Who Open Carries?

[joe_chill]

Question in return - Citizen in Europe has no NEED or has no OPPORTUNITY? Would any of up-standing Europeans want to have firearm during London and Paris riots? What if any of Norwegian kids had a concealed firearm when Breiwik (spelling?) went on his shooting spree?

My answer to your initial question would be to re-read one of my posts above. In addition - firearm is just like a tool. You might not need certain set of lug-nuts in a while. But when you need to fix your vehicle in the middle of the road trip - it is good to have that set. You hope to never use the firearm. But if someone breaks into your house - probably you would want to have one in your nightstand.

I absolutely agree with you regarding Breivik, if there had been an armed security guard on Utöa, he might not have been able to do what he did. But I feel that the more guns people in a society have, the more likely it is that those guns come to use. If I where to road trip across the U.S, I would probably feel safer if I had a gun with me. On a road trip across Sweden, not so much. I know that 95% of all problems, I will solve but talking, the other 5% I can solve with my fists. My point is that I don´t have to be afraid being shot because there are no guns here.

But you and me live in culturally different societies. If I lived where you live, and you lived where I live, our arguments would probably be reversed.

 

[andries]

OK. Next step is to think about another question. Do criminals obey gun restrictions? Of course not, they ARE criminals. But you (not you personally but european citizen in general) are supposed to obey these restrictions. Which puts you in vulnerable position.

I am not sure about Sweden. But in Norway - everyone thought that they are going to have fun camping, and if any problem they would solve it by talking right? And why do you think that US is more dangerous in this sense? Only because someone around you might have firearm? Well, person with firearm next to you had to undergo background check and drug test before he/she was able to carry that pistol. At the very least this person is SANE.

Would you be affraid driving across Switzerland to purchase a new watch? But swiss own more guns per person than americans. Are you afraid now?

Another point is that LEGAL firearms are not being used for crime. What is the point to use something that is know to belong to you? Why to be affraid of it then? But criminals remain criminals. They don't care about law and country of residence does not make difference here.

 

[joe_chill]

OK. Next step is to think about another question. Do criminals obey gun restrictions? Of course not, they ARE criminals. But you (not you personally but european citizen in general) are supposed to obey these restrictions. Which puts you in vulnerable position.

True, but there are few guns here so criminals usually don’t carry weapons and crimes are rarely gun related.

I am not sure about Sweden. But in Norway - everyone thought that they are going to have fun camping, and if any problem they would solve it by talking right? And why do you think that US is more dangerous in this sense?

The massacre in Norway was a very, very unusual crime, therefore I don’t think that it qualifies as a reference to crimes in general. Also, the people on Utöa was almost exclusively children, and children are not allowed to wear guns in the U.S. so it wouldn’t necessarily have prevented anything.

Only because someone around you might have firearm? Well, person with firearm next to you had to undergo background check and drug test before he/she was able to carry that pistol. At the very least this person is SANE.

I don’t agree that people are sane just because the clear a background check.

Would you be affraid driving across Switzerland to purchase a new watch? But swiss own more guns per person than americans. Are you afraid now?

Maybe, but they are not allowed to carry them in public. They have to be locked in a safe or used at a gun range only.

Another point is that LEGAL firearms are not being used for crime. What is the point to use something that is know to belong to you? Why to be affraid of it then? But criminals remain criminals. They don't care about law and country of residence does not make difference here.

So where do all these firearms come from? My point is still: more guns in public, more use of guns in public.

 

[andries]

Ccrime is an unusual thing. You are not being robbed twice a day, are you? Therefore you can either be prepared (armed) or not prepared. And chances that you will never have to use it are close to 100%.

It is hard to argue without knowledge of situation in Sweden but let me make few assumptions. You do have military, and police, and hunters. I would assume that all of these people have firearm. It could be stolen or lost - this is the main source for illegal firearms regardless of the country. Law in europe restrict firearms to law enforcement agencies (police and military). Are soldiers and cops different from you? Do they have any secret knowledge? Do they never drink alcohol and never have a bad day? No, they are normal people just like you and me. So why they can carry pistols and you (I) can't?

Person with revolver next to you in Starbucks had atleast some sort of check before he was given his revolver. Nothing can be 100% proof, but atleast he is KNOWN to LE agencies as a firearm owner and chances that he will use his firepower are slim to none. While you can't say the same about other people.

I just like the second picture in this Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I belive it answers your comment about firearm in Switzerland.

In general, while I disagree with your point of view, I accept it as it is

However, it is impossible to argue with the following points:
1) Criminals are armed. Whether it is pipe, baton, knife or shotgun isn't really important. They are armed and you are not.
2) Criminals don't care about restrictions.
3) Criminals target weak victim - woman, kids, elderly. Or they outnumber their victim.

What is solution? Something that is readily available, can be used by anyone (woman, child, elder person). If used it should provide guaranteed protection or at the very least to be a guaranteed deterrent.

What can provide such a solution? Phone with preprogrammed 911? - NO. Your fists? - But what about kids and situation when you are outnumbered? So it is not a solution either. Pepper spray? - it is an option. Although it is limited. Firearm? - it fits the bill. Even woman can use revolver. With very limited practice - she can draw it and fire within 3-4 seconds.

Can you offer an alternative solution?

Sometimes I think there is a stereotype about americans carrying large revolver from wild wilde west and engaging in shootouts on streets. It is not so.


P.S. We sort of hi-jacked this thread. Is it OK with mods and OP if we stay here? While it is somewhat relevant to the initial topic, I would understant if we were ordered to move to different thread.

 

[joe_chill]

Well I see the points you are making and I understand that you and me live in different societies, hence the difference in opinion. Where I live, I am never afraid of being robbed by criminals. If I lived in a society where I was afraid, I would feel more safe armed. The thing is though, why are you afraid and I am not? To my understanding, its because there are more guns where you live than where I live. There are a lot of people in the world capable of killing another person, and there is no easier way of killing someone than with a gun. Therefore, the more guns people have, the more likely it is that people get killed. To quote Eddie Izzard: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkey do too, if they got a gun”.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtX6Tj74oU"]Eddie Izzard Monkey with gun - YouTube[/ame]

:lol:Agree to disagree?

 

[andries]

You are missing one important point. No one carries gun to fight with crime. No one expects to shoot it today or tomorrow. Do you carry Tylenol (or Aspirin or what is available in Sweden to treat headache)? But you don't expect the headache to start immediately, neither you eat these pills for breakfast everyday. You just have it somewhere in your vehicle, or backpack or in your desk. Gun is the same thing. You don't shoot it in the wall first thing in the morning. And you still avoid shady districts in your city. This is the last resort. It has nothing to do with crime rate in the city. It is just matter of your own safety. Whether you take it seriously or not.

Do you lock doors to your house? Do you lock your vehicle? Gun is a just one more step forward. And it should be completely up to YOU whether to take this step or not. It should not be up to GOVERNMENT which decided that you can not have a firearm.

Besides all - it is fun to have firearm. What are things that guys like? Cars, girls and guns (you can change order). Even watches don't make it to the top 3.

 

[levelmanroger]

All of Europe had weapons restrictions as a part of life since before guns were invented. So the proliferation of guns in Europe never took place for the most part, save the few Scandinavian countries where it is practically mandatory (and where crime rates are quite low, as a result).
America, however, was a rough and dangerous place and gun ownership was necessary to "tame" and settle this country. As such, guns were easily and readily available and quite omnipresent for many generations.
As such, criminals now have guns. A LOT of guns. Banning guns here would only disarm the law-abiding citizens whom are not the concern.
So it is a very different scenario on opposite sides of the pond. Neither side is more right than the other.
And seeing how rabidly insane European football (soccer) fans are - thank GOD you guys don't have guns!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[joe_chill]

Sounds like you summed it up pretty good Levelmanroger =)

 

[boostin20]

All of Europe had weapons restrictions as a part of life since before guns were invented. So the proliferation of guns in Europe never took place for the most part, save the few Scandinavian countries where it is practically mandatory (and where crime rates are quite low, as a result).
America, however, was a rough and dangerous place and gun ownership was necessary to "tame" and settle this country. As such, guns were easily and readily available and quite omnipresent for many generations.
As such, criminals now have guns. A LOT of guns. Banning guns here would only disarm the law-abiding citizens whom are not the concern.
So it is a very different scenario on opposite sides of the pond. Neither side is more right than the other.
And seeing how rabidly insane European football (soccer) fans are - thank GOD you guys don't have guns!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1000

 

[joe_chill]

Andries: I see what you mean now and understand why you carry and respect that. Thanks for the talk

 

[andries]

As a matter of fact I don't carry a gun. My job environment is a "gun free" zone. Guns are not allowed here If I want to remain a law abiding citizen

Andries: I see what you mean now and understand why you carry and respect that. Thanks for the talk

 

[joe_chill]

Ok

 

[donaldejose]

Some people believe Canadians and Europeans are more civilized than Americans and therefor don't need to defend themselves as much. That could be. One would have to take a close look at violent crime statistics to see if risk of harm from a criminal is better or worse or equal between countries. I don't have those statistics so I cannot really express an opinion other than to say I know many people feel safer in Canada and Europe. But not in Israel. I have also read that ever since the United Kingdom made gun ownership more restrictive violent crime has gone up and more criminals are carrying guns each year.

But my point is a bit different. To me it is a matter of freedom and responsibility. Your freedom to defend yourself with a weapon should not be taken from you. You don't need to have a gun. But that should be your choice, not the government's choice to make you a helpless victim. Likewise, your responsibility to yourself, to your family and to others around you should be a matter of your choice, not the government's. You can chose to go to the aid of a person being attacked or you can run away and hide. If you chose to go help them and fight off the attacker your options as to the tool you have available to render assistance should be your option, not the government's. If I saw three big dudes raping a girl in an alley and I knew little old me couldn't fight them off with my fists and if I called 911 the police would come 10 minutes later, I would feel just terrible. But in the same situation if I could pull out my gun, walk toward the guys yelling STOP! and shoot them if they pulled a knife or gun on me, I would feel like I really helped that girl. Government, please don't take this option away from me or from that girl. And don't tell me rapes don't occur in Canada or Europe!

 

[donaldejose]

Just a little bit different twist on the open carry issue. How should you act when you open carry? You will be the gun owner's lobby and representative as you walk around with a visible handgun. When people notice that gun they MUST immediately "size you up" because they don't know if you are plain clothes law enforcement or a terrorist on his way to conduct a shooting. Your gun will be just noticed but YOU will be SCRUTINIZED. People will examine your dress, your demeanor, your gestures, your level of calmness or agitation, your language, your attitude, etc. They will be asking themselves: "Wow, that guy's gut a gun! Is he dangerous! Is he a threat! Is he some nut! Is he going to the to start shooting people! Should I get the hell out of here! etc" So how do you behave to be a good representative and a good lobbyist for gun owners? And do you really want to be in that visible position? Wouldn't you rather carry concealed so as to cause less anxiety among people around you?

 

[robbnj]

In an area where open-carry is allowed, it doesn't bring the scrutiny you'd think.
In some states in the U.S., it is not at all uncommon to see guys with wheel guns, .45 caliber 1911s, etc., walking any and everywhere.

In other states that don't have the open-carry laws, the criminals keep their guns HIDDEN. Carrying them openly means they're not carrying them for long...

 

[boostin20]

Just a little bit different twist on the open carry issue. How should you act when you open carry? You will be the gun owner's lobby and representative as you walk around with a visible handgun. When people notice that gun they MUST immediately "size you up" because they don't know if you are plain clothes law enforcement or a terrorist on his way to conduct a shooting. Your gun will be just noticed but YOU will be SCRUTINIZED. People will examine your dress, your demeanor, your gestures, your level of calmness or agitation, your language, your attitude, etc. They will be asking themselves: "Wow, that guy's gut a gun! Is he dangerous! Is he a threat! Is he some nut! Is he going to the to start shooting people! Should I get the hell out of here! etc" So how do you behave to be a good representative and a good lobbyist for gun owners? And do you really want to be in that visible position? Wouldn't you rather carry concealed so as to cause less anxiety among people around you?

Not really, but it seems that's what goes through your mind. Where are you from?

 

[donaldejose]

I grew up in North Dakota, attended college and law school in Iowa, worked for over a decade in the US Department of Justice in Washington DC, and now live in a Philadelphia suburb. People in North Dakota wouldn't pay too much attention if you open carried but they sure would every other place I have lived and all those other places had far more crime and therefore far more reason to carry in the first place.

 

[daytona4me]

But my point is a bit different. To me it is a matter of freedom and responsibility. Your freedom to defend yourself with a weapon should not be taken from you. You don't need to have a gun. But that should be your choice, not the government's choice to make you a helpless victim.

Although not the same it this reminds me of an old Marine vs. Navy joke.
This Marine PFC is walking through an airport and goes to the head. Two naval officers walk in behind him. The Marine takes his piss and beings to walk out without washing his hands. The naval officers remark to the pfc "In the Navy they teach us how to wash our hands after urinating", the PFC remarks back to the Officers "In the Marine Corp. they teach us not to piss on our hands".

When I was spanked as a child and forced to attend church with my parents I learned not to be an idiot when it came time to make my own decisions. How many youth of our day do not understand how not to piss on their hands because of a lack of discipline and the only Lord they serve is Xbox? Just say'in

The reason why Europe and UK have become anti-gun is because of their social system. Socialism promotes dependance on the government, this includes protection as well as the giving up of some individual luxuries for the greater good. I AM NOT SAYING EU AND UK PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE NOR AM I SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES, NOR AM I SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE, so please.. don't go there.

Socialism.. "believe it is the responsibility of government to care for all individuals, even if it means giving up some individual rights and/or subordinating enterprise and initiative."

 

[boostin20]

I grew up in North Dakota, attended college and law school in Iowa, worked for over a decade in the US Department of Justice in Washington DC, and now live in a Philadelphia suburb. People in North Dakota wouldn't pay too much attention if you open carried but they sure would every other place I have lived and all those other places had far more crime and therefore far more reason to carry in the first place.

Your background is completely different than I thought it would be (not saying that's a bad thing). I actually thought you were in the EU.

 

[donaldejose]

I am sure our life experiences influence our opinions. I had some cases that took me into state and federal prisons (prisoners were suing the government for various reasons so I had to go interview the plaintiff and the witnesses in prison). The prisons were full of people you could not trust with your car much less with your life. Criminals don't have any empathy for the people they call suckers (we call them victims) so to rely upon a criminal to "treat you fairly" when you have given him what he wants is taking a really big chance.