Imminent Public Threat: Open Carry Versus Public Safety, Part 1

Apparently as many as 45 states have now passed open carry legislation, which is remarkable.  That means that more states approve of individuals openly carrying weapons made for killing than there are that approve of same sex persons getting married (only 19 states).  Alas, the ridiculousness of open carry does not need comparison to be made apparent.

Why should Open Carry (or OC, as its apologists like to put it) be promoted? What are the reasons for it?

1) The Second Amendment protects the rights to keep and bear arms. This is the elephant in the room.  Not only does the 2ndA allow for this, but there is considerable state legislation protecting these rights.

So just to be clear, this is a pretty considerable argument for the gun promoters. 

But that does not mean it is a clear and unquestionable amendment. In fact, it is apparently so questionable that numerous states have had to pass legislation to clarify and specify this amendment. And more to the point, 45 states have deemed it necessary to specifically protect OC rights, as I said above.  

Just to be clear then, there is nothing in the 2ndA as legislation that specifically protects OC, such that further legislation was not necessary.

So that is considerable legislative basis, but how does it fare in the court of reason?  By this what I mean is that we need to separate different kinds of reasons.  The former is a reason based on conventional law.  But those things change continually and really only reflect the powers of legislative forces.  They do not reflect simple rational reflection.

2) Carrying a weapon openly allows one to protect oneself in public places.  

But why must she carry openly to protect herself.  In fact, her advantage in carrying openly is frightening potential criminals away, right?

Perhaps, imagining that all criminals carefully select the most vulnerable unarmed individuals.  But that right comes at the cost of the right to security of others who also occupy public spaces.  It is not merely that someone is carrying at home, but OC specifically protects someone's right to carry in a public place.  

So what we have here then is a case in which the right of one individual needs to be weighed against the rights of other individuals. 

If I met this asshole on the street in Florida, I'd have
to run, because he can get away with murder (if I
was black and wearing a hoodie). 

Both the OCer and the NCer (non-carrier) are protected by the police from criminals, some fictional third party that is somehow excluded from these categories.  But the NCer also needs to be protected from the OCer as well.  The reason for this is that the OCer is carrying a weapon that has no purpose but to kill, and the NCer has no way to know that the OCer has been trained and licensed (no one has to show their carry license to anyone other than a police officer).

Thus, just as an NCer doesn't walk in a highway, for the sake of safety, no NCer should remain in a space where there is an OCer (which might well be called the George Zimmerman rule).  

Conclusion: the OCer has perhaps made herself safer (or merely given herself the false sense of security, since there are numerous examples of "good guys with guns" not able to protect themselves from "bad guys with guns"), but she has forced any reasonable NCer to leave and insodoing, restricted the First Amendment rights of NCers and even other OCers. 

In fact, one could see the OCer as an example of the violation of prior restraint (this connection brought to you by responsible gun celebrist Walter Sobjchek).

This is only part 1.  I'll consider more in another post.

There are No Good Guys with Guns, Or, Why You Should Avoid People Who Concealed Carry

The main question is, what kind of people carry concealed weapons?

!) People who are scared.
Of those scared, the question is why?  They live in dangerous places.  In this case, you do not want to be where these people are going and especially not with them because they are bringing something which will only escalate the situation.  

Or, they have had experiences with others that scared them. In this case, you also do not want to be with these people because they have not overcome their trauma and their view of the world is one of a victim, and victims will become victims in the future, again and again. These are people who will be the first to escalate any situation that seems even slightly threatening.

2) People who "work late hours" and live next to drug dealers.  I've lived in bad neighborhoods and I've never had a concealed weapon.  Carrying a concealed weapon around drug dealers is not going to protect you from them. If they don't think you're carrying a weapon, then they don't care about you.  If they do, then any confrontation with them will lead to violence.  

3) People who want to celebrate gun ownership. This category is completely bewildering. These people want to feel macho and powerful by carrying a weapon.  

If they are responsible, they would never carry, because there is practically no situation in which his gun can de-escalate a situation.  If they do carry, then they are not really responsible, because they have underestimated the dangers to which they are exposing everyone who spends time with them.

The truth is, these people are not macho, but the most emasculated, because they need to wear a gun to feel like a man, or to feel powerful.  Those are the scariest people (and they too are scared people).

And let's just be clear what this person is celebrating: the right to brandish a tool that has only one purpose, which is to kill others. 

This list is exhaustive. 

Conclusion: there are no good guys with guns (except police, although they do not concealed carry).  

Adam Weinstein, if you have a brain in your head, for the sake of your son and your wife, get rid of your guns and stop carrying concealed.  

Good Guys with Guns Unable to Stop the Bad Guys with Guns. Another example from same incident.

Joseph Wilcox was shopping at the Walmart outside of Las Vegas where the shooting occurred yesterday.  He was concealed-carrying a weapon legally, and tried to intervene when he say Jerad and Amanda Miller.  Unfortunately, he was killed.  

If he hadn't pulled out his weapon, it's likely he would still be alive.  Of course, what he did was brave in that he was trying to protect others.  

So this is a very clear case where gun rights did not protect anyone.  This is also a case where it is not the case that the solution to a bad person with a gun is another "good" person with a gun.

Now one might say, to expand on what I said above, Joseph Wilcox, the man who legally conceal-carried a weapon that he used to try to defend others as well as himself, was doing something brave and courageous that many others would do in the same situation. Moreover, Wilcox had no idea that the couple had only killed police officers and no one else, such that if we didn't pull his weapon he probably would have been safe.

I support the abolition of second amendment rights because even though Wilcox was doing something brave, he lacked the training to know how to act in this situation and that must have been one of the factors in his murder. Secondly, even if the preponderance of second amendment right citizens are acting responsibly, as I expect Wilcox probably did, that right is not worth the imminent public danger that the abuse of this right by individuals like Jerad and Amanda Miller pose. 

To be clear: the threat of abuses of the second amendment nullifies the benefits of that amendment. We agree not to kill others when we enter society, and so we should be able to agree not to brandish instruments with no purpose but killing when we enter society.