Know Your Rights

[WakeUpEchoes]

So you don't think it is suspicious to see a guy that you have never seen before just walking up and down the street in your neighborhood carrying a gun for everyone to see? Would you let your kids out in the front yard to play?

If I had kids...hell no.

 

[JadeBrecks]

So you don't think it is suspicious to see a guy that you have never seen before just walking up and down the street in your neighborhood carrying a gun for everyone to see? Would you let your kids out in the front yard to play?

The gun would not be my deciding factor on that question. If you saw "a guy that you have never seen before just walking up and down the street in your neighborhood" but without a gun would you let your kids play in the front yard?

 

[greyhammer90]

The gun would not be my deciding factor on that question. If you saw "a guy that you have never seen before just walking up and down the street in your neighborhood" but without a gun would you let your kids play in the front yard?

So a person you don't know near your house puts you on guard as much as a person you don't know with a gun near your house....

Yeah, ok.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fqs9DYisSsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[JadeBrecks]

So a person you don't know near your house puts you on guard as much as a person you don't know with a gun near your house....

Yeah, ok.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fqs9DYisSsg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why is that so hard to believe? If you are going to commit a crime you aren't going to do anything to give people any indication. If you want to sneak up on people with a gun putting it out where people can see it won't help you. If you put it outside your belt where people can see it peoples nervousness doesn't bother you.Carrying outside the belt you are more likely run into resistance from cops so you will more likely have your legal ducks in a row. Last but not least just because you don't see a gun doesn't mean they don't have one.

 

[Buster Bluth]

To be fair, you did walk into this thread carrying a handgun.

Lolol my man

 

[greyhammer90]

Why is that so hard to believe? If you are going to commit a crime you aren't going to do anything to give people any indication. If you want to sneak up on people with a gun putting it out where people can see it won't help you. If you put it outside your belt where people can see it peoples nervousness doesn't bother you.Carrying outside the belt you are more likely run into resistance from cops so you will more likely have your legal ducks in a row. Last but not least just because you don't see a gun doesn't mean they don't have one.

Since you've decided to take hypothetical mindset of a criminal trying to "sneak up" on people I'll do the same exercise with my made up extremist reasons regarding Golden's hypo.

I would take my kids inside because:
1) Because people with guns, much like people in general, can be idiots. And this idiot has an instrument that, unlike a knife, allows him to kill quickly, efficiently, with minimal effort, and at a distance.
2) Because someone about to go on a shooting spree doesn't care about resistance from cops or having their legal ducks in a row.
3) Because someone with a gun who carries is more likely to "be a hero" and attempt to stop a petty criminal himself, which leads to accidental injuries and deaths.

Look, I'm mostly for gun rights, but don't pretend like adding a gun to a situation doesn't introduce a potential for a quick and immediate death. That's my only issue, when gun rights advocates take their stance to the point of looking ridiculous. If I see someone with a gun, I don't assume they are a criminal, but it puts me on edge. Because they are carrying something that can immediately turn me powerless. (And I'm not going to argue the old shtick where you respond "and that's why we need guns! Because criminals have guns!" I'm simply responding to your response to Golden's hypo, and I'm calling it non-normal in the extreme. Because most people would take their kids inside, and when asked why, most people would respond "Because he had a gun.")

 

[irishpat183]

So you don't think it is suspicious to see a guy that you have never seen before just walking up and down the street in your neighborhood carrying a gun for everyone to see? Would you let your kids out in the front yard to play?

If he's pacing up and down the street? Yeah, that's worthy of me checking into it. I'd either ask him what he's doing, or call the cops.


But if I see a guy walk by, minding his own business, and happens to be carrying a firearm lawfully? I see no issue with that.


Again, focus on the behaivor not the tool.


Would you be afraid of a guy walking down the street with an ax? Most would say no. What if the guy was going to chop wood?

Why is a gun any different?

 

[irishpat183]

Since you've decided to take hypothetical mindset of a criminal trying to "sneak up" on people I'll do the same exercise with my made up extremist reasons regarding Golden's hypo.

I would take my kids inside because:
1) Because people with guns, much like people in general, can be idiots. And this idiot has an instrument that, unlike a knife, allows him to kill quickly, efficiently, with minimal effort, and at a distance.
2) Because someone about to go on a shooting spree doesn't care about resistance from cops or having their legal ducks in a row.
3) Because someone with a gun who carries is more likely to "be a hero" and attempt to stop a petty criminal himself, which leads to accidental injuries and deaths.

Look, I'm mostly for gun rights, but don't pretend like adding a gun to a situation doesn't introduce a potential for a quick and immediate death. That's my only issue, when gun rights advocates take their stance to the point of looking ridiculous. If I see someone with a gun, I don't assume they are a criminal, but it puts me on edge. Because they are carrying something that can immediately turn me powerless. (And I'm not going to argue the old shtick where you respond "and that's why we need guns! Because criminals have guns!" I'm simply responding to your response to Golden's hypo, and I'm calling it non-normal in the extreme. Because most people would take their kids inside, and when asked why, most people would respond "Because he had a gun.")

Most that carry a firearm, especially those that have their CHL, are trained and LEAST likely to have accidental shootings and injuries. It's those that aren't trained and have illegal guns that account for those accidents....in fact, I believe that hunting incidents account for the majority of gun accidents.

You can't use accidents as reason to legislate or shape your entire perspective. Then no one would drive or fly on planes.


And that's a great move. Teach your kids. Guns are dangerous. Get away from them. Nothing wrong with that. I allow everyone to raise their kids the way they seem fit. If you tell them to get inside, I have no issue with that.

But to assume that a person carrying a gun is a danger to society and to be avoided, when they've committed no crime other than just having a gun...just doesn't make sense. Unless there are other signs (body language, age, what they look like...etc.) that make you nervous.

Guy with gun walking down street not bothering anyone and not acting strange? No issue.

Guy with gun walking down street looking around, acting paranoid, late a night...yeah, that's a problem.

 

[kmoose]

Most that carry a firearm, especially those that have their CHL, are trained and LEAST likely to have accidental shootings and injuries.

They are trained not to shoot their toes off, and follow proper range safety. Those that are not professionals of some sort probably have NO training on target recognition, clear fields of fire, and a host of other things that go into NOT being an increased risk of shooting someone innocent.

 

[Emcee77]

Guy with gun walking down street not bothering anyone and not acting strange? No issue.

Guy with gun walking down street looking around, acting paranoid, late a night...yeah, that's a problem.

Exactly, this is what I've been trying to say too. The circumstances MATTER. If I saw a guy walking down the street with a holstered handgun, apparently minding his own business, I'd practically think nothing of it. Honestly, I might even assume that he was plainclothes police. To the extent that this is what we are talking about, I tend to agree that cops should and must leave such people alone. (I am DEEPLY skeptical that the kid who made that video was this type of handgun carrier though, just based on the fact that he seemed to be enjoying the confrontation way too much and had apparently prepared for it.)

But if someone is fumbling with a handgun while wandering around aimlessly, eyeing the passers-by, making them uncomfortable, I might be afraid that's a crazy person, and I'd want the cops to check that person out -- and if I report that guy, explaining in detail the behavior that I believed was suspicious, and if the cops agree it was suspicious, the cops have every right to check him out. That's the essence of a Terry stop. Happens all the time.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

If he's pacing up and down the street? Yeah, that's worthy of me checking into it. I'd either ask him what he's doing, or call the cops.


But if I see a guy walk by, minding his own business, and happens to be carrying a firearm lawfully? I see no issue with that.


Again, focus on the behaivor not the tool.


Would you be afraid of a guy walking down the street with an ax? Most would say no. What if the guy was going to chop wood?

Why is a gun any different?

I merely used a gun because after all that is what we are talking about. I was trying to get your definition of suspicion because obviously multiple people in Portland, Maine were suspicious of his activity (walking up and down the street with a gun) and you were insinuating that it was harassment and there was no reason for suspicion. If I misinterpreted then I apologize.

A guy with any type of weapon is obviously going to cause more suspicion than a guy without. Its just a fact, regardless of his behavior.

 

[Emcee77]

I merely used a gun because after all that is what we are talking about. I was trying to get your definition of suspicion because obviously multiple people in Portland, Maine were suspicious of his activity (walking up and down the street with a gun) and you were insinuating that it was harassment and there was no reason for suspicion.

A guy with any type of weapon is obviously going to cause more suspicion than a guy without. Its just a fact, regardless of his behavior.

Right, or at least, it's the kind of suspicion you want to do something about. A guy with a gun has the power to cause great bodily harm. Any suspicious circumstances take on heightened importance.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

So you're saying that a criminal wouldn't think twice about robbing a guy with a gun as opposed to someone without one?

Come on....that's just ridiculous. Of course a criminal will avoid the guy that has a gun in plain sight. Just like criminals are more likely to avoid houses that have a security system ad in their front yard.

I get it, I guess. Might as well just hang a "No Trespassing, Violators Will Be Shot" sign around your neck. Nine times out of ten it just seems like the guy is trying to be a badass.

 

[IrishinTN]

Sorry Whisky, it's just relevant...

 

[Emcee77]

So you're saying that a criminal wouldn't think twice about robbing a guy with a gun as opposed to someone without one?

Come on....that's just ridiculous. Of course a criminal will avoid the guy that has a gun in plain sight. Just like criminals are more likely to avoid houses that have a security system ad in their front yard.

There are other ways to look at this though. Here's a contrasting view:

"Two-thirds of prisoners incarcerated for gun offenses reported that the chance of running into an armed victim was very or somewhat important in their own choice to use a gun. Currently, criminals use guns in only about 25 percent of noncommercial robberies and 5 percent of assaults. If increased gun carrying among potential victims causes criminals to carry guns more often themselves, or become quicker to use guns to avert armed self-defense, the end result could be that street crime becomes more lethal." Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig & Adam M. Samaha, Gun Control After Heller: Threats and Sideshows from a Social Welfare Perspective, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1041, 1081 (2009).

Another study found that assault victims are more likely to be armed than members of the general population. Branas, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009).

Unfortunately, the data on this seems to be inconclusive. This is why I kind of wish Illinois's concealed carry prohibition had been able to stand. It would be interesting to see whether there was less crime in carry-permitted jurisdictions than in carry-prohibited jurisdictions. Now we no longer have any jurisdictions where carry (open or concealed) is outright prohibited, so we can't do that kind of analysis, or at least it won't be as useful.

 

[Grahambo]

A guy walking up and down a street in an open carry state is not suspicious. It's a catch 22 situation when you have kids and you don't want them outside with a guy around like that. Cops get called for a lot of stupid things but its up to the cops to use their training to detect if they feel that situation is suspicious. For all we know it was some old lady who called the cops to report a 'suspicious' man. The same lady who calls the cops on a delivery guy knocking on her door.

For those saying the law student wasn't disrespectful, yes he was. But it's not for him blasting his knowledge, it's because he purposely set out to put a cop on blast and waste the cop's time. That's disrespectful. If I went to any of your jobs, called you out of work to simply put you on blast, that's very disrespectful to you.

What people fail to realize (and I'm not talking about this particular situation) is that cops are free to walk up to any random person and open up a conversation. 'Right to be, right to see.' Nobody says you have to talk back. Yes, it's important to know your rights because of douchebag cops that are out there but just because a cop starts to talk to you does not mean it is an automatic stop.

BB: Again man, you sound like a scorn ex-girlfriend. There are more then a few that have documented their distaste for cops but can do so without the childish 'F the police' mantra. Yeah, I get it, you have family/friends in law enforcement. That's cool but show a little more wisdom in your words. You're a city planner, you design that type stuff so you're a smart guy. Personally, I'd like to see more of that instead of the 16 year old that you portray when you talk about cops.

 

[irishpat183]

They are trained not to shoot their toes off, and follow proper range safety. Those that are not professionals of some sort probably have NO training on target recognition, clear fields of fire, and a host of other things that go into NOT being an increased risk of shooting someone innocent.

I don't know what your CHL classes teach you, but down here in TX they teach you how to properly handle a firearm.


You're right. But those "non professionals" are the kind of people that you're never going to be able to do anythiing about anyway. those are the types of people that probably text and drive. Or ride motorcycles without helmets.

Again, no matter how many laws we pass, it will never, ever, stop people from being stupid. Or stop criminals from finding ways to break laws.

 

[irishpat183]

I get it, I guess. Might as well just hang a "No Trespassing, Violators Will Be Shot" sign around your neck. Nine times out of ten it just seems like the guy is trying to be a badass.

And I agree there are those types everywhere.


But again, if you take a criminal and put him in front of two people, one with a gun and one without....who do you think he'd go for?

 

[BobD]

A lot of people make fun of our unique people here in California, but I'm glad to say we would still get a rapid and armed response if we called to say a man was walking down the street with a gun.

 

[greyhammer90]

But again, if you take a criminal and put him in front of two people, one with a gun and one without....who do you think he'd go for?

Logically that's a terrible argument to make. Because that argument infers that everyone should have a gun for protecting themselves. Which would mean that everyone would have a gun. As you've admitted "there will always be criminals", which means that crime wouldn't be stopped, just made more deadly for both the victims and the criminals. (Likely the victims, since criminals would just shoot first.)

 

[Irishcop]

Why is that so hard to believe? If you are going to commit a crime you aren't going to do anything to give people any indication. If you want to sneak up on people with a gun putting it out where people can see it won't help you. If you put it outside your belt where people can see it peoples nervousness doesn't bother you.Carrying outside the belt you are more likely run into resistance from cops so you will more likely have your legal ducks in a row. Last but not least just because you don't see a gun doesn't mean they don't have one.

^
This. Outside of my uniform you would never know I'm carring a gun. To me carring on the outside of the belt just draws attention.

 

[BobD]

^
This. Outside of my uniform you would never know I'm carring a gun. To me carring on the outside of the belt just draws attention.

That's why I wear Hawaiian shirts, cargo shorts and sandals , so nobody knows I'm a ninja.

 

[Irishcop]

That's why I wear Hawaiian shirts, cargo shorts and sandals , so nobody knows I'm a ninja.

Hahahahaha!

 

[kmoose]

And I agree there are those types everywhere.


But again, if you take a criminal and put him in front of two people, one with a gun and one without....who do you think he'd go for?

I think he'd ambush the armed one, then he could take his time committing crimes against BOTH of them.

 

[irishpat183]

A lot of people make fun of our unique people here in California, but I'm glad to say we would still get a rapid and armed response if we called to say a man was walking down the street with a gun.

Ahhh yes....the same police force that was shooting innnocent people they "thought" were Chris Dorner?


You must feel so safe....

 

[irishpat183]

I think he'd ambush the armed one, then he could take his time committing crimes against BOTH of them.

There is a reason, again, that houses that have alarms (or at least have a sign in their yard) are 55% less likely to be robbed.


I bet you that someone carrying a gun, versus someone who's not, is an even bigger number.

Hell, can you find one story of someone being robbed while openly carrying a gun?

 

[BobD]

Ahhh yes....the same police force that was shooting innnocent people they "thought" were Chris Dorner?


You must feel so safe....

Yeah you're right, that tragedy doesn't happen just about everywhere from time to time.

 

[irishpat183]

Yeah you're right, that tragedy doesn't happen just about everywhere from time to time.

So something that happens from "time to time" doesn't need to be worried about?


So I guess these mass shootings, that happen even less than police screw ups, are nothing to be worried about?

 

[jerboski]

So something that happens from "time to time" doesn't need to be worried about?

When did he imply that it didn't need to be worried about, of course it does and Law Enforcement will review their tactics and decision making in that tragic event and learn from it just like they did with the Hollywood Shootout.

So I guess these mass shootings, that happen even less than police screw ups, are nothing to be worried about?

So you are saying if we were allowed to open carry these type of events wouldnt happen? Hate to break it to you but when person is willing to conflict that type of harm onto numerous people, they could careless if you have a weapon.

 

[irishpat183]

So you are saying if we were allowed to open carry these type of events wouldnt happen? Hate to break it to you but when person is willing to conflict that type of harm onto numerous people, they could careless if you have a weapon.

I didn't say that. I was responding to BobD's comment......Go back and read (i'm not going to go through the whole argument)


And for the record, armed or not, this stuff will happen. Carrying a gun may not prevent it, you're right.

But legislation and new gun rules won't either.

You can't legislate away tragedies.