G20 Open Carry: Secret Service & Campus Security Responses

  • Thread starter Thread starter TVP45
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of open carry laws in Pennsylvania during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, particularly in relation to security concerns and the presence of second amendment activists. Participants explore the legality of open carry, the potential reactions from law enforcement and security services, and the broader cultural implications of gun ownership.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the safety implications of open carry during the G20, questioning how the Secret Service might respond to armed demonstrators.
  • Others argue that open carry could be preferable to concealed carry in the context of public demonstrations, although some express personal discomfort with open carry in general.
  • Several participants highlight the embarrassment of the U.S. being associated with open carry, suggesting that other countries have successfully moved beyond widespread gun ownership.
  • There are discussions about the role of local police and the Secret Service in managing security at the event, with some theorizing about potential strategies for crowd control.
  • Participants debate the necessity of gun ownership, with some questioning the need for firearms in civilian life, particularly in comparison to countries with stricter gun laws.
  • Some comments reflect on the irony of the situation, with participants noting the emotional responses to the topic of gun ownership and health care in the U.S.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus among participants; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of open carry, the effectiveness of security measures, and the cultural significance of gun ownership.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the effectiveness of security responses and the legality of open carry, with some acknowledging the complexity of the situation without resolving the underlying issues.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals concerned with gun laws, public safety, security measures at large events, and cultural attitudes towards firearms in different countries.

  • #31
tchitt said:
Why do you NEED a reason to own a gun, and why should they be prohibited from the general population?
Your basic claim is that owning a gun protects you. This is not obvious to me. Do you have any kind of statistical study, which you trust, that you can provide for us to read.

For instance, if people are stupid enough, gun owners could be more likely to kill themselves while cleaning their gun than to protect themselves in the rare events when it is necessary. I'm not saying it's the case, I'm just saying it should be easy to display data.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Well firstly, the gun lovers gave a child an uzi, which he shot, and the kick caused it to recoil back and shoot him in the head. Killing him stone dead. There is a news report on it: http://www.childinjurylawyerblog.com/2008/10/boy_accidentally_shoots_himsel.html
A damn good reading why you don't want guns around, not to mention accidents involving kids and guns in the home.

"Why do you NEED a reason to own a gun"
For the same reason I don't buy ladies underwear. I don't have a requirement for it. It's what police are for.

"and why should they be prohibited from the general population? "
I'll answer that with a direct quote from yourself:
"Of course guns are designed to kill"

Before you start arguing rubbish like "a car can kill in the wrong hands", a car (or any other object you may choose) is not designed to kill. It is designed to transport people (again, or whatever job it is for). A gun is quite simply there to kill. And so by allowing them in the general populous you are giving people a way of killing each other and only that.

Also, as I said before, there are some things I accept you want a gun for. Like you said, sport shooting and hunting etc. But to want to carry a gun down the street clearly shows you are willing to use it on someone, to kill someone. (I suppose it could just be a gonad enhancer?)
 
  • #33
Can we please keep this thread on topic.

This is a discussion about guns at the G20, not a discussion on the right to bear arms.
 
  • #34
Those two things are the same, not to put too fine a point on it.
 
  • #35
This topic has been beaten to death in a number of threads already.