Open Carry: Oklahoma scores partial victory

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

There is a risk. I posted a link to demonstrate the risk. I really don't care about your browbeating. I reject your characterization of the link. I'm not here for a pissing contest.

Again, this isn't even coherent. I stand by my posting of the link and would do it again. I'm not really interested in your personal issues. If you would like to have a discussion with me I'm all for that. If you are going to continue in this manner I will simply put you on ignore.

As opposed to admitting that the study says what it says and actually engaging in the dialectic? Oh, wait...

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Absolutely agreed. Deciding whether to own a gun, how to store it, whether to carry it, etc, is definitely a matter for serious mature thought.

I agree with this too. Now if only I could be reassured that most potential gun owners would actually engage in said serious, mature thought.

The gun owners here on this forum are one thing. I fully believe that every one of you are serious and mature about your gun ownership. I don't believe that all gun owners are like you. I'd like to, but I can't.

On the other side of the coin, I posted this in another thread yesterday:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In other news, one of my Twitter followees posted a link to this news report with the comment "National Parks to be overrun by lunatics with guns. Thanks, Liberal voters of NSW."

Other people are saying that they now need to be worried about being shot while mountain biking.

Now, call me mad, but I just don't see "a limited number of areas under strict conditions" to be the same thing as "overrun". I would also object to the characterisation of "lunatics with guns", but... well, it's the Hunters and Fisher's Party.

I would really like to point this out to them, but I know what it's like when I get into a gun argument here. Better not to engage.

...nah.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

No, because it is not practical. This was explained earlier. The tired old arguments of "Well do you carry a (Insert impractical item) with you everywhere you go?" is not valid and does not compare to carrying a gun. A gun is relatively cheap, requires minimal training to use, minimal upkeep, and is easy to carry.

So please let's all stop with the silly arguments.

Oh, relax, it's a message board. I'm wondering what the relative odds are, do you know?

As I've said before, lots of americans are far too stuck to their guns to do anything about taking them away, so I'm not advocating that, just as I wouldn't advocate US type firearms laws in the UK or Australia or anywhere else where guns are not freely available.

The problem is actually bullets, I feel. I wouldn't know where to buy bullets in the UK. In the US they sell them in supermarkets, I understand. Horses for courses.


Oh, but I would add that, according to some advocates on this thread, carrying a weapon, especially concealed, is a pain in the neck and not as simple as all that. And you can get some fairly small parachutes.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by 3point14

In the US they sell them in supermarkets, I understand

Absolutely, you can. There's a 24/7/364 store less than two miles from where I sit.

FMJs and a gallon of milk at 3AM? That's freedom!

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Oh, relax, it's a message board. I'm wondering what the relative odds are, do you know?

As I've said before, lots of americans are far too stuck to their guns to do anything about taking them away, so I'm not advocating that, just as I wouldn't advocate US type firearms laws in the UK or Australia or anywhere else where guns are not freely available.

The problem is actually bullets, I feel. I wouldn't know where to buy bullets in the UK. In the US they sell them in supermarkets, I understand. Horses for courses.


Oh, but I would add that, according to some advocates on this thread, carrying a weapon, especially concealed, is a pain in the neck and not as simple as all that. And you can get some fairly small parachutes.

Hmmm. Which individuals advocated that? Carrying a firearm is not a pain in the neck whatsoever. You just gotta find the right holster and weapon that is the best fit for you. Perhaps they are attempting to conceal carry this weapon:

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Hmmm. Which individuals advocated that? Carrying a firearm is not a pain in the neck whatsoever. You just gotta find the right holster and weapon that is the best fit for you. Perhaps they are attempting to conceal carry this weapon:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0TdtycCxOI...400/magnum.bmp

This post from Garrette is the one that I was thinking of.

I've left it it's entirety so there's no misunderstanding (except, perhaps my possible misunderstanding of his post)

Originally Posted by Garrette

I suspect you and I are very close in our views of gun rights and gun responsibility.

Not including the military I have worked several posititions in which I openly carried (licensed security, not law enforcement). In addition, I own a handgun. The most I've ever owned simultaneously is two, and I am considering going back to that number.

Where is my one handgun right now? In a storage locker over a mile from my home. But if I ever decide to keep it at home I will feel comfortable that I am impinging on no one else's rights or safety in doing so.

I have a concealed carry license; in addition, being a military officer equates to concealed carry rights in some states (my own being one of them), though I wouldn't push that; I doubt that most police officers or courts realize that law is on the books.

But I have only carried concealed twice in my life. The first was when I was brand new to handguns and carried unloaded for a day simply to learn the logistics of doing it. It aint' easy to carry concealed all day.

The second was on very rural private property that happened to be in the middle of moonshine and marijuana production territory. Though private, it was common for it to be traversed by rifle-toting good ol' boys, some of whom were simply walking home from squirrel hunting and some of whom were drunk or high or both. I'm glad I carried then as there was one point at which I made ready to pull it. Didn't have to, but the ability was there.

Which gets back to the responsibility part. A large part of why I didn't have to pull it is because I take pains to avoid it, just as I take pains to avoid having to throw a punch when not armed.

Ah, well. Long winded tangent. Sorry.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by 3point14

This post from Garrette is the one that I was thinking of.

I've left it it's entirety so there's no misunderstanding (except, perhaps my possible misunderstanding of his post)

Take a look at the parts I bolded:

Originally Posted by Garrette

I suspect you and I are very close in our views of gun rights and gun responsibility.

Not including the military I have worked several posititions in which I openly carried (licensed security, not law enforcement). In addition, I own a handgun. The most I've ever owned simultaneously is two, and I am considering going back to that number.

Where is my one handgun right now? In a storage locker over a mile from my home. But if I ever decide to keep it at home I will feel comfortable that I am impinging on no one else's rights or safety in doing so.

I have a concealed carry license; in addition, being a military officer equates to concealed carry rights in some states (my own being one of them), though I wouldn't push that; I doubt that most police officers or courts realize that law is on the books.

But I have only carried concealed twice in my life. The first was when I was brand new to handguns and carried unloaded for a day simply to learn the logistics of doing it. It aint' easy to carry concealed all day.

The second was on very rural private property that happened to be in the middle of moonshine and marijuana production territory. Though private, it was common for it to be traversed by rifle-toting good ol' boys, some of whom were simply walking home from squirrel hunting and some of whom were drunk or high or both. I'm glad I carried then as there was one point at which I made ready to pull it. Didn't have to, but the ability was there.

Which gets back to the responsibility part. A large part of why I didn't have to pull it is because I take pains to avoid it, just as I take pains to avoid having to throw a punch when not armed.

Ah, well. Long winded tangent. Sorry.

While he has lots of open carry experience, it appears that he has very, very little concealed carry experience. There is nothing wrong with that, but the reason he stated that you can't carry concealed all day is probably because he did not have a proper/comfortable set up that would have enabled him to carry concealed all day with no problems. If he wanted to take the time, he could definitely find a set up that fits his style/body type that would be comfortable all day long.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I agree with this too. Now if only I could be reassured that most potential gun owners would actually engage in said serious, mature thought.

Well, the fact that only a miniscule fraction of the over 8 million legally-owned firearms in the US are used for criminal activities or are involved in easily-avoidable accidents would tend to indicate that they do.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Take a look at the parts I bolded:



While he has lots of open carry experience, it appears that he has very, very little concealed carry experience. There is nothing wrong with that, but the reason he stated that you can't carry concealed all day is probably because he did not have a proper/comfortable set up that would have enabled him to carry concealed all day with no problems. If he wanted to take the time, he could definitely find a set up that fits his style/body type that would be comfortable all day long.

Fair points all.

It's still a damn big, and heavy, chunk of metal to be carrying around all day.

I think it would limit my running away options pretty severely.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by luchog

Well, the fact that only a miniscule fraction of the over 8 million legally-owned firearms in the US are used for criminal activities or are involved in easily-avoidable accidents would tend to indicate that they do.

Probably more like 300 million legally owned firearms in the US, a third of them being handguns. (Skimmed from this source. It seems to be in agreement with other numbers found on the 'net.)

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I agree with this too. Now if only I could be reassured that most potential gun owners would actually engage in said serious, mature thought.

The gun owners here on this forum are one thing. I fully believe that every one of you are serious and mature about your gun ownership. I don't believe that all gun owners are like you. I'd like to, but I can't.

Why would you think the gun owners on this forum are not representative of firearm owners as a whole?

While stipulating the notion that "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'", it's still reasonable to assume that, generally, your experiences are not unusual to the norm unless presented evidence to the contrary.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Why would you think the gun owners on this forum are not representative of firearm owners as a whole?

<Snipped>

Because this forum is a self selecting sample of pepople who think critically about things.


ETA: or think they do.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by 3point14

<Snipped>

Because this forum is a self selecting sample of pepople who think critically about things.


ETA: or think they do.

The part you snipped is actually quite important.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Fair points all.

It's still a damn big, and heavy, chunk of metal to be carrying around all day.

I think it would limit my running away options pretty severely.

Actually this is where modern tech has made big strides. Both of my hand guns I commonly carry weight much less, and are not really big hunks of metal.

There are actually a lot of lite weight options available today. Polymer frames ect.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Fair points all.

It's still a damn big, and heavy, chunk of metal to be carrying around all day.

I think it would limit my running away options pretty severely.

Again, you are incorrect. Have you handled many firearms before? I have one of these (Which is not my primary carry, but a good example of a light weight option), and it weighs 1.2lbs loaded:

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Again, you are incorrect. Have you handled many firearms before? I have one of these (Which is not my primary carry, but a good example of a light weight option), and it weighs 1.2lbs loaded:
http://keltecweapons.com/uploaded_fi...41PF9_4045.jpg

No, I don't like them.

Actually, that's not true, I have held a handgun once, a very long time ago (probably a decent indicator that my little knowledge is not current) and my abiding memory is how much heavier it was than I thought it was going to be. (having seen them thrown around like toys in movies)

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

The part you snipped is actually quite important.

I really don't think so, I'm afraid.

I don't know how you can think that this forum is representative of the general public anywhere. This forum, by definition, is filled with people who think (or think they think) critically about things. You say the words 'logical fallacy' to most people outside this forum or a similar venue and you get blank looks.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I really don't think so, I'm afraid.

I don't know how you can think that this forum is representative of the general public anywhere. This forum, by definition, is filled with people who think (or think they think) critically about things. You say the words 'logical fallacy' to most people outside this forum or a similar venue and you get blank looks.

I really do not know how one would go about being sure about something like this . . .

All I have is my personal experiences. I tend to be a very calming, and safety oriented person so when I find individuals who are handling a firearm in less than ideal ways I make it a point to talk about why certain behaviors are less ideal, or more ideal. I tend to get good responses from people.

I know all of this is anecdotal, but I have interacted with a lot of folks who enjoy firearms, I regularly participate in pistol competitions and of course lots of gun enthusiasts participate. Now this group may also be an outlier in the sense that we self regulate our behaviors toward safety in every aspect of the sport. Safety first is an essential axiom.

I really do not know anyone who actively carries who is not also involved in some kind of sport shooting. I think once you habituate the firearm into your life it becomes interesting to test your capability, and then from there is becomes normal to either compete, or make a ritual of going to the range.

I know a lot of people who keep the firearm in the vehicle, or home and really do not carry it, and these folks tend to be the ones who either rarely train, or never train. I can think of a few people I have interacted with that I felt were just not safe, and based on some of the comments, maybe shouldn't have had a weapon at all, but its easy to discriminate, and sometimes people just talk big. Who knows . . .

Basically, my impression is that if a person interacts with the sporting gun community for any length of time, they either tow the safety line, or are asked not to come back. I can only think of a few times someone was asked to leave the gun range I frequent and to my knowledge a member has never been banned, but again all of this is just my own subjective impressions.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I really don't think so, I'm afraid.

I don't know how you can think that this forum is representative of the general public anywhere. This forum, by definition, is filled with people who think (or think they think) critically about things. You say the words 'logical fallacy' to most people outside this forum or a similar venue and you get blank looks.

I think that you overrate the actual amount of critical thinking on these forums. Just look at any hot topic thread. Also, does it necessarily matter anyway, after all "everybody is a skeptic when they are buying a used car". People who are into cars may know more about cars than the average member of these forums, and people who are into guns may know more about guns than the average member of these boards. (They might not know as much about logical debating terminology... but that doesn't mean that they are stupid).

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I really do not know how one would go about being sure about something like this . . .

All I have is my personal experiences. I tend to be a very calming, and safety oriented person so when I find individuals who are handling a firearm in less than ideal ways I make it a point to talk about why certain behaviors are less ideal, or more ideal. I tend to get good responses from people.

I know all of this is anecdotal, but I have interacted with a lot of folks who enjoy firearms, I regularly participate in pistol competitions and of course lots of gun enthusiasts participate. Now this group may also be an outlier in the sense that we self regulate our behaviors toward safety in every aspect of the sport. Safety first is an essential axiom.

I really do not know anyone who actively carries who is not also involved in some kind of sport shooting. I think once you habituate the firearm into your life it becomes interesting to test your capability, and then from there is becomes normal to either compete, or make a ritual of going to the range.

I know a lot of people who keep the firearm in the vehicle, or home and really do not carry it, and these folks tend to be the ones who either rarely train, or never train. I can think of a few people I have interacted with that I felt were just not safe, and based on some of the comments, maybe shouldn't have had a weapon at all, but its easy to discriminate, and sometimes people just talk big. Who knows . . .

Basically, my impression is that if a person interacts with the sporting gun community for any length of time, they either tow the safety line, or are asked not to come back. I can only think of a few times someone was asked to leave the gun range I frequent and to my knowledge a member has never been banned, but again all of this is just my own subjective impressions.

But they're all the people that you know. Another self selecting sample.

Responsible gun owners mix with responsible gun owners.

I suspect irresponsible gun owners mix with irresponsible gun owners and that's clearly not you.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Giz

I think that you overrate the actual amount of critical thinking on these forums. Just look at any hot topic thread. Also, does it necessarily matter anyway, after all "everybody is a skeptic when they are buying a used car". People who are into cars may know more about cars than the average member of these forums, and people who are into guns may know more about guns than the average member of these boards. (They might not know as much about logical debating terminology... but that doesn't mean that they are stupid).

Oh, I don't know how much actual critical thinking there is, but everyon here, as I have said, thinks they think critically. they go out of their way to assess things in a logical fashion. They may fail, but they do it.

I really, really don't see how you can think that a self selecting sample within a self selecting sample (People registered here who have also chosen to post on this thread) can be indicitive of the attitudes of the whole.

Just the 'self selecting sample' bit should be enough of a warning sign.

[Xulld]

Quote:

But they're all the people that you know. Another self selecting sample.

Responsible gun owners mix with responsible gun owners.

I suspect irresponsible gun owners mix with irresponsible gun owners and that's clearly not you.

I said as much in my post.

Originally Posted by 3point14

Oh, I don't know how much actual critical thinking there is, but everyon here, as I have said, thinks they think critically. they go out of their way to assess things in a logical fashion. They may fail, but they do it.

I really, really don't see how you can think that a self selecting sample within a self selecting sample (People registered here who have also chosen to post on this thread) can be indicitive of the attitudes of the whole.

Just the 'self selecting sample' bit should be enough of a warning sign.

The easiest form of skepticism is blindly questioning some idea. However your position is an active claim. The claim here is that, out there somewhere are scary people with guns who shouldn't have them becuase they MAY misuse them. Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves. So within that group we are looking for data which either supports or refutes the narrative being presented.

I am curious what data supports this position. Data has already been presented to show that the vast majority of gun owners will NEVER engage in violence.

So I understand what you are saying . . . but think you are being less than fair here with your presentation of the level of skepticism in this thread.

Not only is the claim vague, but unsupported. Claims require support, and are where the burden of proof exists.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I said as much in my post.



The easiest form of skepticism is blindly questioning some idea. However your position is an active claim. The claim here is that, out there somewhere are scary people with guns who shouldn't have them becuase they MAY misuse them. Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves. So within that group we are looking for data which either supports or refutes the narrative being presented.

I am curious what data supports this position. Data has already been presented to show that the vast majority of gun owners will NEVER engage in violence.

So I understand what you are saying . . . but think you are being less than fair here with your presentation of the level of skepticism in this thread.

Not only is the claim vague, but unsupported. Claims require support, and are where the burden of proof exists.

I accept what you say, to a degree, but all we can be sure of is that we can't be sure either way.

All I am certain of is that a self selecting sample is not representative of the whole.

I also note that you've narrowed down 'gun owners' to "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.", which has pretty much cut out those who use guns for sport, those who use guns for their work (farmers and the like, who need them) and those who own guns because they think it's cool. I was under the impression that we were dealing with gun owners in general and those who want to open carry specifically. Neither of those catagories contain excusively "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves."

I don't know guns, but I know statistics - self selecting samples are not reliable.

You are correct when you say that there is no evidence either way.

I think you are making a mistake to think that everyone else is like you.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I also note that you've narrowed down 'gun owners' to "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.", which has pretty much cut out those who use guns for sport, those who use guns for their work (farmers and the like, who need them) and those who own guns because they think it's cool. I was under the impression that we were dealing with gun owners in general and those who want to open carry specifically. Neither of those catagories contain excusively "folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves."

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think you are making a mistake to think that everyone else is like you.

I do not know that I am. I acknowledge a lack of data, and presented my own anecdote. I make no assumptions in this regard, and without data I can only go on my own experiences. I think it is a mistake to assume that any large population of gun owners are inherently dangerous without some kind of specific behaviors we want to call dangerous(ie removing the vagueness of the initial claim), and then statistics to present it as a problem.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.


I do not know that I am. I acknowledge a lack of data, and presented my own anecdote. I make no assumptions in this regard, and without data I can only go on my own experiences. I think it is a mistake to assume that any large population of gun owners are inherently dangerous without some kind of specific behaviors we want to call dangerous(ie removing the vagueness of the initial claim), and then statistics to present it as a problem.

You know, I really hate it when people I disagree with are reasonable...


The problem, as you say, is lack of data, and, given our respective starting positions, we have a different null hypothesis, I think.


And you're right, the 'some gun owners are dangerous' is a pretty nonsense claim without any statistics to back it up, I appreciate that.

I'm acutely aware that half the polulation have an IQ under 100. I also deal with the general public every day and have for quite some time. This has given me a somewhat jaded view of the capacity for rational thought that most people have.



Once again, at jref, I've talked myself to a standstill.

[Xulld]

Certainly not scientific, and perhaps of no better quality than my own anecdotes, but one can go to youtube and see just about every kind of behavior ranging from extreme safety, to clear cases of negligent behavior in regards to guns.

I suppose facts such as these make it easy to see that people are poeple, some are safe some not so much. In that sense we clearly know the question (if better stated) is relevant even if we have no easy answers.

This is also why so much emphasis is placed on safety in gun circles of larger groupings. We know people can be negligent, and creating a system of safety practices is our (the gun community's) reaction to those facts. (accidents are rare, but taking measures to minimize or reduce the incidence is rational)

Another anecdote: the company I work for had a very remote company headquarters located out in the woods miles from any homes and with an excellent backstop (a dirt ditch/ravine with ~40 foot from bottom to edge) and we asked the owner if we could make use of this to shoot at after hours, or on the weekends. At first the owner was VERY skeptical, in fact that may be an understatement, he is a gun owner and pro 2A rights and all that, but still a rational person wanting to protect the investment that is his business. So he called the sheriffs office made sure it was legal, but then still had reservations about safety. I had shot with him in the past, and he knew how strict I am with safety. So he allowed us to shoot with the stipulation that I handle safety, and that anyone that wanted to shoot had to be shown the ropes by me first. My point here is that the natural tendency for most self preservation types, which include liability concerns, is to overstate safety, and enforce rules that minimize risk.

I see this same behavior a LOT when it comes to new gun owners. They will keep the gun unloaded, locked in a drawer, or with a gun lock. Of course familiarity breeds contempt (if we accept that old adage as being relevant). Clearly training reinforces good behaviors, but I have no data as to how many gun owners actually get training, my gut says few.

My brother is an example of someone who probably should not carry a gun. I have a friend who openly admits his temper is such that he should never own a firearm.

On the flip side I think often its easy to think to yourself how stupid people seem when we see so much to criticize, however I think sometimes this is also a confirmation bias, stupid is noteworthy, average behavior is not, and a person who fails to create a noteworthy situation may indeed be a data point in favor of humanity, but we often only see the true failures of logic and reasoning becuase that is what is noteworthy.

anyways . .. I am rambling. lol.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Also the context of this discussion is not gang bangers, or active organized criminals, but folks who own the gun with the idea to protect themselves.

I didn't make that distinction in my comment.

Originally Posted by Xulld

Good catch. I did not mean to exclude those groups so much as make clear we are not talking about folks with the explicit desire to commit crime.

Nor that one, actually.

[RandFan]

The average American believes in creationism over evolution. I don't like being cynical but that's a pretty damning statistic. Sure you can operate heavy equipment and still be too god damn stupid to figure out that science actually is superior to mythology. I like to think most Americans are moderately decent and smart enough to get to work people but I think our relative safety (not to be confused with relative to European nations) lies mostly in anonymity, apathy and lack of imagination. It's really not all that hard to carry a weapon around without an accidental discharge. I think most people just wanting to live and let live so to be fair there's that also.

I think anyone who believes significant changes to gun laws to further restrict or even ban guns will have any real impact on crime are fooling themselves. But I'm not exactly impressed with the pro-gun side either. If I did feel the need to carry a gun I damn sure wouldn't think myself belonging to some noble group. The romanticism is a bit over played in my opinion (not directed at anyone in particular). There's nothing in our culture or crime statistics that stand out to me as demonstrative that 2nd Amendment rights have made us in someway a better nation. We are a violent nation by far compared to other modern liberal democracies. Now, I don't blame guns but I find no evidence that guns have ennobled us or made us any less violent or anymore safe in the aggregate. In the grand scheme of things I suspect it is a wash.

Just my 2 cents.