Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[DanaC]

Ok. I know that as a Brit my attitude towards firearms is different to many Americans' attitude towards firearms. I don't fully understand American attitudes to guns - but thanks to the Cellar I do have more of an understanding than I used to.

I get that for many families, a kid's first gun and hunting trips with dad are a rite of passage. I also get that for some people the idea of an unarmed populace seems a dangerous thing and opens the door to tyranny. I get why the constitution upholds the right to bear arms (or arm bears etc etc.).

But the open carry movement is baffling me. I've seen a few bits and bats in the media about it and I don't understand why anybody would want large numbers of people to be armed in public places - I can understand wanting to have a gun in the house for home defence - I can understand wanting to have a collection of guns as a hobby - I can understand wanting to have a selection of good quality hunting rifles - I can even understand wanting the right to carry a gun in your bag or car for self defence (I don't agree with it - I think if everyone does that then the world gets that bit more dangerous and you're more likely to have to use that gun in your bag at some point).

But open carry? I don't get how this is desirable. I see pictures of war ravaged hell holes and everyone and their dog is toting antique Kalashnikovs - is that somehow an appealing prospect for US cities?

What prompted me to post about this is an article in today's Guardian:

Pro-gun picture book for children aims to reassure kids about parents' weapons
My Parents Open Carry aims to explain 'the right to bear arms and the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun'

Sporting a cover image of a blue-eyed family with guns clipped to their belts, a new American children's picture book is setting itself out as the solution for all those parents who "carry a gun and sometimes struggle with how to best explain the reasons" to their children.

My Parents Open Carry, by Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, co-founders of the pro-gun Michigan Open Carry, has been released by small US publisher White Feather Press. The picture-book fellows a "typical Saturday running errands and having fun together" for 13-year-old Brenna Strong and her parents, say the authors. "What's not so typical is that Brenna's parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defence."

Jeffs and Nephew say they were moved to write the book because they "looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any".

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ent-open-carry

So - please to explain for the hard of understanding (Brit)?

[henry quirk]

"they looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any"

They couldn't find any for the same reason you won't find anti-gun kid's books.

There's no market.

You got an uber-vocal minority on one side and an uber-vocal minority on the other.

The majority does not care (much) either way.

The majority of gun owners and non-owners frown on the antics of the minorities on both sides.

Most folks -- no matter how 'pro' they may be -- aren't gonna walk around with a rifle strapped to their backs or a pistol holstered at the hip (unless they have good reason to).

All this horseshit about pro and anti is molehills inflated into mountains.

[Gravdigr]

Open carry is desirable/legal because you can see that the guy has a gun. It's not concealed. In my state, Kentucky, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry/wear that gun on your hip, openly, legally, with no special permit or license, as long as your shirt isn't covering the weapon, that would be a concealed weapon, for which you need a special permit. Likewise, you can carry a rifle or shotgun in your hand, or slung over your shoulder, or in the special loops that are in some backpacks.

Also, there is no 'movement' toward open carry. Open carry has been around for ages, and believe it or not, is legal in more states than it's not. Some areas (more and more, actually) are now using open carry as a demonstration or protest against more restrictive laws/attitudes. Mostly, this has involved long guns, and the folks hollering about it, they're kinda put off by dudes walking down the sidewalk of Anytown, USA with a "black" rifle (read "assault weapon") slung over their shoulder. These folks would prolly commit suicide if they lived in Israel, where the military requires members to have their rifle on them at all times, 24/7.

Myself, I'm a little more worried about all these people that have the concealed carry permits...

You can't know who to worry about, or who stay away from.

[Gravdigr]

I can give you one reason, you may or may not think it's a good reason, for open carry. A situation, if you will...

Popdigr was talking to a wildlife officer (game warden) over at Pennyrile State Forest here in KY. He was asking the standard questions, and happened to mention that he was interested in hunting the northern section of the forest. The game warden asked if he was a gun hunter, and Pop replied that he hunts deer with a bow exclusively. The guy got a little quiet, and told Popdigr that what he was about to say was not being said as a game warden, but as one guy to another guy.

He told Popdigr that he would not go into that area of the forest without a firearm, for any reason. When Pop started looking concerned, the warden explained that meth cooks had started using the forest for their lab set ups, and that he personally had been shot at twice that year. He strongly advised Popdigr (off the record) not to go into those woods without a gun.

Now, having a gun on you during bow-only season is a definite no-no. When Popdigr asked the guy about this situation, the warden replied that if he stopped Pop to check him out, and everything was on the up & up, and if the gun was carried openly, that he, personally, would not write someone up/arrest him for it. It is that dangerous there, he said.

There are now rules (laws?) being worked on that would allow hunters to carry concealed firearms during bow-only hunting seasons. I would assume that this would include open carry. As it is, you can still not possess a firearm while hunting during a bow season, concealed or otherwise, permit or no.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

...in Israel, where the military requires members to have their rifle on them at all times, 24/7...

[DanaC]

The majority of gun owners and non-owners frown on the antics of the minorities on both sides.

Most folks -- no matter how 'pro' they may be -- aren't gonna walk around with a rifle strapped to their backs or a pistol holstered at the hip (unless they have good reason to).

That is very reassuring to hear.

[footfootfoot]

plus some "open carry" laws are in place as opposed to "concealed carry" which is another kettle of fish. For the most part, no one has a reason to walk around visibly armed.

[glatt]

People doing open carry are attention whores.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by glatt

People doing open carry are attention whores.

In stead of a whore, couldn't they be a person who maybe inherited grandpa's pistola, but, doesn't have the financial means to obtain a concealed carry permit when the fees/classes can cost more than a lot of guns do?

In that situation wouldn't that person be discriminated against, financially?

Would he not be entitled to self-defense, just like the CCW permitted folks?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

In stead of a whore....

Of course. I made a very blanket statement that is easily proven wrong with any number of examples.

However, there is much truth in it.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

People doing open carry are attention whores.

Originally Posted by glatt

Of course. I made a very blanket statement that is easily proven wrong with any number of examples.

However, there is much truth in it.

IYHO, how much? To what percentage of people who open carry do you attribute attention seeking as the predominant reason rather than any other reason? No need to be precise, perhaps you could round it off to the nearest 25% for us.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me, there are only two reasons -- if you're not law enforcement -- to openly carry a firearm.

1-You live in a place or circumstance where there is a great likelihood you'll need to self-defend.

2-You desperately want to be noticed.

If you live in Utopia, Anystate, America, and you have a rifle slung across your back or a pistol holstered at the hip, you're probably an 'attention whore'.

If you live Ruraltown, Anystate, America, and you lug around a rifle or pistol, you may have practical reasons for doing so (though it's more likely the rifle will be in a rack in your truck and the holstered pistol hanging from that rack).

Again: all this open carry nonsense (the growing movement, the dangers involved, the protection of second amendment rights, etc.) is just another marketing deal foisted up by those uber-vocal minorities I mentioned up-thread.

Simply: there are folks who can profit (in one way or another) from the 'controversy' and so they (those profit-minded folks) generate the issue (inflate tiny little blips into big honkin' blimps).


As for concealed carry: I'm against it. If Joe wants to carry (for whatever reason) let it be openly.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, DanaC, the politics of guns in America springs entirely from America being organized as a Republic, never a Kingdom -- and in 1775 and 1812 there were a couple of rather intense discussions on the topic between the two. Artillery arguments, it's fair to say.

The fundamental idea of a republic is that every scrap of political power is ultimately sourced from the electorate -- and a bit from those associating with the electorate but not in it. Of late that is a vanishingly small population segment, but at one time it was half the adult population of the United States. Until the 19th Amendment finished that up.

To function as an electorate in a Republic, the electorate must be powerful, not emasculated. The power of life and death is about as direct as power can get. Power of life and death over the apparatus of the Government keeps the government as the people's servant, right where it belongs. The power to kill is a crude power, yes. But crude power converts readily into refined power, such as that of the ballot.

This was one of the first reasons guns should be kept. Citizen police powers, which is the rubric under which lawful use of force defending self and property and the life and property of others, is another of the first ones -- the invention of modern police departments was still some fifty or sixty years in the future, and the establishment of police departments does not supplant self defense by force. It is instead at bottom an aid to it -- professional, dedicated service to be an adjunct to the completely inalienable right of self defense.

Latterly, another compelling reason arose from these: that We the People have a right not to suffer genocide. Like police powers, this too is rooted in forcible self defense -- calm suasion is not how genocide gets done; it's always deadly force of course. Genocide was not something the Founding Fathers had any experience of, or they might have inserted something in the Second Amendment about it. But it's still true that armed populations do not suffer genocides, and genocides happen in places where the populations are not armed. There are a couple other precursors of genocides too, but the critical one is that the population not have arms. But a population with a lot of arms the Einsatzkommandos cannot tackle -- they are invariably outnumbered; they can only make up the difference in numbers if they are the only ones possessing killing tools.

If they are not, genocides do not happen. Genocides are very very bad things, as all agree: they're nasty enough that it's worth paying a pretty hefty price to escape. Hefty prices may be accounted in treasure or in lives. But having a genocide condemns at least the character of whole peoples. That stain is not a pretty one either.

[DanaC]

Apparently another book on their site is:

"for a limited time only, White Feather Press is giving away a free copy of the fun book Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate! by Doug Giles, with every purchase of My Parents Open Carry in book form. That's a $15.99 value!").

So, I went looking for a write up of the book and found this:

Feminists would love nothing more than to take your son and eradicate his masculine uniqueness. They hate men, and therefore, they will hate your son. That is, of course, assuming that you, the parent, intend to raise your son to be a man instead of a rouged and lipsticked, male American Idol hopeful. Get it right, parental unit: in the coming days you will be facing female chauvinist pigs who have sick designs for your dear son in culture, in the classroom and in a lot of churches. These whacked women actually believe that masculinity, the male composition, and a guy's hormones cause boys to become wicked oppressors, sexually abusive and brutal beasts; and they have the inflated stats, the re-written history books and the hysterical spin to prove it. Your daunting mission is to go against the grain, stand up to the radical feminists, and raise your little man into a lion, capable of leading the next generation into a moral culture of God, family and country.

And at the White Feather Press site they describe it:

Parent, if you have a young son and you want him to grow up to be a man, then you need to keep him away from pop culture, public school and a lot of Nancy Boy churches. If metrosexual pop culture, feminized public schools and the effeminate branches of evanjellycalism lay their sissy hands on him, you can kiss his masculinity good-bye because they will morph him into a dandy. Yeah, mom and dad, if – if – you dare to raise your boy as a classic boy in this castrated epoch, then you’ve got a task that’s more difficult than getting a drunk to hit the urinal at Chili’s. Read this bold and hard-hitting guide by Doug Giles, the politically incorrect master, on how to raise your son in a world which more and more seems to hate masculinity.

I don't even know where to start with that...

[Gravdigr]

Heh. My point up there ^^^ was to point out that by carrying open, Popdigr wouldn't be forced to go through the classes, pay the fees and obtain a concealed carry permit. Just grab his weapon on the way out the door.