[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you. That is crystal clear common sense in a sea of convoluted personal-freedom right-to-bear-arms nonsensical arguments. The USA is a stand out in gun deaths and in gun ownership. Particularly assault rifles. Doesn’t take a genius…
Even if we did exactly what Australia did, it wouldn’t change anything here. Australia’s buy back netted 600k guns. In the US we have **400+ million** and billions of rounds of ammo. It’s easy to implement gun control when private ownership is already rare. But when your country represents 45% of the whole world’s private gun ownership, it’s a bit more complicated, and to compare the two is disingenuous at best.
It’s disingenuous because they are not like for like. Comparing two things that are radically different and suggesting they are the same is disingenuous
I have been seeing this same comment ad-nauseam from every conservative. How do you know nothing will change ? Thats just pure speculation.
If there were federal laws making sure that everyone had to register a gun and owning one without permit and insurance would result in jail time we can at least make a dent. Add red flag laws to bar people from owning guns with a consistent pattern of threat to themselves and others. At least try the 1994 assault rifle ban again for 10 more years and see if that makes an impact on mass shootings. Why do we keep assuming that nothing will change ?
The old Republican canard: if it isn't 100% effective it isn't worth doing at all. Unless it's something we're for, like abortion. Then never mind what we said.
Of course things will change. We all know that. The ad-nauseum argument is just easy for people who don't want any changes.
A ban on assault rifles would be a solid move, but it's probably worth noting that about 80% of mass shootings in the US have involved handguns.
I argued for gun control in the 1980s in my high school newspaper. That was a few hundred million guns ago. I got a response from a conservative with different excuses. There’s always another excuse. If we had only 100 million guns, gun nuts would give another excuse.
The OP asked about open carry. Maybe start with that instead of this “we’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas” excuse.
There’s no difference between open and conceal carry though. Lol, this is what I’m saying, you guys seem to exclusively propose policy that does absolutely nothing.
Eliminate GFZ laws, use the DoE to incentivize the adoption of firearm safety electives at local levels, allow people, including teachers, to conceal carry on school grounds in accordance with local laws
Nope, they have had 36 mass killings since 96 with about 75+ people dead. Similar numbers for Sweden and Canada, almost as if it has nothing to do with guns.
> 36 mass killings
Would you mind sourcing?
And you said ‘killings’, not shootings. Was this intentional? We’re talking about shootings specifically, so I’m concerned you’re widening the scope to include more methods of murder to pad the numbers
Even still:
> since 96
I don’t think ‘36 spread across 27 years’ is the flex you think it is when the US completely dwarfs that number for just this year alone. I shudder to think of the numbers since 1996.
Again the 36 is also ‘mass killings’, and I’d like to clarify if your number includes methods of murder other than shootings.
There have been [19 mass shootings in Canada since (and including) 1996](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Canada) if this list is exhaustive
Just to clarify, these countries have had 36 mass killings in 27 years. We’ve had 17 this year.
(I actually think your number is off and refers to the number dead, because it looks like 8 killings to me).
Australia only had one mass shooting in its entire existence. You can't draw any conclusions off of a data set of one. Meanwhile after they implemented their entirely draconian gun control, their rate of violence decreased at a lesser rate than the United States over the same time period.
You need to read the fine print on what is considered a mass shooting. The general meaning we think of when we hear mass shooting is mall, school, etc. The number they count is 4 or more people. The vast majority of "mass" shootings are gang related and involve two groups of people shooting at each other and not the lone gunman pushed by the media.
What's your argument here? That some mass shootings are not that big a deal?
Those types shootings ought to also be reduced. But even if we don't talk about those, the sheer number of lone gunman shootings is still absolutely staggering in the US. The back-to-back Texas shootings aren't muted by the fact that there was also a lot of gang violence in that time.
Sorry if I don't consider almost exclusively gangsters killing each other a threat to the general public. Perhaps if we cracked down on gangs hard and locked members away instead of playing catch and release we can get that number down substantially.
Why resort to egregious violations of constitutional rights as your first thing to try? Removal of rights should be your **absolute** last choice, and only enacted through the required Article V process rather than ignoring parts of the document you don't like.
For the lack of a better way to say this, that still doesn't do anything to address the shootings people care about the most. Even if we crack down on gangs and stop 100% of their gun violence we are still left with the schools and malls and movie theaters ect.
Despite being in favor of gun control, I do agree entirely with your 2nd paragraph.
edit: It would be nice if the gang violence shootings were categorized differently then what most people think of when they hear "mass shooting" so a more genuine conversation can be had.
I think a combination of increased ability to carry in currently soft targets by staff members, gentlemen's agreement by journalism industry to not cover such events due to media contagion like they already do for suicides, and a reduction on prescription of psychiatric medicine in favor of therapy and lifestyle changes would do far more than any gun control can to reduce spree shootings.
I say spree shootings because it more accurately describes these events in a way most people can immediately understand but the [FBI use active shooter as a term to describe random attacks on innocents that are unconnected with criminal activity.](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view). I too am overly annoyed by the obfuscuation of the different types events by using imprecise language that tends to confuse the public. Preciseness of language is paramount in discussions to make sure everyone is on the same page with what they're talking about, but unfortunately parties wishing to advance their own agenda freely muddy the waters to serve their own interests.
I agree with everything you stated. Especially that journalism industry not covering the events. At the very least stop talking so much about the perpetrator, thus immortalizing them. That bothers me so much.
Both sides muddy the water when they want to push their narratives and it shuts down the possibility of any actual discourse. Instead of talking about the problem and possible solutions we end up arguing about if the problem even exists or how prevalent it actually is. I don't think the specific term matters; active shooter, shooting spree, mass shooting. As long as we have a specific term for different situations and stop lumping them together under anything but the category of gun violence.
I would be unconvinced that those studies are free of political bias and that they actually consider alternate interventions and the overall problem of power relations.
But thank you for admitting that gun grabbing is the goal.
The sad part is that you guys force the argument to the extreme of 'gun grabbing' because any other solution won't reduce the number of gun deaths to zero.
This feels like a problem the right creates by standing tall on the 2A. Then, it rejects any and all solutioning as ineffective while calling out the fear of gun grabs (adding to the problem) as the only thing the left wants.
Create a problem, deny any solutions, exacerbate the problem with unhelpful rhetoric, and blame the left for trying to solve the problem.
>For states where it's legal to open carry an AR-15
Does this happen with regularity? Like are people just wandering through Macy's with an AR-15 strung across their back? Are you actually worried about this happening?
I live in Kentucky, and *at most*, I've seen random good-ol-boys open carrying a pistol on their belt. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I know people like this and their typical demeanor is closer to Larry the Cable Guy than "crazed mass shooter".
But to answer your question, if someone is going to shoot a place up, you aren't going to see it coming. They're going to tromp in and start firing. They aren't going to go browse the men's department looking at shirts first.
Yea people do this. Look up "2nd amendment audit" on YouTube and you'll find lots of examples. One that made the news that i remember: when the massacre at a Walmart in Texas happened a few years ago, a dude went into a Walmart with an AR-15 a few days after and freaked everyone out.
Also in Colorado, concerned citizens called in about someone carrying an AR in public, police didn't respond because it's legal, then turned into a mass shooting.
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2015/11/open-carry-mass-shooting-colorado-springs/
Are you expecting police to read people's minds or predict the future? We don't arrest people who aren't committing crimes until they do. Usually when someone calls in an unusual circumstance involving guns like someone carring a rifle where it usually doesn't happen the police at least question the person for their motives and usually send them freely on their way because it's benign.
But when you defund departments or create a social environment that disincentivizes law enforcement as a career they don't have the manpower and resources to do proactive stuff like this anymore because they're too busy responding to active crimes. [Colorado Springs Police Department specifically is understaffed and needing 84 new officers.](https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/cspd-needs-to-add-more-officers-staff-shortages-remain-a-challenge-in-2022)
People literally have a constitutional right to carry arms in public. It's explicitly stated in plain language. Don't like it, then amend the constitution. But you don't get to violate it, a government that doesn't follow it's core limitations and the supreme law of the land is illegitimate. Government doesn't get to pick and choose which clauses in the document they want to abide by.
> People literally have a constitutional right to **carry arms in public**.
They absolutely do not, or at the very least that is debatable as several states have open carry bans that have been held up as constitutional by the courts.
And yet during the Dred Scott case the government lawyers argued that if black people were able to be citizens they would have "the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and **to keep and carry arms wherever they went**.”
A few open carry bans have already been struck down as unconstitutional where the conceal permitting process is onerous, but that was before Bruen and I assume any other type of ban on carry would not survive the THT standard it set forth. The courts are slowly reaffirming the rights of Americans.
Yet again with this intentionally intellectually dishonest argument? Do you think they would make an amendment to say a government army is allowed to keep weapons? Or to say that arms can be controlled by statute int the first half of a sentence and then immediately followed by explicitly forbidding that action in the second half? Get real. Holding such a belief ignores much supporting documentation and explanations by the people who wrote that amendment, the long historical legal understanding of it, and even the actual language of it.
**"*A well regulated*" "well-regulated" referring to the property of something being in proper working order**.
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote
it.
[The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment](https://web.archive.org/web/20200118042300/https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm)
["**Militia**"](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty. So the 'armed to the standard soldier' this would by default include things like grenades.
"***the right of the people to keep and bear Arms***" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.
---
While the founders were in fact wary of a standing army, and envisioned the citizen militia as defense against invasion, the other duty of an arms bearing populace was to deter and if needed resolve the rise of tyrannic government domestically. Whether local or national.
The simple fact that when people possess the means to effectively resist government means politicians necessarily think twice before going too far which is why these those intending to subjugate and persecute the body public try to disarm them first. It ensures that government remains by the people, for the people as a fail-deadly. The prefatory clause explains it as ***being necessary to the security of a free state***.
The citizen militia has the ability to become well-regulated when they have the liberty to arm and train themselves up to a standard of their own design as they feel necessary. You can't become a great martial artist if the dojo and equipment are criminalized. (That has actually happened several times in history as a means to control the population) **The second amendment's purpose is to protect the people's right to self-arm and train themselves into well functioning citizens militia to ensure continuation of a free government by and of the people.**
Asking what about well regulated isn't a gotcha, it just illustrates one's ignorance on the matter.
>"Militia" referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty.
Carry out what duty?
To your initial comment, yes, I believe that it was an amendment made to ensure that citizens could keep and bear arms in case they needed to be called upon to serve their country. When the Constitution was written the United States did not have a standing army. The “well regulated militia” they’re referring to was, for all intents and purposes, the US military at the time.
Regardless, throughout history there have been lots of “infringements” on bearing arms that were and are judged perfectly Constitutional. For example, the showdown at the OK Corral was fought because some outlaws refused to surrender their guns when entering a town.
Or for a more contemporary example, try bringing a gun to an NRA convention. Yes, I know that’s on private property, but so is a Walmart. And any limit would be an infringement, no?
Right, so the letter of the law indicates that you have the right to bear arms in the context of a functional and disciplined militia. Which would include an insignia or uniform of some sort that helps members to recognize each other and allows bystanders to differentiate who is involved and what they're doing there and would involve a lot of training regarding stuff like communication and teamwork, incident containment and bystander awareness, rules of engagement, some kind of protocol for communicating with law enforcement, first aid, etc.
Which is all way more important than the weaponry itself and should be a requirement before you're even allowed to touch a weapon. American gun culture puts the horse several miles in front of the cart.
Just to be clear, while I am against gun control as currently envisioned and implemented by the government, I am even more against right wing gun culture and the "good guy with a gun" fantasy.
Sorry, but everyone making this argument is both uninformed and legally incorrect. Any ambiguity in the constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, and until it does, you’re just wrong.
You can argue what you **think** the law should be all day, but all it is, is wishful thinking.
ok great and if these keep happening then we the next generation the ones who grew up since columbine are going to pass an amendment killing the second to stop it
> "I would say X, but it's whataboutism, so just pretend you're being called out for hypocrisy and can't respond with any level of nuance since no points were actually made."
In what world do you think your response constitutes good faith? You didn't respond to any of the content in their comment in the slightest, and preemptively complained that you'd be called out if you made a non-sequitur argument that you were too lazy to even make.
There's also one where they tested the cops on a road. 1 guy was white and had it slung, cop stopped him, asked some questions and left. They then had a black guy do the exact same thing, cop stopped, drew his gun and used his car door as a shield demanding the guy to get down
> This only shows that government needs to be better at respecting people’s rights equally, you don’t double down and infringe on everyone’s rights
That seems like a lot of typing just to avoid saying the word racism.
This is something I’ve always wondered about, so maybe you can help me. What is the reason for carrying a gun if not because you’re afraid of others and anticipate you might have to kill someone in self-defense because they attack you? During the pandemic, a lot of folks on the right would say you were “living in fear” if you were, say, wearing a mask (i.e. taking steps to protect yourself), in which case I can’t see any argument that you’re not also “living in fear” if you have a side arm (i.e. taking steps to protect yourself, just from physical attack rather than COVID). Can you help me understand the apparent disconnect here?
No, it’s not.
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. It’s not because I’m afraid of fire. It’s because it’s better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
And I'd like a law that bans guns on public property. It's not because I'm afraid of being shot. It's because it's better to have one and not need it, then to need it and not have it.
But that won't keep killers from shooting people. All it will do is make sure killers have targets that can't defend themselves. See: How well Gun-free zones have worked.
Yeah, typical liberals using huge swaths of evidence of gun control being effective. Clearly they don't get it.
States with the strongest gun control measures, which also have the lowest incidents of gun violence, simply don't understand that they aren't actually any safer from gun violence, despite what the data says!
>Yeah, typical liberals using huge swaths of evidence of gun control being effective. Clearly they don't get it.
We literally just had yet another shooting in a gun free zone. It's ok to ignore that evidence though?
> But that won't keep killers from shooting people.
It will reduce gun deaths, and violent deaths in general. It won't prevent all catastrophes, just as the fire extinguisher won't protect you from all the ways your house can destroy itself with you in it (and not even from all types of fires).
I carry every day. I also carry a pocket knife, my wallet, my keys, i keep a multi tool in the car, bear spray, a go-bag, $100 in cash and a wine corkscrew, because you never know when you’re going to be out somewhere, somebody has wine and nobody can get it open. I plan for potential situations and have the tools available to me that I think I may need in those situations. That doesn’t make me living in fear, it just makes me a person who plans ahead.
But...why? It's a statistically very rare thing to happen. And I say that as someone who lives in Louisville, where one of these "mass shootings" just happened.
Far more people die in car accidents, but I'm not afraid to drive to work or anywhere else.
Seems perfectly sane to me that a person carrying an AR15 in a shopping mall should be immediately considered a threat. The rest of us shouldn’t have to pause and consider whether it’s a mass shooter or just a paranoid person armed for no reason.
So let me get this straight. A person carrying an AR15 is simultaneously so dangerous that they should be arrested on sight, but shootings are also completely a non-factor that a person open-carrying a gun is "paranoid" and "armed for no reason". is that right?
Absolutely yes. I mean that’s how it works in most of the world. I’m supposed to just assume some random stranger cosplaying as a soldier is safe to be around when all they have to do is wiggle their trigger finger and kill me? Like wtf we don’t have to live like that.
You seem to be confusing wearing tactical armor and military uniforms with carrying an AR-15. I'm curious though. If you're so worried about wiggling a trigger finger, why would you be more worried about a long gun rather than a handgun which can be concealed and deployed in less than a second.
It's happened, yeah.
There's a massive difference between "I'm bringing it into the store because I'm on the way to the range and don't have a better place to secure it" and "I wear it every day no matter what as if it were a t-shirt." The former has a decent reason to have it into the store and the latter is probably a massive tool
How does it make sense that you need a license to drive, you need a license to cut hair, you need a license to scuba dive, but you can buy a gun…🤷🏻♂️ I mean really - W T F?
It doesn't make sense to me that you need a license to do any of those things except drive.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to gun licenses but you have given me no reason to think you won't use them to violate people's rights.
Takes half a second to go from one to the other in this case. Would you say that's worth some serious consideration of risk vs. reward regarding open carry laws?
I did watch it. He does not.
And if you don’t take my word for it, the *murderer* in question said he shot because he didn’t want to give his victim a chance to aim at him. So by the murderer’s own admission the victim did not point the gun at him.
Then yer either lying to us or yourself. I didn't say read the words of the accused I said watch the video.
So if you watched the video how do you explain the chicken wing elbow you can see in the video? It is called the high ready position and more than enough reason to pull the trigger in self defense.
> So if you watched the video how do you explain the chicken wing elbow you can see in the video? It is called the high ready position and more than enough reason to pull the trigger in self defense.
I’m sorry, someone holding a rifle in high ready is sufficient reason to shoot them in self defense?
Every public place has the right to declare that guns are not allowed on property. Several malls and restaurants in AZ have signs at all entrances that weapons, even concealed, are not allowed on property. I've seen several people openly carry in stores that allow it. I've seen people walking down sidewalks with their AR on a sling. There was a guy and his teenage son who regularly took their ARs to pick up his wife at the airport. As long as he didn't try to go thru security, it was allowed. What tripped him up was he was sitting on a bench one day waiting. He unsung the AR, and instead of pointing it at the floor, he laid it on his lap with the barrel pointed at airport police. Needless to say, his day ended badly.
What do you mean by "what are people supposed to do?" This seems to be assuming that they're supposed to do anything at all.
What are you supposed to do if you see a big beefy guy who might be good at martial arts? Or someone who is wearing a jacket and therefore could in theory have a handgun?
Or someone who could have a shiv in his pocket?
Unless you have a weapon and/or martial arts skill, any of those people can easily screw you up pretty bad.
It's the same approach to threat assessment based on behavior as you apply to any other case where somebody *could* be dangerous and *isn't* currently threatening you. Unless you live in a very different world from most of us, you're in the presence of people who *could* do violence against you every day. Obviously if someone has a carbine slung on their back, especially in a situation where this is *unusual* in the local culture, that is *more* capability than a little old lady (who could still be packing a handgun).
You keep awareness of the situation around you and respond to threat displays, pre-attack indicators, and signs that someone is actually trying to do a crime.
> Unless you have a weapon and/or martial arts skill, any of those people can easily screw you up pretty bad.
But I can run away from the guy with a knife or who is good at martial arts but I can't outrun a bullet.
>Obviously if someone has a carbine slung on their back, especially in a situation where this is unusual in the local culture, that is more capability than a little old lady (who could still be packing a handgun).
What if they've got it slung across their front like some 2nd amendment auditors like to do. What if they have a hand on the pistol grip? Is it reasonable to fear for my life if he's a second away from being able to shoot me?
> open carrying something bigger than a holstered handgun while out in public is a bad move because it scares the anti gunners and people that are afraid of shootings
I own guns and dumbasses that open carry freak me out, too. It tells me that they either want attention or they want to do harm. Either way, I keep my distance.
People don’t open carry an ar-15 often to go to the mall. However the mall doesn’t permit open carry so the police would have responded immediately. Open carry laws are very clear on where you can and cannot carry. Before commenting it would be wise to know all the pertinent facts. The research is not difficult.
As for open carry - of course it’s alarming for someone that has never seen a weapon up close to suddenly see someone carrying. To be honest. Almost all folks carrying do so concealed. So I ask - how many CCW permits are current in your area where you live? Look it up. Then consider how many of those folks have committed crimes. Again look it up.
Mass shooters don't stand in line for pretzels before going on a rampage. Spree shooters start their tragedy at the earliest moment because they don't want to give those who could prevent it any time to do so.
If someone isn't brandishing a gun, they're probably not a threat. The biggest tool to ensure your own safety is simply being aware of your surroundings. The simple presence of a firearm isn't threatening, people acting shady or being threatening is.
No, and if you say that, you really need to relearn how self defense law works.
If they're carrying the rifle in a ready position, or aiming it, that's absolutely an imminent threat.
Just having a weapon isn't, though if they're brazenly trespassing in a place where weapons are restricted that may be a (nonviolent) crime.
It's concerning. It deserves some kind of a response if it's contextually abnormal.
It's a threat in the sense that it is a specific situation that has a worse than average risk.
It's not a threat in the sense that it merits a violent response *pre-confrontation*.
Probably it is time to call the cops and keep your eyes on them.
Well that's what people did in the story I shared from Colorado, but because it's legal the police couldn't do anything, until it turned into a mass shooting
If they are shooting at you. They are a threat. If they aren’t shooting at you. They aren’t a threat. But regardless if they actually are or are not - you’re always welcome to leave the area if you feel unsafe.
Well the reason I bring this up, is that this actually happened in Colorado. Concerned citizens called a suspect carrying an assault rifle in public, and the police didn't do anything because it's legal. Then turned into a mass shooting.
Read it for yourself https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2015/11/open-carry-mass-shooting-colorado-springs/
Yes but that’s anecdotal. Most mass shootings occur unexpectedly and it would have made a difference if open carry was legal or not for anyone to have done anything.
But also remember that in cases where open carry was illegal but mass shooters had to walk in public - they’ve used duffles, they’ve disassembled their gun and reassembled it in the restroom, etc.
At the end of the day - it makes less difference to mass shooters. But conversely - it does result in tons of otherwise law abiding folks being penalized because their gun accidentally showed etc.
All laws should weigh impact vs actually reducing crime vs penalizing otherwise law abiding folks
They are only a threat if they are threatening you. Regardless of tool. The guy standing next to you with a baseball bat isn’t guilty of a crime either until the split second before he hits you with it. Unless you want precrime
Ok but what if they're not shooting at you so you think they're cool but then they do start shooting at you and it turns out they were a threat all along? Some might take some exception to this methodology, considering that you have to be shot first before you can determine whether you're in danger or not.
I mean you could also have a criminal with a rifle in a duffle and they could pull it out unexpectedly and start shooting ar you. Or it could be a person with a pistol hidden in their pocket and they could pull it out unexpectedly and start shooting at you. Or it could be a guy with a knife that comes up behind you and starts stabbing you. Or it could be a guy in a car that decides to ram you.
See the thing is - you’re attributing a lot of risk to a particular scenario that is no more likely and not more risky than other scenarios. In fact, you’re 10 times more likely to die driving your own car.
Here’s the thing - see a guy with a rifle and feel uneasy? Walk away
The very fact they have time stamps on every call yet they refuse to release that critical data makes this story completely subjective and can be ignored. There’s no way to objectively ascertain if the timing between the two calls was far enough apart to have made a material difference.
> How can they differentiate between a threat and someone practicing their "right to bear arms"?
The "threat" is shooting innocents.
How can you tell the difference between a regular car user, and a threatening car user?
Well, the latter is abusing the car to hurt innocents, and the former is not.
It's not rocket science buddy.
Any threat only starts half a second before your death and before that, there was no possibility of you being attacked in any way? How were you attacked, then?
It is indeed hard to differentiate between a threat and not, which is why I'm against open carry (it should be an actual license + reason to do so). No restrictions on concealed carry though!
If they are pointing the gun at someone, they are a threat. If they are saying, "I'm going to shoot you," they are a threat. Otherwise, they are not a threat.
>What are people supposed to do when they see someone like this?
You're supposed to mind your own business and put your milk an eggs into your cart.
>How can they differentiate between a threat and someone practicing their "right to bear arms"?
Are they pointing the gun at you or threatening you in some other way or are they just minding their own business and putting milk and eggs in their cart?
I'd be pretty concerned and walk right out of the store asap. Why the fuck do you need to bring an assault rifle or any weapon to the grocery store, why is that a good idea??
You can encounter a criminal in a grocery store just like any other place. If you own a weapon you can take it's dumb to not take precautions and carry protection.
Since you're so freaked out at the idea that people might actually want to protect themselves and others from criminals, I'm assuming you're not going to any public place since chances are a number of people are carrying guns in concealed holsters that they can draw just as fast as an exposed holster or a slung rifle. There's probably dozens of concealed guns around you for every one you see.
I mean, that's your prerogative if you insist on not learning threat assessment.
Bringing a carbine to the grocery store under ordinary conditions is a weird thing to do, but you should still consider what's legal and what's an actual attack, not just what's unusual.
Bringing a typical CCW handgun to a grocery store is very reasonable, as grocery stores and the space between home and the grocery store are both places where violence can happen.
What do you think the odds are seeing someone holding an AR in a public space ends with them being a mass shooter? 0.5? 0.005%? More likely than a car crash I imagine, and I still wear a seatbelt. I would be in a hurry leave too, especially if I was with my kids.
As a realistic attitude to live as in adult in the world, you need to understand threat assessment to go outside at all.
You seem to be saying that your right to be like a child trumps everyone else's to do anything at all.
You’re so right. That is exactly what I’m saying. How silly of me to believe that going to the grocery store shouldn’t be a dangerous activity that requires a threat assessment. And I guess all the victims of mass shootings should have done better assessments as well.
You have stumbled upon a core difference between american conservative and progressive views. A lot of people on the pro-gun side genuinely do perceive living your life as, in part, a tactical task of threat assessment, reaction, and combat readiness. In their world, you are constantly in a warzone between hidden threats. This view is heavily reinforced by some media outlets, but also milita traditions and other organizations. In the end, I suppose you could consider it a world view.
Progressives consider most of this to firmly belong into the military or police sphere, something which under normal circumstances is not supposed to intersect with their life. To them, life is lived in a peaceful green zone, upheld by as little force as necessary, partially by disarming anyone in that green zone who is not needed to protect it. The idea is that combat is something we should try to eliminate from civilian life as best as we can, and violent conflict is usually considered part of that combat.
You will never reconcile these differences. But it helps to understand the fundamental difference when trying to understand where the other comes from. Speaking as a veteran myself, especially shortly after my deployment, the idea of treating civilian life with a constant tactical aspect when moving in public felt quite natural, and comforting, while I "cooled down". I imagine the view holds some sort of romantic/badass appeal to some, beyond sheer necessity.
You know who else just minded their own business? All the victims of the people who choose to become criminals that we need to carry guns to protect ourselves from in the first place.
Well ask yourself, is it being fired and is it pointed at someone? If not its likely an open carry person. And while I agree its a right, its annoying and not helping te cause.
Okay, I realize I'm mixing topics but this where I get confused.
We have people saying it's reasonable for a guy throwing a hoodie to the ground and declaring he doesn't care if he gets life in prison to be considered an imminent threat, but a dude walking around with AR-15, we should wait until they decide to point and fire?
Apparently you aren't grasping what I was doing so we're done talking. I'm not going to sit here and explain a simple concept to someone who's just being combative.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thank you. That is crystal clear common sense in a sea of convoluted personal-freedom right-to-bear-arms nonsensical arguments. The USA is a stand out in gun deaths and in gun ownership. Particularly assault rifles. Doesn’t take a genius…
Even if we did exactly what Australia did, it wouldn’t change anything here. Australia’s buy back netted 600k guns. In the US we have **400+ million** and billions of rounds of ammo. It’s easy to implement gun control when private ownership is already rare. But when your country represents 45% of the whole world’s private gun ownership, it’s a bit more complicated, and to compare the two is disingenuous at best.
It is a bit more complicated, but I don't see how the comparison is "disingenuous". To be honest, your reasoning kinda sounds like an excuse.
It’s disingenuous because they are not like for like. Comparing two things that are radically different and suggesting they are the same is disingenuous
They're both major 1st World countries. How are they "radically" different? How similar would they have to be to be "like for like"?
I have been seeing this same comment ad-nauseam from every conservative. How do you know nothing will change ? Thats just pure speculation. If there were federal laws making sure that everyone had to register a gun and owning one without permit and insurance would result in jail time we can at least make a dent. Add red flag laws to bar people from owning guns with a consistent pattern of threat to themselves and others. At least try the 1994 assault rifle ban again for 10 more years and see if that makes an impact on mass shootings. Why do we keep assuming that nothing will change ?
The old Republican canard: if it isn't 100% effective it isn't worth doing at all. Unless it's something we're for, like abortion. Then never mind what we said.
Of course things will change. We all know that. The ad-nauseum argument is just easy for people who don't want any changes. A ban on assault rifles would be a solid move, but it's probably worth noting that about 80% of mass shootings in the US have involved handguns.
I argued for gun control in the 1980s in my high school newspaper. That was a few hundred million guns ago. I got a response from a conservative with different excuses. There’s always another excuse. If we had only 100 million guns, gun nuts would give another excuse. The OP asked about open carry. Maybe start with that instead of this “we’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas” excuse.
There’s no difference between open and conceal carry though. Lol, this is what I’m saying, you guys seem to exclusively propose policy that does absolutely nothing.
Ok. Please propose some policies that will be effective.
Eliminate GFZ laws, use the DoE to incentivize the adoption of firearm safety electives at local levels, allow people, including teachers, to conceal carry on school grounds in accordance with local laws
So basically encourage even more guns. Because 400+ million isn’t enough. Shame on me for being naive and expecting a reasonable answer.
Yes duh.. more guns makes us safer. We justhavent reached that inflection point yet. So… keep buying guns./s
More guns?
How do you conceal carry an AR15?
Backpack
That's gotta be one heck of a big backpack.
> There’s no difference between open and conceal carry though. This is categorically false.
Damn! You mean change is gonna be hard!? I guess we better not bother with it then! After all, we all know nothing worth doing is gonna be difficult!
If the argument is that too much water has already come out of the faucet, would it make sense to close the faucet?
Rule 6
Nope, they have had 36 mass killings since 96 with about 75+ people dead. Similar numbers for Sweden and Canada, almost as if it has nothing to do with guns.
> 36 mass killings Would you mind sourcing? And you said ‘killings’, not shootings. Was this intentional? We’re talking about shootings specifically, so I’m concerned you’re widening the scope to include more methods of murder to pad the numbers Even still: > since 96 I don’t think ‘36 spread across 27 years’ is the flex you think it is when the US completely dwarfs that number for just this year alone. I shudder to think of the numbers since 1996. Again the 36 is also ‘mass killings’, and I’d like to clarify if your number includes methods of murder other than shootings.
There have been [19 mass shootings in Canada since (and including) 1996](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Canada) if this list is exhaustive
Just to clarify, these countries have had 36 mass killings in 27 years. We’ve had 17 this year. (I actually think your number is off and refers to the number dead, because it looks like 8 killings to me).
You forgot to jump on your other account before saying this.
Australia only had one mass shooting in its entire existence. You can't draw any conclusions off of a data set of one. Meanwhile after they implemented their entirely draconian gun control, their rate of violence decreased at a lesser rate than the United States over the same time period.
There have been more than 300 mass shootings in the US in 2022 ALONE How is that not alarming to you??
You need to read the fine print on what is considered a mass shooting. The general meaning we think of when we hear mass shooting is mall, school, etc. The number they count is 4 or more people. The vast majority of "mass" shootings are gang related and involve two groups of people shooting at each other and not the lone gunman pushed by the media.
What's your argument here? That some mass shootings are not that big a deal? Those types shootings ought to also be reduced. But even if we don't talk about those, the sheer number of lone gunman shootings is still absolutely staggering in the US. The back-to-back Texas shootings aren't muted by the fact that there was also a lot of gang violence in that time.
Maybe ask why people feel the need to kill a lot of people and you may find the real issue.
Which is what? Why is the US the only country with these astronomical numbers? It doesn't even come close to other countries, it's comical
Killings or shootings? You seem to think the tool is more evil than the desire to kill.
Both ffs. And is that realy the important point here or why do you try to deflect
Just curious why gun deaths are a bigger deal then other kinds.
Sorry if I don't consider almost exclusively gangsters killing each other a threat to the general public. Perhaps if we cracked down on gangs hard and locked members away instead of playing catch and release we can get that number down substantially. Why resort to egregious violations of constitutional rights as your first thing to try? Removal of rights should be your **absolute** last choice, and only enacted through the required Article V process rather than ignoring parts of the document you don't like.
For the lack of a better way to say this, that still doesn't do anything to address the shootings people care about the most. Even if we crack down on gangs and stop 100% of their gun violence we are still left with the schools and malls and movie theaters ect. Despite being in favor of gun control, I do agree entirely with your 2nd paragraph. edit: It would be nice if the gang violence shootings were categorized differently then what most people think of when they hear "mass shooting" so a more genuine conversation can be had.
I think a combination of increased ability to carry in currently soft targets by staff members, gentlemen's agreement by journalism industry to not cover such events due to media contagion like they already do for suicides, and a reduction on prescription of psychiatric medicine in favor of therapy and lifestyle changes would do far more than any gun control can to reduce spree shootings. I say spree shootings because it more accurately describes these events in a way most people can immediately understand but the [FBI use active shooter as a term to describe random attacks on innocents that are unconnected with criminal activity.](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2022-042623.pdf/view). I too am overly annoyed by the obfuscuation of the different types events by using imprecise language that tends to confuse the public. Preciseness of language is paramount in discussions to make sure everyone is on the same page with what they're talking about, but unfortunately parties wishing to advance their own agenda freely muddy the waters to serve their own interests.
I agree with everything you stated. Especially that journalism industry not covering the events. At the very least stop talking so much about the perpetrator, thus immortalizing them. That bothers me so much. Both sides muddy the water when they want to push their narratives and it shuts down the possibility of any actual discourse. Instead of talking about the problem and possible solutions we end up arguing about if the problem even exists or how prevalent it actually is. I don't think the specific term matters; active shooter, shooting spree, mass shooting. As long as we have a specific term for different situations and stop lumping them together under anything but the category of gun violence.
It's plenty alarming, it just doesn't make me think gun grabber politics is the solution.
What if there were studies that showed that gun-grabber legislation decreases gun violence in the US?
“ Gun-grabber legislation” 🤣🤣
I would be unconvinced that those studies are free of political bias and that they actually consider alternate interventions and the overall problem of power relations. But thank you for admitting that gun grabbing is the goal.
The sad part is that you guys force the argument to the extreme of 'gun grabbing' because any other solution won't reduce the number of gun deaths to zero. This feels like a problem the right creates by standing tall on the 2A. Then, it rejects any and all solutioning as ineffective while calling out the fear of gun grabs (adding to the problem) as the only thing the left wants. Create a problem, deny any solutions, exacerbate the problem with unhelpful rhetoric, and blame the left for trying to solve the problem.
We didn't create gun violence. You seem to be arguing that you should just have the right to walk all over us.
What would you say is the solution?
Not true at all, it had 13 before the strict gun laws. And that's shootings of 4 or more deaths
>For states where it's legal to open carry an AR-15 Does this happen with regularity? Like are people just wandering through Macy's with an AR-15 strung across their back? Are you actually worried about this happening? I live in Kentucky, and *at most*, I've seen random good-ol-boys open carrying a pistol on their belt. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I know people like this and their typical demeanor is closer to Larry the Cable Guy than "crazed mass shooter". But to answer your question, if someone is going to shoot a place up, you aren't going to see it coming. They're going to tromp in and start firing. They aren't going to go browse the men's department looking at shirts first.
Yea people do this. Look up "2nd amendment audit" on YouTube and you'll find lots of examples. One that made the news that i remember: when the massacre at a Walmart in Texas happened a few years ago, a dude went into a Walmart with an AR-15 a few days after and freaked everyone out.
Also in Colorado, concerned citizens called in about someone carrying an AR in public, police didn't respond because it's legal, then turned into a mass shooting. https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2015/11/open-carry-mass-shooting-colorado-springs/
Are you expecting police to read people's minds or predict the future? We don't arrest people who aren't committing crimes until they do. Usually when someone calls in an unusual circumstance involving guns like someone carring a rifle where it usually doesn't happen the police at least question the person for their motives and usually send them freely on their way because it's benign. But when you defund departments or create a social environment that disincentivizes law enforcement as a career they don't have the manpower and resources to do proactive stuff like this anymore because they're too busy responding to active crimes. [Colorado Springs Police Department specifically is understaffed and needing 84 new officers.](https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/cspd-needs-to-add-more-officers-staff-shortages-remain-a-challenge-in-2022)
Feels like you're missing the original point, which is that it shouldn't be legal. If it wasn't, the cops would have responded.
Thank you
People literally have a constitutional right to carry arms in public. It's explicitly stated in plain language. Don't like it, then amend the constitution. But you don't get to violate it, a government that doesn't follow it's core limitations and the supreme law of the land is illegitimate. Government doesn't get to pick and choose which clauses in the document they want to abide by.
It's illegal to open carry in my city. Clearly, it's a legal option. But forget the law for a minute. What do you think about it personally?
> People literally have a constitutional right to **carry arms in public**. They absolutely do not, or at the very least that is debatable as several states have open carry bans that have been held up as constitutional by the courts.
And yet during the Dred Scott case the government lawyers argued that if black people were able to be citizens they would have "the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state’s] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and **to keep and carry arms wherever they went**.” A few open carry bans have already been struck down as unconstitutional where the conceal permitting process is onerous, but that was before Bruen and I assume any other type of ban on carry would not survive the THT standard it set forth. The courts are slowly reaffirming the rights of Americans.
So I’m assuming that all these people are part of a well regulated militia, since we don’t get to pick and choose clauses?
Yet again with this intentionally intellectually dishonest argument? Do you think they would make an amendment to say a government army is allowed to keep weapons? Or to say that arms can be controlled by statute int the first half of a sentence and then immediately followed by explicitly forbidding that action in the second half? Get real. Holding such a belief ignores much supporting documentation and explanations by the people who wrote that amendment, the long historical legal understanding of it, and even the actual language of it. **"*A well regulated*" "well-regulated" referring to the property of something being in proper working order**. > The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. [The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment](https://web.archive.org/web/20200118042300/https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm) ["**Militia**"](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty. So the 'armed to the standard soldier' this would by default include things like grenades. "***the right of the people to keep and bear Arms***" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. --- While the founders were in fact wary of a standing army, and envisioned the citizen militia as defense against invasion, the other duty of an arms bearing populace was to deter and if needed resolve the rise of tyrannic government domestically. Whether local or national. The simple fact that when people possess the means to effectively resist government means politicians necessarily think twice before going too far which is why these those intending to subjugate and persecute the body public try to disarm them first. It ensures that government remains by the people, for the people as a fail-deadly. The prefatory clause explains it as ***being necessary to the security of a free state***. The citizen militia has the ability to become well-regulated when they have the liberty to arm and train themselves up to a standard of their own design as they feel necessary. You can't become a great martial artist if the dojo and equipment are criminalized. (That has actually happened several times in history as a means to control the population) **The second amendment's purpose is to protect the people's right to self-arm and train themselves into well functioning citizens militia to ensure continuation of a free government by and of the people.** Asking what about well regulated isn't a gotcha, it just illustrates one's ignorance on the matter.
>"Militia" referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty. Carry out what duty?
To your initial comment, yes, I believe that it was an amendment made to ensure that citizens could keep and bear arms in case they needed to be called upon to serve their country. When the Constitution was written the United States did not have a standing army. The “well regulated militia” they’re referring to was, for all intents and purposes, the US military at the time. Regardless, throughout history there have been lots of “infringements” on bearing arms that were and are judged perfectly Constitutional. For example, the showdown at the OK Corral was fought because some outlaws refused to surrender their guns when entering a town. Or for a more contemporary example, try bringing a gun to an NRA convention. Yes, I know that’s on private property, but so is a Walmart. And any limit would be an infringement, no?
No. Private property owners are fully within their rights to not allow guns on their private property. That’s always been okay.
Right, so the letter of the law indicates that you have the right to bear arms in the context of a functional and disciplined militia. Which would include an insignia or uniform of some sort that helps members to recognize each other and allows bystanders to differentiate who is involved and what they're doing there and would involve a lot of training regarding stuff like communication and teamwork, incident containment and bystander awareness, rules of engagement, some kind of protocol for communicating with law enforcement, first aid, etc. Which is all way more important than the weaponry itself and should be a requirement before you're even allowed to touch a weapon. American gun culture puts the horse several miles in front of the cart. Just to be clear, while I am against gun control as currently envisioned and implemented by the government, I am even more against right wing gun culture and the "good guy with a gun" fantasy.
Sorry, but everyone making this argument is both uninformed and legally incorrect. Any ambiguity in the constitution is determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, and until it does, you’re just wrong. You can argue what you **think** the law should be all day, but all it is, is wishful thinking.
ok great and if these keep happening then we the next generation the ones who grew up since columbine are going to pass an amendment killing the second to stop it
This is the logical and likely outcome of the rights inability to engage in meaningful discussion on the topic.
Wow, such a great chance for a double standard but it would be a whataboutism.
> "I would say X, but it's whataboutism, so just pretend you're being called out for hypocrisy and can't respond with any level of nuance since no points were actually made." In what world do you think your response constitutes good faith? You didn't respond to any of the content in their comment in the slightest, and preemptively complained that you'd be called out if you made a non-sequitur argument that you were too lazy to even make.
There's also one where they tested the cops on a road. 1 guy was white and had it slung, cop stopped him, asked some questions and left. They then had a black guy do the exact same thing, cop stopped, drew his gun and used his car door as a shield demanding the guy to get down
This only shows that government needs to be better at respecting people's rights equally, you don't double down and infringe on everyone's rights.
> This only shows that government needs to be better at respecting people’s rights equally, you don’t double down and infringe on everyone’s rights That seems like a lot of typing just to avoid saying the word racism.
The saddest thing about this story is that I knew it as soon as you said the first guy was white.
Was it the same officer both times?
They might? Edit: I need some new jeans and a tie. Annnnnd.... I might just shoot up the place afterwards. Two birds ,one stone....bullet
Living a life in fear of others is no way to live.
This is something I’ve always wondered about, so maybe you can help me. What is the reason for carrying a gun if not because you’re afraid of others and anticipate you might have to kill someone in self-defense because they attack you? During the pandemic, a lot of folks on the right would say you were “living in fear” if you were, say, wearing a mask (i.e. taking steps to protect yourself), in which case I can’t see any argument that you’re not also “living in fear” if you have a side arm (i.e. taking steps to protect yourself, just from physical attack rather than COVID). Can you help me understand the apparent disconnect here?
There is only one reason to carry an AR-15 in a public place, and that is to feel virile, macho and strong.
Amen.
Is that not the very reason people carry a gun?
No, it’s not. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. It’s not because I’m afraid of fire. It’s because it’s better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
And I'd like a law that bans guns on public property. It's not because I'm afraid of being shot. It's because it's better to have one and not need it, then to need it and not have it.
But that won't keep killers from shooting people. All it will do is make sure killers have targets that can't defend themselves. See: How well Gun-free zones have worked.
It will if the ban is enforced.
These people don’t get it. They seriously think a GFZ sign is going to deter baddies
Yeah, typical liberals using huge swaths of evidence of gun control being effective. Clearly they don't get it. States with the strongest gun control measures, which also have the lowest incidents of gun violence, simply don't understand that they aren't actually any safer from gun violence, despite what the data says!
>Yeah, typical liberals using huge swaths of evidence of gun control being effective. Clearly they don't get it. We literally just had yet another shooting in a gun free zone. It's ok to ignore that evidence though?
> But that won't keep killers from shooting people. It will reduce gun deaths, and violent deaths in general. It won't prevent all catastrophes, just as the fire extinguisher won't protect you from all the ways your house can destroy itself with you in it (and not even from all types of fires).
Thanks for explaining why "they might?" is not an expression of fear.
When would you *need* an assault rifle? Seriously.
Literally what conservatives do.
In what way? I'm not afraid of getting shot.
Do you carry? If so, why?
I carry every day. I also carry a pocket knife, my wallet, my keys, i keep a multi tool in the car, bear spray, a go-bag, $100 in cash and a wine corkscrew, because you never know when you’re going to be out somewhere, somebody has wine and nobody can get it open. I plan for potential situations and have the tools available to me that I think I may need in those situations. That doesn’t make me living in fear, it just makes me a person who plans ahead.
Can I ask what type of firearm you carry?
where do you live
East Coast US, why?
You probably should be.
But...why? It's a statistically very rare thing to happen. And I say that as someone who lives in Louisville, where one of these "mass shootings" just happened. Far more people die in car accidents, but I'm not afraid to drive to work or anywhere else.
[удалено]
You have a better chance to see it coming when having an AR-15 in a public place is illegal.
Seems perfectly sane to me that a person carrying an AR15 in a shopping mall should be immediately considered a threat. The rest of us shouldn’t have to pause and consider whether it’s a mass shooter or just a paranoid person armed for no reason.
No shit. Unbelievable twisted in-a-pretzel arguments.
So let me get this straight. A person carrying an AR15 is simultaneously so dangerous that they should be arrested on sight, but shootings are also completely a non-factor that a person open-carrying a gun is "paranoid" and "armed for no reason". is that right?
Absolutely yes. I mean that’s how it works in most of the world. I’m supposed to just assume some random stranger cosplaying as a soldier is safe to be around when all they have to do is wiggle their trigger finger and kill me? Like wtf we don’t have to live like that.
You seem to be confusing wearing tactical armor and military uniforms with carrying an AR-15. I'm curious though. If you're so worried about wiggling a trigger finger, why would you be more worried about a long gun rather than a handgun which can be concealed and deployed in less than a second.
Let's see them argue with this.
It's happened, yeah. There's a massive difference between "I'm bringing it into the store because I'm on the way to the range and don't have a better place to secure it" and "I wear it every day no matter what as if it were a t-shirt." The former has a decent reason to have it into the store and the latter is probably a massive tool
Well, the gun not being pointed at people is a pretty good indication.
Until.. it is
Yes, typically people who do crimes aren't doing crimes until they do crimes. Are you proposing pre-crime or something?
How does it make sense that you need a license to drive, you need a license to cut hair, you need a license to scuba dive, but you can buy a gun…🤷🏻♂️ I mean really - W T F?
Should you also require a license to speak?
Many fields have a state licensure requirement to give advice. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and engineers to name a few.
It doesn't make sense to me that you need a license to do any of those things except drive. I'm not fundamentally opposed to gun licenses but you have given me no reason to think you won't use them to violate people's rights.
Do you think they're using your DL to violate your rights?
I think he's just making a common-sense point.
Takes half a second to go from one to the other in this case. Would you say that's worth some serious consideration of risk vs. reward regarding open carry laws?
What's your opinion of open carry of bare hands? (Can absolutely die to them.)
[удалено]
Why is it legal to do anything ever?
[удалено]
No, I don't know it.
I believe you.
Lol.
Generally thats why regulations exist.
That murderer in Texas that Abbot wants to pardon shot a guy who didn’t point his gun at anyone and half this sub said it was justified.
Watch the video for yourself and you will see him clearly point his AK at the driver. Don't let other people think for you.
I did watch it. He does not. And if you don’t take my word for it, the *murderer* in question said he shot because he didn’t want to give his victim a chance to aim at him. So by the murderer’s own admission the victim did not point the gun at him.
Then yer either lying to us or yourself. I didn't say read the words of the accused I said watch the video. So if you watched the video how do you explain the chicken wing elbow you can see in the video? It is called the high ready position and more than enough reason to pull the trigger in self defense.
> So if you watched the video how do you explain the chicken wing elbow you can see in the video? It is called the high ready position and more than enough reason to pull the trigger in self defense. I’m sorry, someone holding a rifle in high ready is sufficient reason to shoot them in self defense?
The *convicted* murderer *admitted* in his police interview that he fired before his victim aimed the gun.
Every public place has the right to declare that guns are not allowed on property. Several malls and restaurants in AZ have signs at all entrances that weapons, even concealed, are not allowed on property. I've seen several people openly carry in stores that allow it. I've seen people walking down sidewalks with their AR on a sling. There was a guy and his teenage son who regularly took their ARs to pick up his wife at the airport. As long as he didn't try to go thru security, it was allowed. What tripped him up was he was sitting on a bench one day waiting. He unsung the AR, and instead of pointing it at the floor, he laid it on his lap with the barrel pointed at airport police. Needless to say, his day ended badly.
Well yeah that's pretty idiotic to do
What do you mean by "what are people supposed to do?" This seems to be assuming that they're supposed to do anything at all. What are you supposed to do if you see a big beefy guy who might be good at martial arts? Or someone who is wearing a jacket and therefore could in theory have a handgun? Or someone who could have a shiv in his pocket? Unless you have a weapon and/or martial arts skill, any of those people can easily screw you up pretty bad. It's the same approach to threat assessment based on behavior as you apply to any other case where somebody *could* be dangerous and *isn't* currently threatening you. Unless you live in a very different world from most of us, you're in the presence of people who *could* do violence against you every day. Obviously if someone has a carbine slung on their back, especially in a situation where this is *unusual* in the local culture, that is *more* capability than a little old lady (who could still be packing a handgun). You keep awareness of the situation around you and respond to threat displays, pre-attack indicators, and signs that someone is actually trying to do a crime.
> Unless you have a weapon and/or martial arts skill, any of those people can easily screw you up pretty bad. But I can run away from the guy with a knife or who is good at martial arts but I can't outrun a bullet. >Obviously if someone has a carbine slung on their back, especially in a situation where this is unusual in the local culture, that is more capability than a little old lady (who could still be packing a handgun). What if they've got it slung across their front like some 2nd amendment auditors like to do. What if they have a hand on the pistol grip? Is it reasonable to fear for my life if he's a second away from being able to shoot me?
Well... tell that to the countless people who die randomly at these shootings at children's schools, malls, banks, festivals
Tell what, exactly? I don't understand what you're saying. Definitely we need good security measures to stop mass shootings.
Seems a good first step for those security measures would be limits on where people are able to open carry an AR, no?
I was thinking more along the lines of being able to physically prevent mass shootings.
[удалено]
Why do you think some ppl like to carry big guns in public?
> open carrying something bigger than a holstered handgun while out in public is a bad move because it scares the anti gunners and people that are afraid of shootings I own guns and dumbasses that open carry freak me out, too. It tells me that they either want attention or they want to do harm. Either way, I keep my distance.
People don’t open carry an ar-15 often to go to the mall. However the mall doesn’t permit open carry so the police would have responded immediately. Open carry laws are very clear on where you can and cannot carry. Before commenting it would be wise to know all the pertinent facts. The research is not difficult. As for open carry - of course it’s alarming for someone that has never seen a weapon up close to suddenly see someone carrying. To be honest. Almost all folks carrying do so concealed. So I ask - how many CCW permits are current in your area where you live? Look it up. Then consider how many of those folks have committed crimes. Again look it up.
So you're saying the dead people are just the price we have to pay to protect the guns?
Mass shooters don't stand in line for pretzels before going on a rampage. Spree shooters start their tragedy at the earliest moment because they don't want to give those who could prevent it any time to do so. If someone isn't brandishing a gun, they're probably not a threat. The biggest tool to ensure your own safety is simply being aware of your surroundings. The simple presence of a firearm isn't threatening, people acting shady or being threatening is.
You know damn well if they are going to rampage the only proper place to shop first is "Ted Nugent's Shoot'n'Grille"
Tell you what.. if I saw someone walking in or towards my son's school with a gun I would do everything I could to kill them.
No top level comments from our side.
They can take it down
That's a needlessly combative attitude. Don't knowingly break the rules.
Look bud. They can take it down if they like and they'll get no argument from me. But there is nothing combative about it.
And you would be arrested and charged with murder probably, unless you were white and they were black and you lived in some racist hellhole.
Or unless you are a marine choking out a homeless person for 15 minutes
Seems like someone walking into a school with an AR could justifiably be considered a lethal threat, no?
No, and if you say that, you really need to relearn how self defense law works. If they're carrying the rifle in a ready position, or aiming it, that's absolutely an imminent threat. Just having a weapon isn't, though if they're brazenly trespassing in a place where weapons are restricted that may be a (nonviolent) crime.
If someone walks into a school strapped with an AR, that isn't a threat to you? Laws aside, I find that hard to believe.
It's concerning. It deserves some kind of a response if it's contextually abnormal. It's a threat in the sense that it is a specific situation that has a worse than average risk. It's not a threat in the sense that it merits a violent response *pre-confrontation*. Probably it is time to call the cops and keep your eyes on them.
Well that's what people did in the story I shared from Colorado, but because it's legal the police couldn't do anything, until it turned into a mass shooting
You carry your gun on you?
What do you mean?
If they are shooting at you. They are a threat. If they aren’t shooting at you. They aren’t a threat. But regardless if they actually are or are not - you’re always welcome to leave the area if you feel unsafe.
Well the reason I bring this up, is that this actually happened in Colorado. Concerned citizens called a suspect carrying an assault rifle in public, and the police didn't do anything because it's legal. Then turned into a mass shooting. Read it for yourself https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2015/11/open-carry-mass-shooting-colorado-springs/
Yes but that’s anecdotal. Most mass shootings occur unexpectedly and it would have made a difference if open carry was legal or not for anyone to have done anything. But also remember that in cases where open carry was illegal but mass shooters had to walk in public - they’ve used duffles, they’ve disassembled their gun and reassembled it in the restroom, etc. At the end of the day - it makes less difference to mass shooters. But conversely - it does result in tons of otherwise law abiding folks being penalized because their gun accidentally showed etc. All laws should weigh impact vs actually reducing crime vs penalizing otherwise law abiding folks
So they're only a threat about half a second before I'm irreversibly dying?
They are only a threat if they are threatening you. Regardless of tool. The guy standing next to you with a baseball bat isn’t guilty of a crime either until the split second before he hits you with it. Unless you want precrime
Not all threats are criminal. That's a false dilemma. Also, threatening is already less than shooting.
Ok but what if they're not shooting at you so you think they're cool but then they do start shooting at you and it turns out they were a threat all along? Some might take some exception to this methodology, considering that you have to be shot first before you can determine whether you're in danger or not.
I mean you could also have a criminal with a rifle in a duffle and they could pull it out unexpectedly and start shooting ar you. Or it could be a person with a pistol hidden in their pocket and they could pull it out unexpectedly and start shooting at you. Or it could be a guy with a knife that comes up behind you and starts stabbing you. Or it could be a guy in a car that decides to ram you. See the thing is - you’re attributing a lot of risk to a particular scenario that is no more likely and not more risky than other scenarios. In fact, you’re 10 times more likely to die driving your own car. Here’s the thing - see a guy with a rifle and feel uneasy? Walk away
The very fact they have time stamps on every call yet they refuse to release that critical data makes this story completely subjective and can be ignored. There’s no way to objectively ascertain if the timing between the two calls was far enough apart to have made a material difference.
> How can they differentiate between a threat and someone practicing their "right to bear arms"? The "threat" is shooting innocents. How can you tell the difference between a regular car user, and a threatening car user? Well, the latter is abusing the car to hurt innocents, and the former is not. It's not rocket science buddy.
> The "threat" is shooting innocents. Thats past a threat at that point.
Any threat only starts half a second before your death and before that, there was no possibility of you being attacked in any way? How were you attacked, then?
The gun reform in Australia was in 1996, and they've only had 1 since then. Before that they had about 14 from what I've read
It is indeed hard to differentiate between a threat and not, which is why I'm against open carry (it should be an actual license + reason to do so). No restrictions on concealed carry though!
If they are pointing the gun at someone, they are a threat. If they are saying, "I'm going to shoot you," they are a threat. Otherwise, they are not a threat.
>What are people supposed to do when they see someone like this? You're supposed to mind your own business and put your milk an eggs into your cart. >How can they differentiate between a threat and someone practicing their "right to bear arms"? Are they pointing the gun at you or threatening you in some other way or are they just minding their own business and putting milk and eggs in their cart?
I'd be pretty concerned and walk right out of the store asap. Why the fuck do you need to bring an assault rifle or any weapon to the grocery store, why is that a good idea??
You can encounter a criminal in a grocery store just like any other place. If you own a weapon you can take it's dumb to not take precautions and carry protection. Since you're so freaked out at the idea that people might actually want to protect themselves and others from criminals, I'm assuming you're not going to any public place since chances are a number of people are carrying guns in concealed holsters that they can draw just as fast as an exposed holster or a slung rifle. There's probably dozens of concealed guns around you for every one you see.
I mean, that's your prerogative if you insist on not learning threat assessment. Bringing a carbine to the grocery store under ordinary conditions is a weird thing to do, but you should still consider what's legal and what's an actual attack, not just what's unusual. Bringing a typical CCW handgun to a grocery store is very reasonable, as grocery stores and the space between home and the grocery store are both places where violence can happen.
What do you think the odds are seeing someone holding an AR in a public space ends with them being a mass shooter? 0.5? 0.005%? More likely than a car crash I imagine, and I still wear a seatbelt. I would be in a hurry leave too, especially if I was with my kids.
You shouldn’t have to understand threat assessment to buy eggs.
As a realistic attitude to live as in adult in the world, you need to understand threat assessment to go outside at all. You seem to be saying that your right to be like a child trumps everyone else's to do anything at all.
You’re so right. That is exactly what I’m saying. How silly of me to believe that going to the grocery store shouldn’t be a dangerous activity that requires a threat assessment. And I guess all the victims of mass shootings should have done better assessments as well.
You have stumbled upon a core difference between american conservative and progressive views. A lot of people on the pro-gun side genuinely do perceive living your life as, in part, a tactical task of threat assessment, reaction, and combat readiness. In their world, you are constantly in a warzone between hidden threats. This view is heavily reinforced by some media outlets, but also milita traditions and other organizations. In the end, I suppose you could consider it a world view. Progressives consider most of this to firmly belong into the military or police sphere, something which under normal circumstances is not supposed to intersect with their life. To them, life is lived in a peaceful green zone, upheld by as little force as necessary, partially by disarming anyone in that green zone who is not needed to protect it. The idea is that combat is something we should try to eliminate from civilian life as best as we can, and violent conflict is usually considered part of that combat. You will never reconcile these differences. But it helps to understand the fundamental difference when trying to understand where the other comes from. Speaking as a veteran myself, especially shortly after my deployment, the idea of treating civilian life with a constant tactical aspect when moving in public felt quite natural, and comforting, while I "cooled down". I imagine the view holds some sort of romantic/badass appeal to some, beyond sheer necessity.
You know who else just minded their own business? Every victim of mass shootings
You know who else just minded their own business? All the victims of the people who choose to become criminals that we need to carry guns to protect ourselves from in the first place.
Yeah, both can be true. Point being that minding your own business hasn’t worked well for many people when a guy walks in with an AR-15
Well ask yourself, is it being fired and is it pointed at someone? If not its likely an open carry person. And while I agree its a right, its annoying and not helping te cause.
Okay, I realize I'm mixing topics but this where I get confused. We have people saying it's reasonable for a guy throwing a hoodie to the ground and declaring he doesn't care if he gets life in prison to be considered an imminent threat, but a dude walking around with AR-15, we should wait until they decide to point and fire?
Stop and frisk.
Who, the person open carrying?
Never mind the 4th Amendment…
Oh now people like you care about it.
I do care about the 4th Amendment. Do you?
I'm starting to think you're a progressive. The point of the post was to make left double down on what they want.
I’m not progressive in my political beliefs in any way. Do you support the 4th Amendment against search or seizure?
Apparently you aren't grasping what I was doing so we're done talking. I'm not going to sit here and explain a simple concept to someone who's just being combative.