Guns and 2nd Amendment continued: open carry backlash?

[DanteGabriel]

Came across an interesting article today, that perhaps the overzealous open carry activists who ushered in a new statewide open carry law in Texas have done their cause more harm than good. The author of the article spent some time observing conversations in a gun rights forum. Turns out a lot of businesses are putting up signs banning open carry on their property, and are banning concealed carry while they are at it.

Looks like property rights trump the right to openly brandish a penile extension. 

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/open-carry-texas-chl-forum/

In a post on TexasCHLForum.com, a popular gun rights website moderated by National Rifle Association board member Charles L. Cotton, one user reported that the new law has triggered private business owners to not only exercise their right to bar open carry on their premises, but prohibit concealed handguns as well. Any private business in Texas that wishes to bar firearms must display a strictly regulated sign — dubbed “30.07” for openly carried guns, and “30.06” for concealed firearms. Amid the controversy over open carry, this gun owner was noticing more of both varieties.

...

In response to a posterwho accused naysayers of having “no appreciation for this restored freedom,” a poster known as android offered this scathing rebuke:

“We were free to carry concealed at far more places before than now. You have the exact same ability to be safe carrying concealed as openly. Except that now you can’t do either in many places. So you’re not safer at all. Open carry is not a right. It’s a dress code and comfort issue. You were already freely bearing arms before 1 Jan. You’ve given up safety for comfort and lost and freedom [sic] for all of us.”

“The immature, selfish actions and the loud, belligerent mouths of a few have hurt many,” Oldgringo concluded. “It’s true, all that glitters is not gold.”

Others had a more measured responses. “I would LOVE to OC everywhere I go,” Lynyrd wrote. “The fact is, it makes some people uncomfortable. Time may change that, but it will take years.” He cautioned his fellow gun owners to remember that “most all of the places we go outside our homes is still PRIVATE PROPERTY.” (Business owners can verbally notify open-carrying customers that they are not welcome in their establishments, regardless of whether a sign is posted or not.)

Weighing in again, the original poster, LTUME1978, felt that for Texas’s concealed carriers, the damage had been done. “The lid is off this can of worms and it will never go back,” reads a later post in the thread. “I hope the right to walk around looking like Wyatt Earp is worth it to the open carry folks because a lot of us are loosing our right to concealed carry and it may cost some of us our lives for your privilege to play cowboy.”

Last week, Charles Cotton, the NRA board member who moderates Texas CHL, weighed in on the public’s reaction to the new open carry law. “I truly wish that open-carry supporters would admit that they were wrong and that there is a problem,” he wrote in response to a post entitled “I now regret that OC passed.” “However, I won’t hold my breath. If I cannot carry my self-defense handgun into a store because they put up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, then someone’s ability to show their handgun to everyone will have cost me the ability to defend myself.”

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I agree that open carry is a bit overboard and I don't understand what anyone needs to walk around with a gun on for. That being said, someone who does open carry neither scares me, nor do I believe that the majority of them would be a danger to anyone. People carrying guns in holsters are not the ones usually committing crimes. Its the ones who conceal them that worry me. Honestly, I don't believe anyone should be able to carry a gun in public aside from law enforcement. I have a friend who called his city's police station and asked if in West Virginia if it was legal to open carry. His answer he got from a police officer was yes. But, don't be surprised if your stopped and questioned. As well they should be.

Alas, I understand where these business owners are coming from. Who wants to bring their kids to dinner and see a bunch of guns everywhere? Not many people I know. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

Private propery owners have every right to tell "open carry" advocates to keep their weapons off their property.  A perfectly reasonable respomse to such a law.

[DanteGabriel]

Alas, I understand where these business owners are coming from. Who wants to bring their kids to dinner and see a bunch of guns everywhere? Not many people I know. 

Yup, I've definitely seen a thing making the rounds in social media that if you're out at a restaurant or other business and see one of these sad pseudo-cowboys come in with openly carried guns, you should just leave. Even if it means walking out on a meal.

[maarsen]

I am just waiting for the inevitable cases of shot off penises and toes.

[all swedes are racist]

As a smoker, I feel for these people. first they took away our right to smoke on planes, then stores and shopping centers, then the office buildings, and finally restaurants, bars and nightclubs. Soon the only place you'll see people carrying is in miserable little groups, huddled under awnings and by doorways, collars turned up as much against the wind and rain as the scoffs and dirty looks of pedestrians... Snowbanks and gutters littered with a small army's worth of spent shells, as we sneek out for a quick ten to squeeze off a few rounds just to get a break from the endless, grinding monotony....

[Free Northman Reborn]

During the broadcast of the recent Town Hall debate on guns, CNN showed the statistics with regard to firearm background checks per year over the course of Obama's presidency.

I couldn't find the exact numbers now during a cursory Google search, but as I recall from the chart they put up, it went from something like 14 million background checks in 2008 to about 22 million in 2015. So an increase of more than 50%.

It would seem that more guns are being sold in America than ever before.

[Larry of the Lawn]

As a smoker, I feel for these people. first they took away our right to smoke on planes, then stores and shopping centers, then the office buildings, and finally restaurants, bars and nightclubs. Soon the only place you'll see people carrying is in miserable little groups, huddled under awnings and by doorways, collars turned up as much against the wind and rain as the scoffs and dirty looks of pedestrians... Snowbanks and gutters littered with a small army's worth of spent shells, as we sneek out for a quick ten to squeeze off a few rounds just to get a break from the endless, grinding monotony....

***slow clap***

[sologdin]

People carrying guns in holsters are not the ones usually committing crimes

except of course for all of the bogus 'self-defense' shootings wherein some jittery dumbass got scared of a slightly upset swarthy person.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

People carrying guns in holsters are not the ones usually committing crimes

except of course for all of the bogus 'self-defense' shootings wherein some jittery dumbass got scared of a slightly upset swarthy person.

How often does that actually occur, compared to say gang related deaths? Yea, I'm sure it happens but it's not on the same scale as other murders. 

[sologdin]

dunno.  lotsa work on this question.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

dunno.  lotsa work on this question.

Right. Hey I said in my original post that I believe only law enforcement should be able to carry. I can agree with everything in that link.

EtA: the only thing that gives me pause is but about adolescence being intimidated in their own home with guns. Does that shit really happen? If so, that's some basic bullshit.

[Danse]

As a smoker, I feel for these people. first they took away our right to smoke on planes, then stores and shopping centers, then the office buildings, and finally restaurants, bars and nightclubs. Soon the only place you'll see people carrying is in miserable little groups, huddled under awnings and by doorways, collars turned up as much against the wind and rain as the scoffs and dirty looks of pedestrians... Snowbanks and gutters littered with a small army's worth of spent shells, as we sneek out for a quick ten to squeeze off a few rounds just to get a break from the endless, grinding monotony....

Beautiful.

[KiDisaster]

I don't know if this really belongs in this thread or not but whatever. 

Today at our monthly staff meeting the administration organized for a sergeant from the local PD to come in for an "Active Shooter Survival Seminar". She spent a few minutes talking about the necessity of this sort of thing, and it just floored me how normal this is considered to be. Nobody seemed to think twice about being told that "it's not a question if, it's a question of when" and that "these things just happen and we need to be ready". Which sounds EXACTLY like the shit they told us in elementary school about earthquakes and hurricanes. 

Then she played a video about what to do when somebody comes to murder everyone in the office building, and I swear that if I had seen that video in any other context (stumbled on it on YouTube or something) I would have sworn it was a parody/satire video. Once again, it was exactly like those hurricane/earthquake preparedness videos they'd show us in guidance class when we were little kids. Down to the cheesy reenactments, bullet point lists and over the top narration. 

"Run, Hide, or FIGHT!!!!!" with actual emphasis on the fight part, hence the capitalization. It was ridiculous.

I think it's amazing that we live in a country where the mass murder of innocent people is treated the same way as natural disasters. That it's something we can't prevent or do anything about and we just have to accept the reality of it. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so fucked up.

[TerraPrime]

Welcome to the new normal. 

[Lordsteve666]

This is a view from across the pond in the UK here but whilst the people with concealed carry permits or even open carry are not committing crimes and most are sensible gun owners, they will still react to a crime if it happens near them.

I guess my biggest fear would be a situation where something happens in a restaurant/shop/cinema/whatever (say armed robbery etc) and 10 guys pull out guns and try go all Dirty Harry on the perpetrator of said crime and the whole place turns into a bloodbath.
Hell, when the police do respond to such an incident how do they know who's a real criminal and who's just trying to be a vigilante? All you've done is insert 10 guns into play rather than the single gun of the criminal making law enforcement's job a dammed sight harder.
Plus carry a gun might make you feel safer but when the shit goes down how many of those people carrying a gun are going to really be any use at both selecting the right target and actually hitting the right person should they need to fire?

I mean Jesus I remember reading after the Batman movie theater shootings how gun advocates said more guns could have saved the lives of people. Could you imagine sitting in a dark room watching a movie when that shit goes down, you've not only got to avoid the gunman but an unknown number of other armed wannabees all trying to shoot in the dark. That's surely going to end with more casualties.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

This is a view from across the pond in the UK here but whilst the people with concealed carry permits or even open carry are not committing crimes and most are sensible gun owners, they will still react to a crime if it happens near them.

I guess my biggest fear would be a situation where something happens in a restaurant/shop/cinema/whatever (say armed robbery etc) and 10 guys pull out guns and try go all Dirty Harry on the perpetrator of said crime and the whole place turns into a bloodbath.
Hell, when the police do respond to such an incident how do they know who's a real criminal and who's just trying to be a vigilante? All you've done is insert 10 guns into play rather than the single gun of the criminal making law enforcement's job a dammed sight harder.
Plus carry a gun might make you feel safer but when the shit goes down how many of those people carrying a gun are going to really be any use at both selecting the right target and actually hitting the right person should they need to fire?

I mean Jesus I remember reading after the Batman movie theater shootings how gun advocates said more guns could have saved the lives of people. Could you imagine sitting in a dark room watching a movie when that shit goes down, you've not only got to avoid the gunman but an unknown number of other armed wannabees all trying to shoot in the dark. That's surely going to end with more casualties.

Well in my view the basic dilemma here is that people today live in bubbles of assumed safety, which are artificial and unsustainable.

First world living conditions of the last 50 years are not normal. The living conditions of the other 90% of the world population are normal. And the odd terrorist attack or gang shooting is simply normal humanity intruding into the artificial bubble of safety that many first world citizens view as the norm.

In the end, the police could not protect you if you were in that theatre in Aurora on that fateful day. You either had to rely on zebra "herd mentality" when lions attack, hoping that the herd member next to you got killed rather than you or your loved one (which is blind luck) or you needed a gun to protect yourself.

I know which option I prefer.

 

[Lordsteve666]

8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well in my view the basic dilemma here is that people today live in bubbles of assumed safety, which are artificial and unsustainable.

First world living conditions of the last 50 years are not normal. The living conditions of the other 90% of the world population are normal. And the odd terrorist attack or gang shooting is simply normal humanity intruding into the artificial bubble of safety that many first world citizens view as the norm.

In the end, the police could not protect you if you were in that theatre in Aurora on that fateful day. You either had to rely on zebra "herd mentality" when lions attack, hoping that the herd member next to you got killed rather than you or your loved one (which is blind luck) or you needed a gun to protect yourself.

I know which option I prefer.

 

But which is the better situation, one with a single gunman or one with an unknown number of additional shooters all trying to hit what they believe is the correct target an unfamiliar and confused situation.
I'd fancy my chances much more in a situation with one lone gunman that if half the customers pulled out 9mm's and started shooting at where they "think" the shots are coming from. For starters there's no way of knowing how good a shot these extra shooters are (everyone thinks they're a sharp shooter until it all kicks off). Then there's fact that the situation gets drawn out into a massed gun battle with civilians all over the place not knowing who is the real "bad guy".
What happens if Johnny pulls out his gun to shoot the perp and then Joe pull out his gun to shoot Johnny who he thinks is the real enemy? Suddenly there's a whole shit load more targets to get shot and that doesn't even include the poor civilians stuck in the crossfire. And that's before the poor police get there and have to identify a single true gunman from 5, 10 or even 20 other guys with guns out shooting each other.

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Lordsteve666 said:

But which is the better situation, one with a single gunman or one with an unknown number of additional shooters all trying to hit what they believe is the correct target an unfamiliar and confused situation.
I'd fancy my chances much more in a situation with one lone gunman that if half the customers pulled out 9mm's and started shooting at where they "think" the shots are coming from. For starters there's no way of knowing how good a shot these extra shooters are (everyone thinks they're a sharp shooter until it all kicks off). Then there's fact that the situation gets drawn out into a massed gun battle with civilians all over the place not knowing who is the real "bad guy".
What happens if Johnny pulls out his gun to shoot the perp and then Joe pull out his gun to shoot Johnny who he thinks is the real enemy? Suddenly there's a whole shit load more targets to get shot and that doesn't even include the poor civilians stuck in the crossfire. And that's before the poor police get there and have to identify a single true gunman from 5, 10 or even 20 other guys with guns out shooting each other.

Well yes, that is how it would be portrayed in a movie where Leslie Nielsen or Chevy Chase plays the lead role, I guess. All the "good" guys shooting each other while the bad guy watches on dumbfounded, before casually walking out the door when everyone is dead. And one certainly cannot discount accidental deaths occurring from time to time.

But for every situation in a darkened theatre there will be half a dozen in broad daylight in a school or mall or other well lit area. One cannot prevent every bad act, but you can prevent some.

 

[baxus]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well in my view the basic dilemma here is that people today live in bubbles of assumed safety, which are artificial and unsustainable.

First world living conditions of the last 50 years are not normal. The living conditions of the other 90% of the world population are normal. And the odd terrorist attack or gang shooting is simply normal humanity intruding into the artificial bubble of safety that many first world citizens view as the norm.

In the end, the police could not protect you if you were in that theatre in Aurora on that fateful day. You either had to rely on zebra "herd mentality" when lions attack, hoping that the herd member next to you got killed rather than you or your loved one (which is blind luck) or you needed a gun to protect yourself.

I know which option I prefer.

 

Police couldn't protect you from things like that no matter what the gun regulation was. Police can't possibly cover every single location and guarantee safety. On the other hand, with stricter gun control, it would be much more difficult for the guy who shot up that cinema to get a gun and ammo in the first place which would reduce chances of that ever happening.

And let's make something absolutely clear - having a gun does not grant you immunity to panic and perfect aim. Despite what you may think, unless you had serious weapons training you'd most likely (not certainly, granted) freeze or run in a situation like that. It's not as if you'd turn into John McClane after whipping out a pistol. The funny thing would be if you had a pistol and forgot to bring it to the cinema with you.

Last but not least, you would endanger other people in the theatre by putting them in crossfire.