Guns: Why Not Non-Concealed Carry?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If someone had ulterior motive, they would hide it regardless of legalities.

If they've left the house deciding to commit murder or rob someone, sure. However, I think it would make a difference in other situations... for instance, when someone's just out and about, gets into an argument, and things escalate.

Are people who wear helmets when riding their bike, or wear a seat belt when driving their car, keep a first-aid kit handy, or keep a fire extinguisher in their home paranoid? People don't do these things expecting to be in an accident or have a fire, yet no one with any sense would suggest that these cautionary practices are unreasonable.

All of those things demonstrably reduce risk. Most of the time, a firearm demonstrably increases risk.

And if someone had a halon fire extinguisher (i.e. one of the types that works by removing oxygen from the air, so it has the potential to asphyxiate people in the immediate area) to "protect" their home, I think I would question how reasonable their decision was.

 

[lunamoth]

But that's just it: It does happen where open carry is the norm.

I get what you're saying; we all want to know as much about our environment as we can. We also want to have as much control of it as we can. I think that's just basic instinct.

But you have no control of the people around you. In the states that do allow concealed carry, permit holders have to go through a pretty lengthy background check and clear other hurdles before they can carry. I"m all for universal background checks and permiting for carriers, but I don't think that forcing open carry is necessarily a good idea. And certainly not for the reasons you're giving. Flocking towards someone who is armed in a bad situation isn't nearly as good an idea as is getting out the area, and you should probably avoid someone you don't trust even if they don't have a gun.

I'm not looking to control other people. I'm looking to be informed so I can make better decisions.

You are saying that the right of some to conceal their weapons out of personal comfort is more important than my right to know who is armed for my personal comfort.

 

[England my lionheart]

I personally do not see why people feel they need to carry guns on campus. I would be interested to know why they do this.

I can see why one might carry a gun if you go into a city on a regular basis, or for any number of reasons where you might routinely be in a place that is not very secure.

This is alien to me,i've never felt the need to carry a gun unless i'm at war or shooting Pheasants Ducks or Rabbits,in Britain we have a problem with knife crime,i doubt that even if it were legal to carry a knife openly that you are going to be confronted,of course thats how i see it for us.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not looking to control other people. I'm looking to be informed so I can make better decisions.

You are saying that the right of some to conceal their weapons out of personal comfort is more important than my right to know who is armed for my personal comfort.

When it comes to privacy, yes, it is.

If people knew who was and wasn't armed, it would make choosing a victim easier. However, not knowing who may and may not armed would serve as a deterrent.

 

[lunamoth]

When it comes to privacy, yes, it is.

If people knew who was and wasn't armed, it would make choosing a victim easier. However, not knowing who may and may not armed would serve as a deterrent.

I actually can agree with that point.

But, I still feel like I should know who around me is armed so I can make better decisions. My personal safety is also important, and I feel that is compromised by concealed carry.

 

[Tarheeler]

You are saying that the right of some to conceal their weapons out of personal comfort is more important than my right to know who is armed for my personal comfort.

Yes, because I believe it is.

If I choose to carry in order to protect myself, it is none of your business. You are free to make the same choice for yourself.

 

[Father Heathen]

I actually can agree with that point.

But, I still feel like I should know who around me is armed so I can make better decisions.

Such as?

My personal safety is also important, and I feel that is compromised by concealed carry.

How so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, because I believe it is.

If I choose to carry in order to protect myself, it is none of your business. You are free to make the same choice for yourself.

I disagree that it's none of her business. As the old line goes, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. In the same spirit, I think your right to keep what you're doing secret should end when what you're doing creates risks for me.

As an analogy, consider TDG placards for vehicles: if you're carrying, say, radioactive materials, you have to advertise this fact to everyone around you with big, colourful signs. IMO, the risk posed to others from a nuke gauge for soil testing that's been properly secured for transport is no more than the risk posed by a firearm, but we've collectively decided that the risk of that outweighs a person's right to privacy on that issue. Why should firearms be a special case where this general principle doesn't apply?

 

[Father Heathen]

I disagree that it's none of her business. As the old line goes, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. In the same spirit, I think your right to keep what you're doing secret should end when what you're doing creates risks for me.

As an analogy, consider TDG placards for vehicles: if you're carrying, say, radioactive materials, you have to advertise this fact to everyone around you with big, colourful signs. IMO, the risk posed to others from a nuke gauge for soil testing that's been properly secured for transport is no more than the risk posed by a firearm, but we've collectively decided that the risk of that outweighs a person's right to privacy on that issue. Why should firearms be a special case where this general principle doesn't apply?

...and gun rights advocates are the fearful, paranoid ones?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...and gun rights advocates are the fearful, paranoid ones?

If you disagree with what I said, feel free to point out where you think I went wrong.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you disagree with what I said, feel free to point out where you think I went wrong.

You don't think that the comparison to nuclear waste wasn't a bit over the top?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't think that the comparison to nuclear waste wasn't a bit over the top?

If the underlying logic holds, it holds. Extremes illuminate this.

 

[Apex]

So now we are comparing environmental hazards to CCW?

 

[Father Heathen]

If the underlying logic holds, it holds. Extremes illuminate this.

Yeah, "if", but it doesn't. You honestly think that a firearm and radioactive material pose the same risks and potential scenarios? How are they comparable, other than being "scary"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't think that the comparison to nuclear waste wasn't a bit over the top?

Not nuclear waste; a nuclear densometer gauge:

Nuclear densometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a device with a small amount of cesium that's held in a shielded compartment except when the device is actually being used. They're put in heavy-duty storage cases when they're being transported.

It popped into my head because I used to work for a material testing company. The field techs would use them to do in-situ soil compaction testing.

If you have problems with it, then think of anything else you'd need a TDG placard for: a container of gasoline or a compressed gas cylinder, for instance. A person with a cylinder of helium gas for children's balloons, properly secured in his truck, has given his right to privacy about what he's carrying. Do you think that a firearm creates more or less risk than tank of inert gas?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So now we are comparing environmental hazards to CCW?

We're talking about how creating risks for the public can outweigh a person's right to privacy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah, "if", but it doesn't. You honestly think that a firearm and radioactive material pose the same risks and potential scenarios? How are they comparable, other than being "scary"?

Of course they don't pose the same risks. But that isn't the underlying logic. The analogy is a comparison between concealed carry of something dangerous vs. open. Unless you can show that the logic fails when the risk is extreme, then it doesn't matter. If I can carry a knife concealed, but can't carry a gun concealed, then either the logic behind the law to conceal it is flawed, or there is a reason why the analogy fails. Likewise, if I can carry both concealed but trucks can't ship nuclear waste unmarked.

Of course, it isn't actually true that nuclear material is always shipped unmarked. But this is to protect the material from being stolen and used for dirty bombs or some similar purpose. As this does not hold true of concealed firearms, the logic does not hold true, and that cannot be used as a reason.

The question is whether someone has a right to make private the fact that they are carrying a weapon which in that situation (i.e., a urban or suburban environment) has no purpose other than self-defense or offense. If I own a guard dog, and fail to put up signs, I may be held liable for damages or even convicted. If my vehicle is carrying a load which presents a danger, whether it is nuclear or simply very wide and heavy, I have to alert others.

 

[lunamoth]

Yes, because I believe it is.

If I choose to carry in order to protect myself, it is none of your business. You are free to make the same choice for yourself.

Having weapons in a vicinity increases the risk of my death, intentionally or unintentionally. I should have the right to know what weapons are around me, and who is armed.

 

[lunamoth]

Such as?




How so?

As I said to Tarheeler, a loaded gun nearby means an increased chance for me to be injured or killed. I should be informed of this increased risk.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not nuclear waste; a nuclear densometer gauge:

Nuclear densometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a device with a small amount of cesium that's held in a shielded compartment except when the device is actually being used. They're put in heavy-duty storage cases when they're being transported.

It popped into my head because I used to work for a material testing company. The field techs would use them to do in-situ soil compaction testing.

If you have problems with it, then think of anything else you'd need a TDG placard for: a container of gasoline or a compressed gas cylinder, for instance. A person with a cylinder of helium gas for children's balloons, properly secured in his truck, has given his right to privacy about what he's carrying.

Those warnings are to prevent you from causing an accident involving those materials by making you aware and mindful in instances where you may come into contact or interact with them. So what exactly are you doing to come into direct contact with someone's gun while it's concealed on their person? I suppose you should be made aware if you had legitimate reason to stick your hands in their pockets, purses, etc.

Do you think that a firearm creates more or less risk than tank of inert gas?

It obviously depends on what exactly is being done with either of them.