Thread: "Open Carry" Gun Laws

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

My da never did when they called for a voluntary recall. Oh ya, that was Canada. They live in town now, but he still has his guns. "Ain't nobody taking my guns," he said. How do they kill each other in Ozland? Butcher knives or head-butts?

"Ain't nobody taking my guns,"

Quaint.

How do they kill each other in Ozland? Butcher knives or head-butts?

Interestingly enough it seldom happens . . . go figure.

Originally Posted by Aguda

Mr. Hat,
Do you mean only criminals and law enforcement, soldiers etc. or that law abiding citizens would still carry firearms?

My response was to the following sentence by Milkman:

"If guns are banned, only the criminals would carry them, no?"

The primary function of a government-regulated 'militia', aka a police force, is to keep law and order. So, no. If guns are banned then not only the criminals would have guns and it would certainly limit the number of guns in circulation.

Originally Posted by Aguda

if handguns are outlawed do you really believe that the criminal element will willingly turn in their weapons?

Of course not but, as above, it would limit the number of guns in circulation. BG states that every household has a gun, that is total and utter nonsense . . . if you look at statistics then you will find the number of guns almost equal to the number of people . . . but as BG states, he has a multitude of guns . . . say 20, that would mean that 20 households don't have one, therefore disproving his rants, err, statement.
I worked for a company in Phoenix and the sales VP had over 40 guns in his arsenal . . . doing the calculation is not difficult.

Again, as Ant points out, the discussion is not about hunting rifles, which are used for . . . hunting. The discussion is about concealed, or not, handguns, which serve only one purpose.

^Whatever you said, hatter, it's not a clean kill. 5555555555

Originally Posted by panama hat

The discussion is about concealed, or not, handguns, which serve only one purpose.

Wrong again.
I have a number of short guns too, and they are used for hunting, hunting what depends on the caliber and gun carried.,, Target and recreational shooting,,which can include the smaller calibers.. even the heavy MM field guns of the military serve multi purpose, but which mainly makes all guns relative is that what ever the use is, a projectile of some sort does leave the muzzle at high velosity..

And I have some guns that were not built for killing and even others that are hunting or service guns have never killed anything.
I have one model 52 winchester that weighs about 10 pounds, is 22 rimfire cal. and has a 24X scope and is only used in Match shooting in indoor gallerys.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by panama hat

The discussion is about concealed, or not, handguns, which serve only one purpose.

Wrong again.

So you are saying that you use guns that are covered under the open carry gun laws to hunt your moose, elk, deer, porpoise, bear, coyote, SMEG, wabbits, hobbits and gollywogs?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^Whatever you said, hatter, it's not a clean kill. 5555555555

. . . and whatever you say makes no sense . . . as usual . . . 555555555 55555555555 5555555555555

Don't you ever get tired of laughing at yourself?

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^Whatever you said, hatter, it's not a clean kill. 5555555555

. . . and whatever you say makes no sense . . . as usual . . . 555555555 55555555555 5555555555555

Don't you ever get tired of laughing at yourself?

Ahhhhhhhh- YOU'RE Hatter- I wondered about that- I've recently been lumped in with you and added to Jet's "enemies list"- this was aimed at me yesterday:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ Another loser in Issues? We've finished your little piece of playground biz so move on. Hurry, ray, hatter et al are calling you.

Well, from what I've read of your posts so far, I'm in good company.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Ahhhhhhhh- YOU'RE Hatter

Guilty as charged . . . this is her tamest moniker for me, when she's not slagging off family

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Jet's "enemies list

Pretty much everyone bar BoonMee, dotcom . . . umm . . . that's about it. Just proclaim your unding love for Bush and Reagan, treat FOX News as your information bible and use the term 'libbie' liberally <cough> while calling Obama anything bad . . . and you too can be her friend (Also use 55555, fek, libtards etc...)

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Well, from what I've read of your posts so far, I'm in good company.

Too kind, sir!

5/ 4 decision based on Sotomayor lying to the Senate in Testimony.

Originally Posted by dotcom

5/ 4 decision based on Sotomayor lying to the Senate in Testimony.

Right...& we are supposed to accept that this lesbo biatch Kagan who is testifying right now ain't lying? It's fucked-up...

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. "Thomas Jefferson"
2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello

Pretty much all of the controversy over the recent Arizona murders has been around extreme Right Wing rhetoric, virtually none about how a nutcase was able to carry a recently obtained, legal, and legally concealed, handgun to a political gathering. The NRA, & AZ State laws have gotten off very lightly.

This article from the National Review in Australia raises several good points, and contrasts the USA's lack of progress in gun control and gun homicides, to Australia's sterling performance since the Port Arthur massacre.


So much resentment in the land of alienated patriots

We might ponder how easily the suspect became one of the 40 per cent plus of Americans who own a firearm. There is a strong correlation between the number of guns in a society and deaths resulting from them.

Although we should not leap to simple explanations, it is surely not a coincidence that the US has a homicide rate (6 per 100,000 population in 2004) more than four times higher than Australia's (1.3) and 12 times higher than in Britain and Japan (0.5).

All Australians should be grateful to the former prime minister John Howard for his heroic introduction of stronger gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. In the five years to 1996 there were on average 81 firearms homicides in Australia each year; in the five years afterwards, the average was 53, and the most recent figure was 30, a historic low. Just as importantly, between 1991 and 1995 there were on average 446 suicides involving firearms a year; between 1998 and 2001 this was down to 239.

The gun lobby is so entrenched in America that this latest outrage does not even seem to have produced any demands for reform. What has been more of an issue is the possible link between the militant rhetoric of right-wing politicians and media and this shooting. The link was advanced most immediately by the local sheriff and by Giffords's father.
So much resentment in the land of alienated patriots

The article also does a pretty good demolition job on the teabaggers and fox. Well worth a read.

Originally Posted by sabang

Pretty much all of the controversy over the recent Arizona murders has been around extreme Right Wing rhetoric, virtually none about how a nutcase was able to carry a recently obtained, legal, and legally concealed, handgun to a political gathering. The NRA, & AZ State laws have gotten off very lightly.

A little refresher on gun control and the Tea Party for you K. sabang:

California: The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor and attacks his dog.

1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie "Bambi" and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is only doing what is natural.

2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures coyote and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.

3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases.

4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite woundbandaged.

5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals.

6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a "coyoteawareness" program for residents of the area.

7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.

8. The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack somehow and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene.

9. Additional cost to State of California : $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes.

10. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files suit against the State.


Arizona: The Governor of Arizona is jogging with her dog along a nature trail. A Coyote jumps out and attacks her dog.

1. The Governor shoots the coyote with her State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge.

2. The Buzzards eat the dead coyote.

And that, boys and girls, is why California is broke .
................
And more importantly, why too much government doesn't work.

And if you understand this, you understand the Tea Party

Personally I think every country should make and keep their own laws about guns.
I have never owned one or wanted to but I do recall a time when I was project leader on a site in what was then North Yemen .
The main contractor INSISTED that I should carry an unconcealed gun as the locals all had them and if I didn't then I would not get any respect from our sub-contractors !!
Worked all day with a bloody great 'hand cannon' stuck in my belt ! It was a .45 automatic - cant remember what make !
Fired it once up in the hills - horrible thing
But - horses for courses- if that is what is accepted in a country and expected from you - just do it !

Originally Posted by UpTooYou

Is there a need to carry a gun?

If everyone else including the bad guys have got one then probably YES.

The price you pay for flooding a country with firearms is a very high rate of crime, particularly murder with firearms. USA with its right wing political philosophy that means they have the widest gap between the rich and the poor of any developed country and their abundance of firearms available to the public (legally or illegally), equals an awful lot of people getting shot. Feeding more guns into the system will undoubtedly mean even more people getting shot.

Though, having visited USA I can understand the insecurity the Yanks must feel knowing that just about every crim out there is probably armed.

There must be some kind of a graph out there that shows a correlation between availability of guns and crime; -- particularly murder.

The common sense consensus around the world indicates that the more guns in circulation among the public, the more crime. But the US gun lobby seems to think that there might be a turning point where if the population was saturated with weapons, the crime rate would drop and there is some anecdotal evidence to support this theory in isolated cases.

What has been proven beyond doubt is that in countries with very low levels of personal gun ownership, crime rates, and in particular murder are much lower.

So, on one hand we have a theory promoted by the US gun lobby that more guns will reduce crime and on the other hand we have the proven experience of many countries where low gun availability results in lower crime.

Trouble is that USA is already so saturated with guns feeding the illegal weapons market and with their constitution making it almost impossible to take them away, their only real option, (apart from doing nothing) is to add more weapons into the system and see how it all works out.

Give em all guns and let em go at it. Back to the wild west days.

You can't disarm America. You can place controls on the sale and distribution of guns, who has a right to carry them, and where they can be carried.

If the parameters of gun control are clearly spelled out before the reform process, that should assuage all but the most extreme of the nervous nellies on the Right.

I did a search on "gun laws" and "gun control" and this is the only thread I found relating to guns and gun possession and ownership in the US. So I'll put this here.

I find this interesting. it's about NYC. Say you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/ny...guns.html?_r=1

MEN and women. Democrats and Republicans. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and moguls. A remarkable, if relatively small, cross-section of New Yorkers legally own handguns, according to public records obtained by The New York Times


Among the more than 37,000 people licensed to have a handgun in the city are dozens of boldface names and public figures: prominent business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers.

Some expressed pride in their gun ownership, like the renowned divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, who readily posed with his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson. Others, including David Breitbart, Yetta Kurland and Walter Mack, all well-known lawyers, were irked to learn they would be included in an article based on the public records. And there were a few conflicted souls, like Alexis Stewart, co-host of “Whatever With Alexis and Jennifer” on SiriusXM radio and the Hallmark Channel.

“I don’t believe people should be allowed to have guns in America,” Ms. Stewart, daughter of Martha, said in an interview, explaining that she bought a .357 Magnum after 9/11 — but would be happy to give it up if handguns were banned. “Having a swimming pool is way more dangerous than having a gun,” she added.

Getting a handgun legally in New York is a two-step process. First, applicants must obtain a license, which costs $340, takes about 12 weeks to process, is good for three years and requires a background check by the New York Police Department. In addition, fingerprinting costs about $100.

Those who pass that hurdle then must get a purchase authorization from the police for the particular weapon they intend to buy. One handgun license may list up to 25 weapons (so far, no one has tried to register more than that, officials said), but buyers must wait 90 days between purchases.

The 41,164 handguns registered with the Police Department as of Jan. 14 include those owned by more than 2,400 people who live outside the city but have permission to bring their weapons here — people like Roger E. Ailes, the president of Fox News, whose license lists an address in New Jersey; John J. Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, who lives in Westchester County; and Sean Hannity, the conservative talk-show host, who lives on Long Island.

There are eight kinds of handgun licenses in New York, one of which is for dealers. The most common restricts the weapon to the owner’s home, but others allow license holders, including security guards, gun custodians and people who demonstrate a need for protection, to carry weapons with them.

Nearly 4,000 license holders — those who have a “carry business,” “limited carry” or “special carry” license — can legally conceal their weapons. The Times obtained the database of handgun owners from the Police Department after filing a Public Records Act request and a lawsuit; the police released ZIP codes but omitted street addresses. The database also did not include the 14,602 retired police officers who are licensed to have weapons.

The Police Department issues a separate license for long guns: about 52,000 shotguns and rifles are registered, but the owners’ names and addresses are not public records.

There are no comprehensive statistics available on gun ownership nationally because most states do not require licenses or permits. But an annual survey by the Pew Research Center suggests that about one-third of the nation’s homes have a gun. In comparison, at most, about 1 percent of New York City’s households have a licensed gun.

(It’s impossible to know how many illegal guns are circulating in the city, but in 2010, the Police Department seized 5,318, including 2,984 pistols, 1,402 revolvers, 403 rifles and 349 shotguns.)

At Westside Pistol and Rifle Range, in Manhattan’s Flatiron district, the owner, Darren Leung, said that there was a surge of new members after 9/11, but that the number had since fallen slightly, to 1,500. About 20 or 30 members a day come by to take classes or to practice with paper targets in one of 16 enclosed 50-foot stalls. On the sidewalk outside on West 20th Street, the sound of gunshots from the basement range is not audible.

“In a weird way, it’s a kind of stress reliever,” said William Rosado, an illustrator who regularly visits the range to fire his 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson. “It’s something completely different than what I do for a living.”

Most gun owners interviewed said they had never drawn their weapons in self-defense. But John A. Catsimatidis, the owner of the Red Apple Group and Gristedes supermarket chain, recalled a chilling episode from the mid-1980s, when he intercepted a robber fleeing one of his stores in the Bronx.

“The first guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes right by me and says, ‘Be cool, man,’ ” said Mr. Catsimatidis, who has owned a gun for at least 35 years. “The second guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes by me and says, ‘Be cool, man.’ The third guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, and I intertwine my arm into his arm, and I put my gun to his head, and I say, ‘Drop your gun, or I’ll blow your head off.’ ”

When the police arrived, they arrested the man, and examined Mr. Catsimatidis’s weapon — a Walther PPK/S 9-millimeter pistol.

“The sergeant says to me, ‘You couldn’t have shot the guy anyway: your safety is still on,’ ” Mr. Catsimatidis recalled. “The sweat started dripping off my head.

“I’m not going to do anything stupid like that again.”

Here in Wyoming we can wear a sidearm openly or not. I wear my 44 Magnum with a beautiful hand tooled holster and belt on special occaisions dealing with our states history. A surprising number of people carry all the time. My 85 year old mother carries a 38 snub nose and is VERY good with it.
When I read about the slaughter in the south of Thailand I often wonder if eyeryone carried a piece, maybe after a while it would be less.... No real way to know. We have very little gun crime here because they know we can shoot back.
It took about 6 months for my wife from Saraburi to get used to seeing guns around the house. She still does not want to shoot one. That's OK.
It's heart breaking to see so many dead and wounded innocent people trying to live their life. The south has a very serious problem.

I'm sure you are very fond of that hand tooled holster.
If you, say, wanted to sell one of your guns to your favorite drug dealer, are you free to do so in Wyoming (luvly state btw)?
Would the sale of the gun be subject to any reporting requirements? Would the new owner of the gun be registered as such?
Would the purchasers previous criminal history, if any, be of any statutory relevance to the legality of the transaction?

That's a lot better than Arizone then- and Wyoming is certainly not a state I'd be too bothered about gun crime (unless I dressed like a moose).

Call me a cynic, but why does the most aggresssively anti gun law state, which also has the laxest gun laws, also profitably supply many if not most of the firearms to the violent Mexican drug cartels? Given the almost constant rhetoric emanating from the Az state legislature against any form of gun control, I have to wonder who profits from and has a vested interest in this trade.

Well, you're getting into a different area, but Arizona also prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms, and purchasers are subject to NICS checks and must submit proper ID- as long as you've never been convicted of a felony, though, it's extremely easy to buy a gun and a get CCW permit (it can't legally be carried concealed without one).

Originally Posted by spiritrace

Wyoming - We have very little gun crime here because they know we can shoot back.

US States Crime 2004 -2005 Crimes per 100,000 Ranking

Firearms Deaths rates are as follows:

1. Washington DC
2. Alaska
3. Louisiana
4. Wyoming
5. Arizona
6. Mississippi
7. Nevada
8. New Mexico
9. Arkansas
10. Alabama

These are all deaths by firearms, including hunting accidents, suicides, and deaths incurred during law enforcement pursuits.

Here in Thailand people can also be seen in 'open carry' although they tend to spend less on accessories.