Open Carry Law Set to Pass

[onthestrip]

why should we not be able to? honest ?

Because its not necessary, no where does it say you have a right to openly carry in public, and makes those that are nearby a person openly carrying feel uneasy

[BBatesokc]

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

Will there be 'some' (as in very few) instances of death because some loon who had no place carrying a gun does? Sure. Will there be a "dramatic increase (in) homicide rates" as you stated earlier - Absolutely not. Some people are killed by baseball bats, should we outlaw them too? Far more people are killed in this state by alcohol and cigarettes, did I miss your posts wanting those banned?

If we're going to allow guns to be carried, it matters little if there is a t-shirt over it. The mindset that caused the person to arm themselves in public is already there (i.e. Jerome Ersland). His gun was neither concealed on his body nor tethered to his hip and he is still a murderer in the eyes of the law.

[BBatesokc]

Because its not necessary, no where does it say you have a right to openly carry in public, and makes those that are nearby a person openly carrying feel uneasy

Really? If things go bad, I'm more apt to stand very close to the guy with a gun handy.

I find it so bizarre in a state where people can hide their weapon you'd feel most afraid of the person who's letting you know they have one. I'm thinking knowing he's got a gun might actually make me put more thought into my own actions.

[hrdware]

Better to have a gun carrier's day ruined than innocent blood shed. And if you don't believe there is a correlation, why did NYC's firearm ban result in a dramatic drop in the homicide rate? That just goes to show that violence increases with access to guns. This law will definitely have unmeasurable implications if it passes.

The homicide rate went down because law abiding citizens could no longer protect themselves by shooting the bad guys. You incorrectly equate a decline in the homicide rate with a drop in total crime.

[LandRunOkie]

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.

[hrdware]

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

[Bill Robertson]

I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law.

Not to speak for Brian, he does fine for himself, but saying one implies the other.

Also, if there is a correlation between the number of people legally carrying and the number of homicides then there shouldn't be an increase in homicides. We can already legally carry concealed. I think you be surprised at the number of people you pass every day that are carrying. You just don't know they're carrying.

[BBatesokc]

I love it - so, I misquoted you, BUT.... that's what you meant to say. I should have made it more clear, I wasn't quoting you, per se, I was simply restating what it appeared you were saying. Which apparently you were.

So, how about if we just taxed gun carriers more since that makes any resulting deaths more palatable apparently.

Last time I checked, death was death.

Ummmm, everyone is presumed innocent in a court of law - even serial killers caught in the act. Actually, it was his actions that got him convicted. Just because his actions were caught on video doesn't make it the camera's fault.

[hrdware]

I personally don't care too much if people open carry - I just wish everyone who carried would be required to take CLEET phases 1-4 and carry additional insurance.

We shouldn't need to get a permit or take any other course or carry additional insurance to exercise our 2nd amendment right. To do so amounts to a poll tax.

[LandRunOkie]

[strikethrough]People[/strikethrough] Criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

Yes and people also decide verdicts for murder trials. And if ONE of those people doesn't think he's guilty, the defendant walks. That's why its better to try to prevent homicide than let people run around playing Wyatt Earp.

[hrdware]

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

Can you cite a source for your early funerals and broken families line? I doubt it therefore it is pure conjecture and speculation on your part. It doesn't happen elsewhere, why do you think other Oklahomans are less safe with firearms than people in other states. There are people who open carry in other states, just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't. The human eye and brain work very hard to show you what you want and expect to see. Most people don't know that open carriers are doing so unless it is pointed out to them. And what is this risk of increased violence? Are you planning on attacking those of us who will open carry?? If so the violence will be on your part not ours, don't project your fears and actions onto us.

[hrdware]

Yes and people also decide verdicts for murder trials. And if ONE of those people doesn't think he's guilty, the defendant walks. That's why its better to try to prevent homicide than let people run around playing Wyatt Earp.

Nothing in this bill allows me to play cop. The only difference between today and the day the bill goes into effect will be that I can openly carry my firearm...how exactly does that make me Wyatt Earp and change my mental makeup??

[LandRunOkie]

don't project your fears and actions onto us.

You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

[MDot]

You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

I carry a knife everywhere I go... My Great-Grandfather carries a pistol everywhere he goes... Just because an individual has something to protect themselves incase it is ever needed does NOT mean they have a number of fears, I carry a knife more so out of habbit than anything else. If you ask me, I'm less afraid because I have something to use in my defense incase something does happen. You could have worded what you said differently, for sure, but I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

[WilliamTell]

as a weapon carrier i dont really see why we need open carry and i dont know any people with ccw who have ever mentioned wanting open carry....

seems like a typical law maker law - instead of solving actual problems (and doing real work) they give us new legislation for things we dont need and didnt ask for.

the only benefit is that i cant get in trouble if someone see's the outline of my weapon but i havent actually ever heard of anyone getting into trouble who wasnt looking for it.

[hrdware]

as a weapon carrier i dont really see why we need open carry and i dont know any people with ccw who have ever mentioned wanting open carry....

seems like a typical law maker law - instead of solving actual problems (and doing real work) they give us new legislation for things we dont need and didnt ask for.

the only benefit is that i cant get in trouble if someone see's the outline of my weapon but i havent actually ever heard of anyone getting into trouble who wasnt looking for it.

Actually many people have asked for it and have supported it, not just law makers. I think the choice to open carry is exactly that, a choice. Some instances I will continue to conceal, in others I will choose to open it just depends on the situation. It will be nice to not have to buy my shirts a size or 2 larger than I need them since I will be able to OC. I won't have to worry about what kind of cover garment I will have to have in the middle of July.

As I have said, I would have liked it better for us to have gone to constitutional open carry and a permitted concealed carry like many other states already do but that would have been to much of a change for Oklahoma.

[hrdware]

You are the one afraid to go outside without a gun strapped to your body. I think I probably have fewer fears than you.
Nothing personal guys. Its been a good debate. Sure hope I don't "bump" into any of you!

I frequently leave the house without a firearm. I would say I am unarmed more days than I am.

Not so much of a debate, I asked you to site sources and stop projecting fears (that you think us OCers would have) onto us and you up and leave saying your unfounded, fear mongering statements were a debate. I am more than willing to have a debate, but only if you are willing to cite your sources and stop using statements of fear.

[Stew]

The police open carry so why not the rest of the citizens?

[Of Sound Mind]

No the sky won't fall because this law passes. There will just be more early funerals and broken up families. And as I said before, the real effect is intimidation, not violence. And if no one carries openly in the open carry states, why take the risk of increased violence. The burden should be on the ones who want to carry guns.

The ignorance and hysteria displayed here is more frightening than the prospect of open carry.

[kevinpate]

The ignorance and hysteria displayed here is more frightening than the prospect of open carry.

Though not a fan of open carry, I completely agree with you.

[metro]

That is the second time you've misquoted me. I said there was a decrease in homicides in NYC when they outlawed firearms, not that there would be a dramatic increase with this law. But there will probably be an increase.

About alcohol and cigarettes, I am in favor of taxing them more heavily, absolutely. But all societies recognize violent crime as the worst type. Guns cause that, not alcohol or cigs.

About Ersland, if you'll remember, he was presumed innocent. It was the surveillance video that got him convicted. There aren't surveillance cameras everywhere a shooting will take place.

People cause is it, not guns. A gun is an amoral object. A person with preconceived bad intentions is going to obtain and conceal a gun no matter what. Look at most criminals in this country or drug cartels in Mexico. Do you honestly think they are not going to get a gun if they were completely outlawed? People like Jerome Ersland don't go out looking to cause trouble, and in fact would prefer not to get any, but when someone else wishing to force their will on someone else through means of force, perceived or actual, then people may result to defend themselves if necessary. Would it have made it any less of a crime if Ersland was murdered by the kid instead?

[metro]

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner

[LandRunOkie]

People like Jerome Ersland don't go out looking to cause trouble, and in fact would prefer not to get any, but when someone else wishing to force their will on someone else through means of force, perceived or actual, then people may result to defend themselves if necessary

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.

[betts]

I'm sorry, but saying guns cause violent crime is like saying a pencil causes spelling mistakes. People, no, criminals cause violent crime, not inanimate objects.

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

[kevinpate]

LandRunOkie, fwiw, if memory serves right Ersland was not carrying a concealed weapon in the pharmacy. He fetched a handgun from under a counter, shot the one would be robber , chased the other and fired shots at the other outside the store. After reentering the store, he then fetched a second gun from under a counter or out of a closet/drawer/whereever and fired several shots into the still downed would be robber, killing him dead right there. It's that last bit which brought his charges and conviction.

There's now a separate law extending the home based make my day stand my ground permission to use deadly force in certain circumstances. Whether that would have aided Ersland had it been in effect is a separate Q based on the testimony and evidence presented, but it really wasn't a concealed carry issue at any point.