perceives between open and concealed carry. Between April 9 and 14, we communicated via e-mail about his advocacy of the open carry of guns, which he views as both a right and a way to habituate society to gun-carrying. An edited version of our exchange is below. (I've included a link at the bottom for the even longer, unedited version.)

Preface followed by a long list of Q & A's.


http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ry-concealed-carry-and-crazy-carry?cmpid=yhoo

 

[furlong222]

I have to stand with the 2A....it makes no distinction as to who will qualify to bear arms....I believe felons should not be excluded....the only exception that is justifieable is the person that lacks mental capacity to be considered an adult...

 

[Glocktogo]

Here's the comment I posted in the comments section:

It sounds like the OpenCarry.org spokesman was intelligent, rational and logical. Based on the statistically insignificant number of incidents involving both open and concealed carry adherents now, it would appear that the author's fears are overblown and out of proportion to reality.

I recognize that this is an emotional subject for some, but they should be courteous and recognize that it's a logical and rational subject for others. Carrying a gun is just an insurance policy against victimization. Just like insurance, it may not cover every last permutation of risk, but it's not intended to. It's simply a matter of stacking the odds in one's favor to a greater extent.

Finally, it is a matter of self-determination. If you agree that it's a basic human right to determine one's own outcome in life, you should at a minimum, not be opposed to the premise. An honorable and just society would allow one to make choices for themselves and either reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences of those actions equally. Removing responsibility does more to promote irresponsible behavior than holding people accountable.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this subject. I hope those with a differing opinion will be respectful of my views, as I would be respectful of theirs.

 

[toehanus]

Good comment.

 

[tRidiot]

Great article! And great response, GTG!

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I have to stand with the 2A....it makes no distinction as to who will qualify to bear arms....I believe felons should not be excluded....the only exception that is justifieable is the person that lacks mental capacity to be considered an adult...

I believe there are a lot of felons that should be able to bear arms but not all felons. Not some sick sob that raped a baby or something like that. They don't deserve to breath much less own a gun. There should be certain exceptions. Not flat out keeping felons from being able to own and carry guns.

 

[okcowboy]

I believe there are a lot of felons that should be able to bear arms but not all felons. Not some sick sob that raped a baby or something like that. They don't deserve to breath much less own a gun. There should be certain exceptions. Not flat out keeping felons from being able to own and carry guns.

I think that if felons have served their time and can be "trusted" to be free, they should have the right to defend themselves (with arms if they so choose). If they fall into the category you mention, you are right, NO guns but also NO freedom. Gov should keep them incarcerated or execute some other form of justice.

 

[yukonjack]

If you used violence in the commission of the felony you were convicted of you should never have the legal right to own a firearm of any type. They should have thought about that before they did harm to someone else.

 

[SMS]

By Francis Wilkinson

I often focus on the dangers of reckless people with guns, rather than criminals with guns, for two reasons. First, reckless people seem very plentiful. Second, they are invariably ignored in gun-rights rhetoric. The gun-rights movement advances a Manichean vision of criminals and "law-abiding citizens," with the latter always and everywhere in need of heavy firepower to defeat the former.

I actually agree with/share this sentiment. There are hoards of idiots out there with guns. There is an army of people out there that think simply owning a gun makes them an expert. There is a lot of needless death and injury perpetrated every year by people acting stupid, reckless, and irresponsibly with guns. Owning a gun doesn't make you a "good guy".

Where I depart from the author is when they use that as a reason to ban guns or further restrict access to them.

 

[Rod Snell]

There is a lot of needless death and injury perpetrated every year by people acting stupid, reckless, and irresponsibly with guns.

As we say in hunter safety, even one death or injury due to carelessness with a firearm is a tragedy, and we are here to help you avoid that tragedy. HOWEVER, the use of "a lot" is a misleading emotional hook.
The facts are that the shooting sports are among the safest of sports, producing fewer trips to the emergency room than even the racket sports, and high school contact sports kill and cripple more each year by far, proportionate to the number of participants. Those of us who have spent decades in safety education say "it works!"

A standard tactic of anti-gunners is to stack the deck by including criminal gun use and suicides along with negligent use in the "gun safety problem." For example the US figures include suicides, but the "peaceful" Japanese figures EXCLUDE SUICIDES BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE GUNS!!! Put in the suicides, and the Japanese figures are higher than ours!
If you take the US figures for NEGLIGENT MISUSE OF GUNS as the basis for banning them, then cars and bathtubs would need to be banned first, as they kill and maim many times more.

The safety figures I quoted are published each year, and are available through the education people at the Department of Wildlife.