Open Carry Of Firearms: Yea Or Nay?

Being able to own a gun to protect yourself, family and property isnt a bad thing. But there should be restrictions on what type of weapons you can legally own.

I.ve seen Cops(the TV series) and people running around with automatic weapons and shotguns, ***i even saw one guy with a rocket launcher. Why the hell would anyone who isnt serving their country need anything higher calibre than a handgun?

This topic isn't about crime rates, it's about gun laws and carrying guns publicly. I only posted for that topic. If you want to start a new thread about crime rate.

The flaw in your logic is that there are already millions of firearms ou there legally and illegaly. Is taking away people's rights to bear arms in the United States something that will stop people from obtaining them? Will that actually prevent more death buy guns? In order to convince a lot of people that this would be a good idea you would have to convince them that you could get rid of all illegally carried weapons as well. That, or show them that a) law abiding citizens that carry become significantly more dangerous and likely to commit a crime if they carry b)that it actually makes them less safe and c) that it would benefit society as a whole to take away what is believed to be an constitutional right just as a starter.

Hunting?


You brought up rates. I'm saying if you want to correlate firearm ownership with rates, you have to look at the big picture. It's unfair to take a small excerpt out of context and say there is a connection.

That's the problem. Putting restrictions on them won't stop the wrong people from having them anyway.

Shotguns happen to be the best home defense weapon, and depending on your location, an excellent hunting weapon.

Rocket launchers are flat out illegal outside military use and contractors. Most likely a black market purchase.

Automatic weapons are also flat out illegal unless you own a class 3 license, (That's a couple years worth of classroom and certified range time to get.) and are only issued to military and SWAT type agencies. You see someone with one, most likely acquired it illegally.

See? was that so hard? Your arguement is alot better this time around rather than the previous "Idiot" statement. I agree with you, however i was specifically talking about the law making in the first place. If we would of never made them so readily available, then they would not be so many out on the streets.

What you hunting that you need a rocket launcher for? or even an automatic weapon. I thought hunters used shotguns so i`ll give you that one.

So this isn't about violent crime? Because I thought that was one of the very core issues in deciding gun laws.

Then you're right. Less guns, less deaths from guns.

Less Canteloupes, less deaths from canteloupes.

Less cars, less auto related deaths per year.

Less abortions, less deaths by abortion each year.

No joke - if you eliminate anything, fewer people will die by that thing. Weird, right?

Actually, that part has changed. It's about as easy to get your automatic license as it is your concealed now (assuming the TX concealed requirements).

>.>;

You brought up rates. I'm saying if you want to correlate firearm ownership with rates, you have to look at the big picture. It's unfair to take a small excerpt out of context and say there is a connection.[/quote]
I brought up, gun crime rates, because this topic is about OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS and how it pertains to laws and such. If this topic was about crime in general i would of given much more information. It is not fair to expect me to post every crime rate period. Would you of felt better if i posted the amount of people that die from car accidents as well? We would be here all night.

You would probably encounter those in such a close range scenario you still wouldn't want to use a rocket launcher. Automatic weapons, snipers and shotguns still work much much better on soft targets for most people. I'd reserve explosive launchers for armoured targets or vehicles.

too late to put this video up, but im gona start posting this everytime someone says something in a new forum thats gona start a flame war >_>

I don't believe suicide is a crime, and again you only took homicides. I stated a good reason why that would be lower in the UK, and again it doesn't necessarily relate to less gun related crimes, just homicides.

A. Hunters use: Rifles, pistols, shotguns, crossbows, spearguns, slingshots and bows.

B. Bullet size (caliber) measures the diameter of the round. Not the velocity, weight, or length. An M-16 is not the same as a .22, the diameter of an M-16 round is only .003 inches larger. Nor would it be responsible to shoot an elk with a .22 (or an M16, really.) Nor a .45 auto handgun. You also would be ineffective hunting pheasants with either - yet the diameter of a shotgun shell is immense compared to either a .45 or a .22.

Just general info, sorta related, for people that aren't familiar.

I wasn't clear. I was only referring to needing a larger calibre weapon than a handgun.

.22 short, .22 long rifle, .22 magnum, .380 auto, 9mm parabellum, 9mm largo, .38 special, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .45 Colt, .22-250 Remington, 410 bore shotgun, and .30-06.

That last one is a fairly common deer/elk/moose calibre hunting round.
The fourth bullet is a very capable self defence round.

The difference (besides the .38 being hollow point) would be a ton more powder equating to bullet velocity, penetration and knock down power. You would do an elk a disservice by hitting it with a .38 hollow point (ignoring handguns are hard to hunt with except for extremely close range). They would be severely wounded and bleed out over time. The -06 round should put it out the instant it hits the ground (which it would be knocked off of its feet solely by the ballistics force of the shell.

Because part of the reason they added the right to bear arms (in the usa) was for the 'comman man' to be able to over throw their government should the need ever arise.


If they out gun [arm] you by such an overwhleming amount then its more likly it wont happen even if it should.

All right, before I get all caught up in all of this, here's what I think:

My guns have not, are not, and will not be used irresponsibly. If ever they are, please, take them from me.

To me, it's as simple as that. I'd much rather there be a lot more discussion about how to stop criminals from getting guns - or how to stop them from being criminals, period, than about whether or not I am some kind of menace.

idc if somebody dies from a gun or a knife, they're dead either way.

You're right, stats don't lie, people do. Your numbers are irrelevant as they don't account for many other factors.

Making all guns illegal only leaves criminals with guns, pull your head out of your rear. The US is not the UK, different culture, different laws.

The numbers for suicide are irrelevant, as are accidental, stupid people will be stupid.

Homicide are irrelevant as well, criminals will be criminals, would you rather somebody rob you with a loaded gun and shoot you dead or at knife point and leave you lying for hours bleeding out. It's not really a choice, what are you going to do next outlaw knives?

Also here in the US (and this applies to us exclusively) we have a little thing called the Bill of Rights, and anyone who violates said bill is a traitor to the US.

reason why I think we should have access to tanks, etc.

oh as for hunting, as far as I'm concerned deer need to be extinct in the wild and hunting outlawed.

Then again I've hit a deer and almost hit two on the same road the other night so tad bit biased there.

Buy your meat at the store like everyone else and help the economy.

But venison tastes so much better than beef Jet.

Could also have the VA law..


allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the person carrying the weapon does not drink.


Yea.. cause that makes TOTAL sense

Its true that if we never made them or you make fewer there would be less out there to use to kill our fellow human beings. I'll agree with you on that but, and no offense, its not a discussion worth having really as it has already come to pass and we should be focusing on what we can do now. Is it our right to bear arms? Should our right to bear arms be trumped by overall public safety? What can we do to limit illegal trafficing of weapons? is educating our society about weapons, thier use and effects feasible and/or a good thing to do? What we need to do is discuss how we all feel about the issue and combine that with relevant statistics and studies. Hopefuly in the end come to some kind of solution (ideally) or compromise to better to the situation we face.

I disagree

VA has all sorts of insane policies, like how they had a surplus for 2010 and THEN cut education funding...

Your missing his point completely Jet. Hes arguing that if the US was more like the UK and had not manufactured and produced so many weapons to begin with then we wouldn't have as high a death toll as we do with guns as the means. So what he is saying is that less guns available altogether = less crime with guns which might be true but is not a possible reality these days.

Sorry, didn't know the proper protocol for shortening your name. 3 letters never seems to convey enough on many of the names on here.

I think beef (barring maybe prime rib/ribeye) pale in comparison to venison back strap and jerky .

Guns were everywhere in the UK. That was the first place on earth to have them in mass quantity. Hell, England was one of the first countries to have guns made solely for ornate and showmanship purposes. They were also the first (or second to Japan) to engage in sport shooting. A law change made all law abiding citizens turn them in. There was no difference a few years back.

Nowhere does he say anything about production in that statement, but ok... the point still stands, different culture, different laws.

If the US populace didn't have so many guns we'd have been destroyed years ago. So what-ifs are kind of pointless.

However you're last point is right, not a possible reality.