Are Guns Silencing Free Speech?

[Loren Booda]

Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression, by people (not of law enforcement) who use a handgun as a public warning of deadly force. Thus, most "self-deputized" citizens could suggest that their handgun trumps the voice of an individual unarmed.

By the way, one of my favorite sports has been target shooting, but I would never wear a (hand)gun.

 

[KingNothing]

I don't think you can really call being intimidating an infringement of others' free speech. People change what they say all the time, based on who they are speaking to.

If I'm talking to a 6'4 guy with tattoos covering his body who just got out of prison, I'll probably be censoring myself, but that doesn't mean he impeded my free speech.

 

[DanP]

Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression, by people (not of law enforcement) who use a handgun as a public warning of deadly force. Thus, most "self-deputized" citizens could suggest that their handgun trumps the voice of an individual unarmed.

By the way, one of my favorite sports has been target shooting, but I would never wear a (hand)gun.

If you feel that, start to carry, and you'll be on equal ground again.

 

[pallidin]

Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed?

My own experience is to be careful with such a person, and to leave as soon as possible using pleasent exit words.
At one point I've had to say... "Hey, want some beer? I'll get some for us"
I never returned.

 

[Mathnomalous]

If you feel that, start to carry, and you'll be on equal ground again.

Hear, hear!

 

[JaredJames]

It's all about power, whether the person means to display it or not (as per your criminal, they may be harmless, but you put them in power because of how they appear to you).

If you speak to someone you see as powerful, you speak differently to how you would someone you view as weak. A 4ft, scrawny runt of a mugger would probably be laughed at. Replace him with a 6ft6 body builder, built like a brick-privy, and suddenly it won't take much more than a stare to put you on edge.

Power grants the ability to impose a "do as I say" situation. It grants leverage to the person with it.

It is only when those involved are on equal ground that discussion can continue fairly and freely. Whether it's guns or otherwise, when a person if up against someone in power, to exercise free speech is a lot more difficult.
Person not in power (Mr. 4ft): you'd probably stand up to without much concern.
Person in power (Mr. 6ft6): you'd be a lot more cautious before you react.

To stand up to your neighbour (who is identical to you physically/mentally) and tell him exactly what you think of his late night parties might be easy. But put a gun in his hand and try it now. Suddenly not so easy. So yes, in that respect it can impact on free speech.

 

[JaredJames]

If you feel that, start to carry, and you'll be on equal ground again.

And so bigger guns are required...

You could just get rid of guns and solve that issue altogether. Everyone equal then. But we shan't stray down that alley.

 

[DanP]

You could just get rid of guns and solve that issue altogether. Everyone equal then. But we shan't stray down that alley.

Sure, we are all equals :P The 4ft man and the one over 6ft from your example are obviously equals. It's not that the bigger one would really need a hot weapon to break the midget like a twig.

 

[JaredJames]

Sure, we are all equals :P The 4ft man and the one over 6ft from your example are obviously equals. It's not that the bigger one would really need a hot weapon to break the midget like a twig.

Sorry, that's what the wink was for. The irony that no matter what you do it really doesn't make much difference and that at no point will everyone be equal. Even if physically identical, we just won't let that happen.

I think that final "don't stray" comment threw my point with its use. That was more aimed at us not having another gun debate.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I am in favor of bows and arrows. Or a flamethrower! A lot of people would respect you if you carried a flamethrower.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I dare any of you armed wimps to disagree with my unarmed 5' tall wife. Go ahead, make my day.

 

[FlexGunship]

And so bigger guns are required...

You could just get rid of guns and solve that issue altogether.

Wrong. A small hand gun makes a petite woman as strong as a huge man. Having firearms isn't about displaying power or threatening individuals. It's a fundamental question: are you allowed to use deadly force to protect your life? Don't try to make it more complicated than that; anything else is an argument from either ignorance or fear.

As far as displaying a firearm, I don't feel particularly threatened. I'm aware of it; that's for sure! But, in general, the folks displaying firearms are not the criminals. I have a friend who has an AR15, an H&K 9mm, and a concealed-carry permit. Ask me if I feel safer with him around or less safe. I hope the answer is obvious.

My friend is a good guy who has studied handgun law, home defense law, and who practices shooting almost every week, so why would I assume that every other person I run into with a firearm is an exception? In fact, most people carrying around firearms are very likely to be obsessed with personal freedom.

In New Hampshire we don't need permits or licenses to own handguns or rifles. Furthermore, you don't need anything more than a few references to get a concealed-carry permit. I think people who are frightened by the mere idea of a gun being near them are simply unexposed or ill-informed.

So, to the OP... no, a handgun would not deter me from speaking openly. In many cases (not all) it would incite me to speak more freely! And if the gentleman with the firearm were behaving belligerently, I would give him the same wide berth as if he were unarmed.

 

[JaredJames]

Wrong. A small hand gun makes a petite woman as strong as a huge man. Having firearms isn't about displaying power or threatening individuals. It's a fundamental question: are you allowed to use deadly force to protect your life? Don't try to make it more complicated than that; anything else is an argument from either ignorance or fear.

Why am I wrong exactly?

Huge man bullies woman, she gets a small handgun. Woman is now as 'strong' as the man. What does the man do? Get a bigger gun. You've all heard the cops talk about "They get pistols, criminals get SMG's. They get an SMG, the criminals get machine guns.".

When someone 'equalises' with you, and you want to regain your power over them you need to trump them.

Regarding the second statement of getting rid of guns, note the wink and explanation that follows in the latter post by myself. It wasn't meant as serious.

Having a firearm is about giving yourself power.

By carrying for self defence, you are attempting to give yourself the power to do defend yourself.

As far as displaying a firearm, I don't feel particularly threatened. I'm aware of it; that's for sure! But, in general, the folks displaying firearms are not the criminals. I have a friend who has an AR15, an H&K 9mm, and a concealed-carry permit. Ask me if I feel safer with him around or less safe. I hope the answer is obvious

Also, what you feel is irrelevant. I've still seen nothing to back up that being able to carry a firearm makes people safer. Especially women standing up to men who seem to keep popping up as the example of why people should be allowed to.

 

[FlexGunship]

Why am I wrong exactly?

The idea that "one-upping" happens in the real world is a myth that seems to be perpetuated by anti-gun activists. You just don't see it. When actual crimes are committed, they are committed with handguns and shotguns!

Also, your example seems to imply that there's a waiting arsenal nearby or something. A rapist confronted with a 9mm doesn't say: "wait, here, let me go get my..." He runs the f**k away and no rape happens. That's real life. If the rapist shows up with an SMG, then the situation is the same as if the woman were armed or not; she is over-powered.

Believe me, you only need to hear the phrase "thank god I had my gun, or he might have raped and beaten me to death" ONCE from a friend in order to understand the importance of having the right to use deadly force to preserve your own safety.

 

[jobyts]

Pepper spray would be more effective to prevent a rape, than a gun.

 

[FlexGunship]

Pepper spray would be more effective to prevent a rape, than a gun.

I don't understand.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Wrong. A small hand gun makes a petite woman as strong as a huge man. Having firearms isn't about displaying power or threatening individuals. It's a fundamental question: are you allowed to use deadly force to protect your life? Don't try to make it more complicated than that; anything else is an argument from either ignorance or fear.

Why am I wrong exactly?

Huge man bullies woman, she gets a small handgun. Woman is now as 'strong' as the man. What does the man do? Get a bigger gun. You've all heard the cops talk about "They get pistols, criminals get SMG's. They get an SMG, the criminals get machine guns.".

I think I have the final solution to this problem, an amend in the constitution saying that citizens should have the right to their own nuclear-equipped AFV. Then it doesn’t matter if you’re a man or woman, 4ft or 6ft6 tattooed gangsta rapper – one word wrong and the whole place is blown to pieces!

 

[KingNothing]

You're all missing the point. The question was whether or not the intimidation factor caused by displayed guns can be considered an infringement of one's free speech.

 

[jobyts]

I don't understand.

To rape a woman, the man needs to come physically close to the woman. So the case of rape attack is different from robbery. After hit by a pepper spray, I don't think one would be interested in raping.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You're all missing the point. The question was whether or not the intimidation factor caused by displayed guns can be considered an infringement of one's free speech.

... and the answer should of course be no, unless the person directly says "if you say something I don't like, or disagree with me, I will shoot you." This would mean their actions are infringing on your right to free speech, rather than just the open carry of a gun.

 

[JaredJames]

... and the answer should of course be no, unless the person directly says "if you say something I don't like, or disagree with me, I will shoot you." This would mean their actions are infringing on your right to free speech, rather than just the open carry of a gun.

But surely intimidation would have the same effect? Just because someone doesn't say something it doesn't mean I won't assume it of them (rightly or wrongly).

 

[FlexGunship]

... and the answer should of course be no, unless the person directly says "if you say something I don't like, or disagree with me, I will shoot you." This would mean their actions are infringing on your right to free speech, rather than just the open carry of a gun.

Bam. Nailed it.

But surely intimidation would have the same effect? Just because someone doesn't say something it doesn't mean I won't assume it of them (rightly or wrongly).

Why would having a gun be intimidation?

 

[edward]

I can't find a scientific study of the gun = intimidation scenario.

There are a number of news media links showing that there is an intimidation factor.

I do know that several months ago a process server showed up at my door mistakenly. When I argued with him about his mistake he didn't hesitate to display a weapon by opening his jacket.

Shortly a vehicle pulled up and a second man, this one carrying open in a holster, and walked onto my property.

These guys carried an Identification badge that anyone could make on a computer.

Take my word for it I was intimidated. These jerks work for private companies not law enforcement.

Any unarmed person should feel intimidated when confronted by a stranger with a weapon. Its a part of the survival instinct.

I Know, I Know, guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

BTW I own two pistols two rifles and two shotguns.

 

[Jasongreat]

BTW I own two pistols two rifles and two shotguns.

I was going to reply, but I feel intimidated.


Why are we only discussing guns on their person? One could easily run home and return with a gun to make you pay for your comments, so are we next going to say we can't talk freely with our neighbor if he has a gun at home? I live in a town where pretty much everyone has atleast one gun, most have multiple guns and it never crosses my mind that I have to watch what I say to them, anymore than anyone else. Imo, one should always censor their own speech, to some extent, isn't that what being part of a society is all about, being polite?

 

[nismaratwork]

OK, this is the second vague/controversial thread by Loren Booda, (remember "right to be harmonius" ?!). Anyone get the feeling that you're performing for someone's entertainment, when that person seems to have no further interest in their threads?

Just a thought before you rehash this for the hundredth time in a slightly different setting. Is it worth the argument because someone presented you with a philosophical question of balance between major rights granted by the first two amendments to the uS constitution? I didn't realize we could start threads like: "Abortion vs. Elder Driving Rights", then walk away and leave the thing to go in a dozen directions at once...

 

[FlexGunship]

OK, this is the second vague/controversial thread by Loren Booda, (remember "right to be harmonius" ?!). Anyone get the feeling that you're performing for someone's entertainment, when that person seems to have no further interest in their threads?

Just a thought before you rehash this for the hundredth time in a slightly different setting. Is it worth the argument because someone presented you with a philosophical question of balance between major rights granted by the first two amendments to the uS constitution? I didn't realize we could start threads like: "Abortion vs. Elder Driving Rights", then walk away and leave the thing to go in a dozen directions at once...

 

[nismaratwork]

Sorry, I'm not trying to kill your chat, I just took the time to look through Booda's history: good stuff mostly, except for this stuff which used to pop up in philosophy. Besides, the right to a gun and free speech are stipulated in the same document: accepting one in this context means finding a balance with the other, and the courts DO that.

edit: as proof: We have tons of guns, right? I'd say we also have a ton of free expression. Great, *wipes hands* good times.

 

[drankin]

Clowns intimidate me. I just can't speak freely around them. When they squeek their noses my knees shake and I... then I just run.

 

[nismaratwork]

Clowns intimidate me. I just can't speak freely around them. When they squeek their noses my knees shake and I... then I just run.

So... which person are you calling a clown?

edit: Or is that an aside equating clowns and guns in this excuse for an argument?

 

[DanP]

Sorry, I'm not trying to kill your chat, I just took the time to look through Booda's history: good stuff mostly, except for this stuff which used to pop up in philosophy. Besides, the right to a gun and free speech are stipulated in the same document: accepting one in this context means finding a balance with the other, and the courts DO that.

edit: as proof: We have tons of guns, right? I'd say we also have a ton of free expression. Great, *wipes hands* good times.

Jeez, you act like a stalker :P Weird

 

[drankin]

Or is that an aside equating clowns and guns in this excuse for an argument?

Yes, were you taking this personal? :)

Basically it's making the premise that intimidation, which is a subjective emotion, is a basis to determine infringement.

Cops are armed and sometimes they intimidate me. Are they infringing on my rights?

 

[nismaratwork]

Jeez, you act like a stalker :P Weird

OMG, I totally know! It took like, 5 minutes, but during that time I was absolutely obsessed. Anyway, that's all behind me now, and we have this quality thread as a reminder of my foolish beliefs.

Drankin: I'm genuinely annoyed to see this debate return to 'Go' for every new thread. Is there anyone here who's positions aren't known by rote at this point, while the person who started a thread comparing two separate constitutional rights is nowhere to be found. Oh, and I'm not engaged in this argument: it's absurd. We have laws regarding brandishing and irresponsible displays of a firearm; using a gun to actively intimidate is against the law. Pointing a weapon or reasonable replica of one at someone is assault with a deadly weapon, sans battery, although that would be a really angry judge to go for that.

In short, this is a non-debate; this is settled law in all 50 states and rights which coexist... there IS NO 'vs.'

Oh, and if you're intimidated by police officers... good. They're usually a wrong move of yours away from shooting you, and I don't mean that as a knock on cops; better they go home from their perspective. So, be a little intimidated and keep your hands in clear view, no sudden moves, yadda yadda.

Then again, are you afraid the cop will shoot you... or arrest you?

 

[Loren Booda]

OK, this is the second vague/controversial thread by Loren Booda, (remember "right to be harmonius" ?!). Anyone get the feeling that you're performing for someone's entertainment, when that person seems to have no further interest in their threads?

Just a thought before you rehash this for the hundredth time in a slightly different setting. Is it worth the argument because someone presented you with a philosophical question of balance between major rights granted by the first two amendments to the uS constitution? I didn't realize we could start threads like: "Abortion vs. Elder Driving Rights", then walk away and leave the thing to go in a dozen directions at once...

The vagueness you mention was cleared up after the first post on human rights. If you feel this thread is going nowhere, why not consider going elsewhere or rather, participate? That's what a democracy is about, eh?

I often sit back and read, because many of the posters are too fast or voluminous for my dexterity to respond. Must threads not be controversial? Two in a row? In that case most at PF would qualify, perhaps your own.

Your suggestion is well taken in general, that I should let others start threads and me try responding to them instead.

 

[1MileCrash]

No offense, but that just may be the most bizarre, ridiculous thing regarding politics I have ever heard.

 

[drankin]

Drankin: I'm genuinely annoyed to see this debate return to 'Go' for every new thread.

Luckily, this forum isn't about you. No matter how much you post. :)

 

[JaredJames]

Why would having a gun be intimidation?

I think everyone here would agree that a 6ft6 Arnie wannabe can be intimidating.

You say in a previous post that giving a petite woman a gun makes her as strong as such a bloke (puts her on an equal footing).

So the gun puts her on equal ground as the bloke, but she doesn't become intimidating... right.

If your own mentality allows you to see everyone on an equal footing and react to everyone as such, then I'd be inclined to say you're a bit cocky and sure of yourself (your abilities).
If you are able to ignore the fact someone has a gun, I'd say you are sure of the fact they either can't or won't use it against you. Let's face it, if you carry a gun around with you (regardless of reason) you are willing to kill a person. When I'm speaking to you and I see you have a gun, I'm very much aware of this fact. If you feel threatened by me at any time (or get annoyed and use that as a cover story even) then you are prepared (and able) to kill me.

There is a difference between speaking to someone, who you feel you could match in a fight and speaking to someone you are aware could pull a weapon and end things at any moment - leaving you with no way to resist.

 

[drankin]

The truth is, it makes many yuppy types nervous to see someone, just like them, carrying a gun openly. It's perfectly legal to do in my state but I don't for this reason. It's dumb IMO but we have to accommodate the delicate minds of others. It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

 

[nismaratwork]

Luckily, this forum isn't about you. No matter how much you post. :)

...Nor how much you make pointless comments like the one above. By the way, when you edit my post to make a point out of context, please note that you've edited it; I was responding to you, not making the global point you're mocking. I'd add... you're GLAD to see that this debate fails to evolve, even with same cast each time?... to me it just seems like a way to continue arguments from previously locked threads.

Booda: Yeah, participating in the threads you start might not be a bad thing. As for controversial, what thread did I start that was controversial... and I don't mean one that BECAME so after people brought their own agendas to it. Throwing out "guns vs. free speech" on this forum is like throwing raw meat to lions; messy, predictable, and it only serves to keep the beasts alive.

I'm curious, why DID you set up two rights that are part of the same legal construct as a "versus" issue? On its face, it's a balance issue in the USA, being the first and second amendments respectively.

edit:

The vagueness you mention was cleared up after the first post on human rights. If you feel this thread is going nowhere, why not consider going elsewhere or rather, participate? That's what a democracy is about, eh?

I often sit back and read, because many of the posters are too fast or voluminous for my dexterity to respond. Must threads not be controversial? Two in a row? In that case most at PF would qualify, perhaps your own.

Your suggestion is well taken in general, that I should let others start threads and me try responding to them instead.

You can obviously start as many threads as you want, but there's a pattern of the ones that stray into philosophical and metaphysical ground being locked. Given that when you start a thread, it's out of your hands, a little stewardship or a nudge away from the brink can be helpful. Especially when it comes to politics and philosophy, guns and free speech... I mean... you have a list of people who WILL turn up, and you can even tell in what order, and why. If you want it to be more, obviously you have to exert some effort to make it more, even if some pe

 

[JaredJames]

It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

So it doesn't infringe on your right, but it would incline you to speak less freely than you would if they didn't have the gun? I'm interested in the logic behind that one.

The moment a person changes how they speak to someone on the basis of them having a gun in their possession, that person is no longer speaking freely (or less so than if the gun wasn't present).

Nismar, the legal viewpoint doesn't necessarily answer the question, in the same way that legal and moral don't always meet. Just because the law says something (such as guns do/do not intimidate) that doesn't make it true. That is simply the legal stance on the matter. It's an individual perspective.

The fact that I find a weapon intimidating and something that would cause me to speak less freely, and there are others who say the same thing is enough to say that on some level, even if only for a minority, that guns can impact on free speech. So it isn't simply a black and white yes/no answer.

 

[nismaratwork]

The truth is, it makes many yuppy types nervous to see someone, just like them, carrying a gun openly. It's perfectly legal to do in my state but I don't for this reason. It's dumb IMO but we have to accommodate the delicate minds of others. It certainly does not infringe on anothers right to speak. It might tend to make them more polite though.

re bolded: So, on one hand, it doesn't stop people from speaking, but on the other an implied threat (which is NOT responsible gun ownership) keeps might scare them into being polite? That's the kind of winning logic that has you setting up this yuppy strawman; it's not yuppies watching you drankin, it's other people with guns, and police. You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

 

[JaredJames]

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

Now that is something I agree with.

To believe a person visibly displaying a firearm is going to receive the same treatment as someone who doesn't is plain ridiculous.

 

[drankin]

So it doesn't infringe on your right, but it would incline you to speak less freely than you would if they didn't have the gun? I'm interested in the logic behind that one.

The moment a person changes how they speak to someone on the basis of them having a gun in their possession, that person is no longer speaking freely (or less so than if the gun wasn't present).

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

 

[nismaratwork]

Now that is something I agree with.

To believe a person visibly displaying a firearm is going to receive the same treatment as someone who doesn't is plain ridiculous.

Hey, if people want to try and carry an AR-15 to their next public event, something tells me there will be a few extra REAL cross-hairs on them. Personally, I'd feel a little twitchy knowing that I'm a "go" away from being dead before I hear a shot.

On the other hand, when an irresponsible gun owner (as in, criminally irresponsible) is shot by a responsible gun owner or police officer, I feel for the cop or the shooter. (also, an angel gets its wings) It's not really a debatable point that you're safer carrying concealed than in the open: you're an obvious target for any other shooter in the latter case. If you carry concealed, you have the EXACT same defensive capacity, AND you don't stand out to everyone else with a gun, cops, and "robbers".

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

No one said it's trivial, however open carry is accepted in many communities. Police officers will treat you with respect as long as you are acting responsibly in a situation.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

 

[drankin]

re bolded: So, on one hand, it doesn't stop people from speaking, but on the other an implied threat (which is NOT responsible gun ownership) keeps might scare them into being polite? That's the kind of winning logic that has you setting up this yuppy strawman; it's not yuppies watching you drankin, it's other people with guns, and police. You should think about where you carry your gun, because while it may seem trivial to you, any police officer is going to take it VERY personally first, and ask questions later.

If I saw that you had a gun, I'd keep an eye on you, and if you made what looked like a move for that gun I'd have you on the ground one way or the other. A gun is useful: displaying it is not.

You have some points but you are impossible to converse with. I don't have an "ignore" button but I'm pushing it anyway.

 

[JaredJames]

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

If I'm not speaking as I normally would (censoring for whatever reason), I'm not speaking freely.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

It doesn't matter who's side the intimidation comes from (deliberately by gun wielding person or simply all in my head), if it's there and I'm censoring / editing my speech then it's no longer free.

 

[JaredJames]

It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

I don't believe he said anything about more likely to commit a crime.

But he is correct in that if shooting breaks out, who are the cops likely to look at? The guy openly carrying a gun or some random member of public who isn't?

 

[nismaratwork]

If freely means less polite, you have a point. But only in part. If we all assumed everyone was armed then everyone would probably be more civil to each other.

The basis on someone changing the way the speak is totally subjective. Your perception of someone with a gun is not the same perception I have. You may be intimidated by "the gun" because you aren't familiar with people being armed. Is that their fault? Is your ability to speak freely really being compromised because you have a fixation on his/her weapon? Or is your ability to talk freely only based on your perception of personal safety? Good discussion, BTW.

In one "breath" you imply that the threat of death will induce a polite demeanor, and also state that carrying openly does NOT infringe on the right to speak. It's really not about the larger concepts, it's what you actually TYPED that logically contradicts itself. Fortunately I don't believe that polite fear is the normal reaction to a gun; if someone is worried that you're going to start shooting, they're going to get out of there and call the police. You will then be held at gunpoint by people who know you have a gun, but not why, or if it's legal.

Given that, I agree: carrying openly doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, because they have the ability to call authorities at any time and even (or tip) the playing field. You might also consider that in an age of cameras EVERYWHERE, carrying openly means that you may have a photo of that online... forever. Hopefully all future employers, LEO's, and ladies share your views!

So, go ahead, announce to the world that you're armed... it's not so much an issue of "right" as "Bright"! Maybe a better question is: are you safer carrying concealed, and if so... why not carry concealed instead of openly? If that's how someone feels the need to make a point, it's pathetic.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't believe he said anything about more likely to commit a crime.

He specifically said he would carefully watch an individual that is open-carrying, and would tackle that individual if they "made a move" that looked like they were going for their weapon. Why keep such a watchful eye on a law-abiding citizen? Is he expecting them to perpetrate a violent crime with the weapon they're freely showing off?

 

[nismaratwork]

No one said it's trivial, however open carry is accepted in many communities. Police officers will treat you with respect as long as you are acting responsibly in a situation.



It's fallacious that you think a person open carrying is more likely to commit a crime, mainly because criminals who commit crimes with a weapon do not open carry that weapon (it's much more likely to be tucked in their waist band or in a pocket). Do you have any real reason to be suspicious of a person open carrying a gun on their hip, when it's the people you don't know have a gun which are more likely the problem?

Yeah, it's a fallacy, but you're still often going to be on the receiving end of it. Police will be VERY polite... once they assure themselves as to your identity and legality of your gun. Until then, if you think they're NOT ready to shoot you... ask a cop, sometimes they like to err on the side of 'going home'.

Again, unless you carry openly to make a point (which is blending your 1st and 2nd amendments, and that's fine), and accept the risks associated with it... well... why not just carry concealed?

Oh, and I'm suspicious of people who have hips... so that's most of them... guns on them just raises my awareness. I don't know that I want to live in a world where people don't know enough to be wary of lethal ranged weapons in the hands of someone they don't know. I'm wary of that possibility, which is why I carry a lethal ranged weapon of my own, but CONCEALED. Now, I have the same protection, but I don't stand out like a fool who thinks he needs to be quick on the draw in a civilian setting.

Unless you ARE the type to note behaviour and body language, and little details such as, "Oh, that gentleman is openly armed," then really the shooter is going to be the first to know that violence is afoot. Your reactions to that situations should be to take cover BEFORE returning fire... again, not a "quick-draw" situation.

I guess for the gun owner, the question is: why carry openly?