When did this become acceptable?

[rognp]

It is only a potential threat in the same way that any person posessing any tool for any reason is a potential threat. I personally would not view an openly carried rifle as any more inherently threatening than openly driving an SUV or openly carrying a chainsaw.

Would I be paying attention? Undoubtedly. But I would have no more reason to believe that the man in your school example was there to attack the school than to believe he was there to pick up his daughter after classes for a trip to the range.

Again, this is on principle in a healthy society. Clearly we don't live in a healthy society, but your position is clearly based in the kind of irrational fear that drives so much of the cultural division in this country. It isn't true that police are out hunting black people, just as it isn't true that someone open carrying a rifle and gear should be assumed to be an attacker. Perpetuating this fear as you appear intent on isn't helpful, and won't result in healing the divisions that do exist. The reality is your point of view is much more in line with views that will result in the potential future consequences you're cautioning against.

But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

Please note my post in regards to the cultural perceptions of our current demographics. Those of us who have used firearms in common sporting or domestic manners dont have raised pulses under most presentations, HOWEVER, those individuals who rarely venture out of doors, think eating meat is a sin, think meat comes from a machine wrapped in plastic, think due to movies and TV guns are only for death and destruction and multiple etc's. These people are threatened, intimidted and repulsed by the public display(brandishment) of firearms. In fact therein lies a major problem, that bubble has to be broken but not by threat.

[Sneed]

Lastly, I would like to complement the people who have been involved in this conversation for their civility. It is admirable and speaks well of this community.

It used to be that such conversations could occur in many online sites. No more, of course. Discussion is just not possible when everyone believes there are those who agree with them on everything and those who are dead wrong. With no contemplation and evaluation it all just becomes yelling at one another. The fact that that is not the case here is both exceptional and rewarding.

[rognp]

!!!

[sqlbullet]

I will further extend my previous comments to say this:  Too many locales have laws that make you a criminal if your concealed firearm becomes visible because open carry is not allowed.

I will continue to strongly support the legality of open-carry even if I don't generally agree with the way many people choose to open carry.

[Kenk]

As my carry class instructor, explained, the reason Minnesota has open, and or concealed carry is that if you are reaching for something high on a store shelf, and your weapon becomes exposed, your not looking at a ticket for doing so

Ken

[Rick R]

I will continue to strongly support the legality of open-carry even if I don't generally agree with the way many people choose to open carry.

Why does it always have to be open carry of some tier two plastic pistol in a black cloth gun bucket holster with a Velcro strap?   
If you're going to show off Have some class, wear a 1911 with ivory grips in a holster made out of some exotic animal hide! 

[Muskrat]

Interesting point regarding "accidental brandishing". I guess my two thoughts are that anyone entrusted to cary a concealed weapon should probably be expected to do it with enough forethought and skill that it's not going to be an issue. Also, it seems a WHOLE lot more prudent to simply rewrite the brandishing code to specify that it does not apply to someone who the CCW holder is not in conflict with seeing the weapon in a brief and accidental manner.

Folks have mentioned the issue of people being threatened by the sight of a weapon, but I think that context is key here.

Let's compare it to nudity. A naked person in a locker room isn't unusual...there's a reason to be naked in a locker room, and there's an expectation that if you go into a locker room you may well encounter naked people. It's akin to seeing someone at a firing range or farm field or deer stand with a rifle or shotgun...there's a reason for a person in that scenario to be carrying a long gun.

But encountering the same naked person from the locker room in the toy isle of walmart is an entirely different matter. While the nudity is the same, the context is not, and it's the display of socially inappropriate and illogical behavior which constitutes the threat.

To me, a person who carries a rifle at a downtown event is no different than someone attending the same event without any clothes...there is simply no good reason for it, and both of them just want to wag their junk in your face with no consideration for how it makes you feel. Whether they do harm or not, their motivations and decision making abilities are in grave doubt.

Frankly, I fear a armed person with questionable motivations and decision making abilities a whole lot more than naked one. The gun itself isn't the issue any more than the genitals are...it's the person who chooses to display them without just purpose and without any consideration for how other people might feel about it that's the vulgarity.

No doubt we have people who believe that it's appropriate to display a weapon anywhere. We also have people who feel it's appropriate to be naked anywhere, or to masturbate or copulate anywhere. None of those three activities cause harm to others in and of themselves, and of the three only the first constitutes an ability to physically harm others. But as a society we choose which behaviors are appropriate in public and which ones are not.

[Keiichi]

I get that you're coming to this discussion with strong beliefs, but the idea that open carrying a firearm is analogous to public nudity is ridiculous - even moreso that open carrying a firearm is a vice akin to a public pornographic display.

That rises well into the realm of prudishness founded on fearmongering exaggeration. It's the same outmoded logic that drove society-wide dress codes founded in fear of potentially encouraging sexual predation.

Some folks will likely agree with you, I suppose, but if that's the direction this discussion is going to go I'll step back as an observer. We're too far afield at that point.

[sstewart]

I agree with Kelichi on most points. But I am with sqlbullet mostly.

I feel that grace should be extended in and towards people on this.
My freedom should not cause a weaker brother or sister to sin.
Just because I can doesn't mean I always should.

Common sense and situational awareness applies.

Remember written words always seem more severe than spoken ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kenk]

Well put sstewart

[Keiichi]

@sstewart Of course, practically speaking actually open carrying comes with all of the common sense considerations like obeying the law, situational awareness, avoiding getting yourself into an untenable situation in the first place, etc.

I don't disagree with any of that, and I've specifically avoided addressing it to keep my responses concise and focused.

I have no problem with practical rationale for avoiding open carry of any firearm. I personally don't open carry often, though I have open carried in hunting contexts as well as pro-2A political rally contexts, including carrying a rifle, and I've done my due diligence considering the practical pro's and con's. I will freely admit that I am far more comfortable with firearms than the vast majority of folks.

My goal here is press home the importance of the way we talk about this topic from the standpoint of politics, philosophy, how our positions are articulated, and making sure our goals and positions move us away from the fear-based current paradigm, as well as making sure our arguments don't feed into the same logic used by those who would perpetuate and exacerbate it; the latter is precisely where Muskrat's position is. A significant number of practical considerations against open carry are a consequence of it.

I may have used strong language in some points to press the importance of it, but I've been careful to choose my words to express specifically what I mean. If I've come across as negative or gratuitous in any way, I apologize.

[sqlbullet]

I want to be clear... I am not talking about "accidental brandishing".  There are places (Florida) where even partial exposure of a holstered gun can cause you legal problems.

Further, I can imagine scenarios where I may indeed want to go in a "public place" dressed as you describe.  For instance, many years ago I was the assistant manager of a retail store.  If something bumped the alarm I was first on the call list to go check it out as I lived the closest.  The local LE was often busy with other calls and basically said they would not respond unless we looked and found evidence of a break in rather than a false alarm.  Heading over there I would consider it completely reasonable to be prepared for trouble, as in rifle slung and some magazines available.

Your nudity example is apropos.  I would suggest that in both cases, a nude person or a person open-carrying, there may be a need for an official response.  A nude person is considered to be in trouble or in need of mental help when that response occurs.  The armed man is, unfortunately, assumed to be a threat, when in fact they may be responding to a threat, or just have an anticipation that a threat may manifest.

The reality is if we have laws against nudity and you are innocently stuck outside your house cause you were letting the dog out, the responding officer will probably have a chuckle and you will have a red face.  If, on the other hand, you are openly armed for an equally innocuous reason, you are at best going to jail for a bit and at worst going to the morgue.

I agree that most of the guys that open-carry at protests, etc, aren't helping the cause.  But the reality is we need to find some way to normalize thinking of an armed man in public to the same way we think of a nude man in public:  He probably needs help.

[Keiichi]

I like the idea of moving from fear and suspicion to helpful concern as a way to move the Overton window in the short term, but very much disagree that it should be the end goal to primarily associate open carry of firearms with mental illness in the cultural milieu.

We need to find a way to normalize open carry of a firearm with regular, law abiding, responsible behavior.

Here's an analogy that I think is appropriate as a starting point.

Who do we culturally trust to be in possession of an openly carried firearm? Police, servicemen, bank security. Why do we trust them? We believe that they have been appropriately trained and assume they will be law abiding and responsible.

Statistically speaking, automobiles are associated with death and injury significantly more often than firearms.

Who do we culturally trust to be in possession of an automobile? Pretty much every random stranger. Why do we trust them? Because drivers education is nearly universal and we assume that such a person is generally going to be responsible and law abiding. Part of that education is how to recognize the difference between responsible and irresponsible use of a vehicle.

I submit, an example of what we should be doing is to push for youth safety education for firearms to be as commonplace as drivers ed, and at a similar age. This isn't a novel idea. Decades ago, before the fear-based nerfing of the culture, youth firearm education was normal and possession of a firearm in public was not viewed anywhere near as negatively as it is today.

[jthoresen]

We need to find a way to normalize open carry of a firearm with regular, law abiding, responsible behavior.

Agreed - open carry needs to be normalized not feared.

[sqlbullet]

Help doesn't mean mental illness.  Could be a poor assistant manager going to clear the store after an alarm and he needs help with the task.