Open Carry Law Set to Pass

[MDot]

Still, it's hard to shoot someone if you're not carrying a gun.

That's a completely different topic.

[BBatesokc]

Still, it's hard to shoot someone if you're not carrying a gun.

Any its even harder to defend one's life or that of loved one's from an armed or overpowering criminal if you're not carrying a gun.

[BBatesokc]

Everyone who says there have been no problems with concealed carry are clearly overlooking Ersland.

And anyone who tries to draw parallels between the downside of open carry (or even concealed carry) and the Ersland case is simply showing how ignorant they are to the topic.

[hrdware]

You are defending a convicted murderer. Enough said. Everyone who says there have been no problems with concealed carry are clearly overlooking Ersland. He specifically said

"That's what the Second Amendment and the state's concealed carry license are for."

On a different note, I've found that California is not a true open carry state. Open carry is only allowed in legally defined rural areas. That would be fine with me, if the rural people want to carry their guns into Wal-mart, thats one thing. But NYC and every California city have banned open carry. I believe OKC should strive to be more like those cities, and the rural people can do what they want.

Do you have a cite for what Ersland said? I'd like to read it in context.

Up until January 1 of this year, CA was an open carry state. A new law (that is now being challenged in court) removed the peoples right to open carry in incorporated areas.

Here are some crime stats from 2010 for you from www.disastercenter.com
Numbers in parenthesis are per 100,000 people

State     Violent Crimes       Murders   Forcible Rape       Robbery       Aggravated Assault
NY         75997 (392.1)      866 (4.5)     2771 (14.3)     28473 (146.9)     43867 (226.4)
CA        164133 (440.6)     1809 (4.9)     8331 (22.4)     58116 (156)       95877 (257.4)
VT           815 (130.2)        7 (1.1)      132 (21.1)        74 (11.8)        602 (96.2)

What is interesting to note about this is you want us to be more like the forward thinking rights restricting states of NY and CA, however it is interesting to note that VT does not issue any kind of gun permit. If you are old enough and can legally own a gun in VT, you can carry it however you wish. The FBI has cited Vermont as the 2nd safest state in the union and these other 2 states come in around the mid 30s.

[hrdware]

Any its even harder to defend one's life or that of loved one's from an armed or overpowering criminal if you're not carrying a gun.

^ This.

The opponents of this bill seem to believe that if this passes, then LAW ABIDING CITIZENS will be having gun fights in the streets. It's the criminals who are illegally carrying a firearm and doing other illegal things who are doing this. If the mere sight of my firearm in it's holster, you should turn around and walk the other way, and stop trying to tell me I'm being a bad person.

[hrdware]

Do you have a cite for what Ersland said? I'd like to read it in context.

Never mind, I found it. The entire quote reads:

"I feel that [people have] a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people [who] want to take money when they don't work for it," Ersland said in a May 22, 2009, interview with The Oklahoman. "That's what the Second Amendment and the state's concealed carry license are for,"

His guilt or innocence have nothing to do with open carry or concealed carry. Just wanted folks to see the entire quote, not just half of it.

[ljbab728]

If the mere sight of my firearm in it's holster, you should turn around and walk the other way, and stop trying to tell me I'm being a bad person.

I promise if I walk into any business and see someone openly carrying a firearm I will leave immediately without asking questions about anyone's intentions.

[RadicalModerate]

I promise if I walk into any business and see someone openly carrying a fireman I will leave immediately without asking questions about anyone's intentions.

Carrying fireman . . . carrying firearm . . .
what's the difference . . . i'm leaving immediately too.

(so ljb, are you, like, really Groucho in disguise? =)

[ljbab728]

Carrying fireman . . . carrying firearm . . .
what's the difference . . . i'm leaving immediately too.

(so ljb, are you, like, really Groucho in disguise? =)

LOL, you got me radical. Consider my post corrected.

[Roadhawg]

Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.

[OKCTalker]

Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.

+1 You've given up the element of surprise.

[hrdware]

Here's my 2 cents..... I have a CCW and have no plans of open carrying. To me advertising that you have a weapon will get you killed first you're caught in a robbery. If I'm caught in a situation like that I don't want the bad guys knowing I have a weapon. If you want to walk around like Marshal Dillon or Quick Draw McGraw that's up to you but personally I think open carry is a bad thing waiting to happen.

This has never happened in the other 42 states that have open carry, why do you think it will magically happen here?

[hrdware]

+1 You've given up the element of surprise.

But I have used a deterrent and therefore have no need for the element of surprise.

[RadicalModerate]

I don't really have a dog in this fight--gave up all my handguns decades ago--but it seems to me that there is a thin line between "deterrent" and "dare" in this context.

If I were a criminal (and I used to be acquainted with a few, back in the day) bent on achieving one twisted goal or another, I would shoot the "threats" that I knew were carrying guns first.

"If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don' talk."
--Eli "Tuco" Wallach, The Good The Bad and The Ugly

[hrdware]

I don't really have a dog in this fight--gave up all my handguns decades ago--but it seems to me that there is a thin line between "deterrent" and "dare" in this context.

If I were a criminal (and I used to be acquainted with a few, back in the day) bent on achieving one twisted goal or another, I would shoot the "threats" that I knew were carrying guns first.

"If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don' talk."
--Eli "Tuco" Wallach, The Good The Bad and The Ugly

Depends on how bad they want to commit the crime. Most criminals are looking for an easy target. They also don't really want to go to jail for murder or get themselves shot for a few bucks. Typically criminals are not the sharpest knife in the drawer and aren't going to be looking for anyone with a firearm. Keep in mind, I did say most, not all. But I still go back to the fact that his has not happened in other states. Some of those states don't have a permitting process and some have had open carry since statehood.

Now nothing would stop a criminal with a well thought out plan and enough people to help.

[Charlie40]

And I will be sticking close by the guy carrying the firearm as that will make me feel safer.

[Skyline]

I can't wait to see "Yosemite Sam" at Wal Mart!

[hrdware]

That is just fine. But when a robber walks in who only wanted to steal $150 from the register and you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a gun fight, come back here and tell me how it was. I have been in combat. I know what bullets flying feels like. It isn't "safer". When I am walking my 3 kids, the fewer guns in my AO, the better. Sorry, I lived in Oklahoma far too long. I know too many people who are so proud of their gun -- it scares me. To me, they are worse than some of the criminals on the street because they are just itching to get to use it in a "dangerous" situation. Again, I know these people. These are not stereotypes I have seen on TV. No amount of "statistics" will convince me that me and my family is safer in a restaurant with a person openly carrying a firearm. I will walk out.

To be clear, just because this law passes, I don't think that suddenly we will start to see guns everywhere. Too many people that carry for self-defense know the silliness of brandishing a weapon before a threat is exposed. This law isn't likely to mean a spike in gun related injuries or a decrease either. All it will really do is make a statement. A statement that our legislature is dying to make. One that is only masked in the argument of the 2nd Amendment.

In summary, you should always be able to defend yourself. Unfortunately, if in the act of defending yourself you want to choose a method that puts others at risk in public, then you must be restrained. In certain contexts ( I say in public), the measure of force may become excessive. You could make the argument if you were in the desert that using a bazooka isn't excessive. The odds of injuring an innocent person is virtually non-existent. However, a small handgun can easily kill an innocent bystander in a normal setting like a restaurant. In your house, you are not likely to be able to injure someone else if you need to defend yourself with a gun. I say let 'em have it.

If someone on the road started to threaten you and you started to fight back with your car and caused another accident where someone was injured, would you use the 2nd Amendment to defend your action? The obvious answer is no. Because the act of bearing arms isn't merely for the purpose of self-defense. Our founders were quite aware of the threat of an army being brought up against them was very real. They wanted no chances that the population wouldn't be armed and ready to defend. The idea that the 2nd Amendment has been reinterpreted to mean that people should be able to carry and brandish guns in public in the name of self-defense is a stretch and quite frankly a little insulting to me. Early American history isn't a hard thing to learn and this "debate" is to me, a clear example of how poorly we teach it.

...to keep (to own) and bear (to carry) arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty clear to me that the framers wanted us to have the ability to own and carry firearms as we saw fit.

Without all the OC vs CC tactical mumbo jumbo, it seems that even carrying concealed one still puts others in public at risk. Are you saying that all CCers need to be restrained as well? Maybe I am using the wrong definition of restrained. Do you mean restrained by use of force, or that each person carrying must show personal restraint and draw in a dire emergency?

Are you also saying that you are OK with people who CC because out of sight out of mind, but not OC because you can see it?

[Roadhawg]

This has never happened in the other 42 states that have open carry, why do you think it will magically happen here?

1. I said this was just my opinion
2. Do you have something that shows it's 'never' happened?

[Roadhawg]

And I will be sticking close by the guy carrying the firearm as that will make me feel safer.

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

[Roadhawg]

Well said Sid

[Charlie40]

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

Well hopefully the good guy would have taken out the badguy pretty quickly.

[hrdware]

1. I said this was just my opinion
2. Do you have something that shows it's 'never' happened?

1. I understand it is your opinion, I'm just trying to figure out how you came to that assumption. An informed opinion generally means some thought has gone into the process. If no thought has gone into the process, the response is purely emotional.

2. How about the lack of evidence supporting this statement. Maybe 'never' is to strong of a word, how about 'virtually never'. If this kind of thing happened as often as it was lead to believe, someone would be keeping track of it to get the states to prohibit people from openly carrying firearms. Since this is not the case, this must happen close enough to the value of never, we may as well call it never. I read a national open carry forum, and if something like this happened somewhere, believe me, there would be posts upon posts about it. That's about the best I can do, the only way I know of to prove something 'never' happened is to point to the lack of that that it actually did. I mean, there is no evidence that 85,000,000 gun owners did not kill anyone yesterday either.

[hrdware]

Not sure how safe you'll be with the bad guy shooting at the one with the gun LOL

You assume that the good guy would initially put himself in the confrontation. Sorry...not me. Carrying open or concealed does not mean I'm anyone's personal hero and my first goal is to save my own skin. At that point I *may* intervene from behind if appropriate, but in no way am I going to get in the face of the bad guy and try and play cops and robbers.

[Roadhawg]

you assume that the good guy would initially put himself in the confrontation. Sorry...not me. Carrying open or concealed does not mean i'm anyone's personal hero and my first goal is to save my own skin. At that point i *may* intervene from behind if appropriate, but in no way am i going to get in the face of the bad guy and try and play cops and robbers.

xxxxxx