"Assault Weapons", Open Carry, & The Boy Who Cried Wolf

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
After reading the story about the man in Utah bringing his weapon into a JC Penney, (Thread HERE) and other similar stories following the Sandy Hook tragedy, I've considered a long-term danger to this type of behavior.

Let's say there are a few gun owners in every state like this man whose mission is to show that the weapons themselves are not dangerous, but rather the people bearing them. Fair enough, and a true statement. OK, now let's say over the next few weeks people get more accustomed to seeing someone brandishing weapons out in the open. Good, right? Well... upon desensitization to the sight of an armed individual, likely dressed in military/police style wardrobe, that hesitation to notify authorities could be the difference between nobody or lots of people dying. "Oh, it's just another one of those gun guys." Or is he? Could the act of open carry in public by "law-abiding citizens" actually decrease the suspicion of someone about to break many laws?

Also, I'd like to address the label of "law-abiding citizen". As the current laws read, many individuals depending on state have a variety of rights and regulations concerning gun ownership. Should these laws happen to change, if one fails to comply, they are no longer "law-abiding citizens". In the meantime, go right on ahead and protest and use your rights to let your voice be heard. That's totally American. Just remember that people with different opinions also have the same rights to those opinions, and they are "law-abiding citizens" as well.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


...

You know what tends to break that whole oh he's just expressing his rights thing? When the guy opens fire.

As many threads here have shown even when open carry is allowed and fully legal those exercising their rights are constantly harassed. Most often by citizens freaked out at the sight of a man with a holstered weapon.

So really there's no chance what you suggest would happen, no ones gona be lulled into a false sense of security by constantly seeing someone open carry a full on assault rifle.

Guarantee open carry an assault rifle is asking for cops to be called.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by DaTroof
 


...

You know what tends to break that whole oh he's just expressing his rights thing? When the guy opens fire.

As many threads here have shown even when open carry is allowed and fully legal those exercising their rights are constantly harassed. Most often by citizens freaked out at the sight of a man with a holstered weapon.

So really there's no chance what you suggest would happen, no ones gona be lulled into a false sense of security by constantly seeing someone open carry a full on assault rifle.

Guarantee open carry an assault rifle is asking for cops to be called.


That's my point though... you don't know if the person is just a gun rights enthusiast or someone planning an assault until it's too late. That's not very safe, and despite what popular consensus may be now, the more characters open carrying these kinds of weapons, the more we all let our guard down.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
OP raises a good point. Public desensitization to weapons in public makes it very easy for a would-be mass murderer to execute such a crime.

Let me put it this way, we're not under constant threat of terror attacks on our soil, right? Backpacks full of c4 don't often blow our classrooms to smithereens. If an outbreak of such attacks were to occur, however, we'd be much more cautious around backpacks or other objects that could be used to conceal bombs. The argument that the OP is making is basically this situation in reverse; we've been conditioned to fear assault weapons, and so most people are very cautious around them. If assault weapons, however, become a commonality on the streets, it makes us susceptible to public massacres.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


Indeed, and if someone were sick enough to plan a shooting spree, they may carry the weapon around for a while to gauge public reaction and/or calm fears by NOT shooting the place up until people are generally OK with a heavily armed individual.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I have *still* not gotten around to take the "How to perform accurate psychiatric diagnosis visiually within 5 seconds"-Class.

Until then "proving that being heavily armed is not scary, by walking around heavily armed without spreekilling all the time" puts you firmly into my "potential spree killer"-column.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl
I have *still* not gotten around to take the "How to perform accurate psychiatric diagnosis visiually within 5 seconds"-Class.

Until then "proving that being heavily armed is not scary, by walking around heavily armed without spreekilling all the time" puts you firmly into my "potential spree killer"-column.


Same here. If I see someone heavily armed, I'm going to avoid that person. Unfortunately, not everyone is as vigilant, and I could easily see a population in a gun-friendly state being conditioned by their future killer.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I'd really like to get some more feedback from those against Obama's Executive Orders. Maybe I should have posted this thread a few hours later.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I tend to think that if a nutjob sees a man or woman packing one of these they are going to lose confidence in their plan pretty quick.

Remember.. James Holmes targeted that specific movie theater because it had signs posted that prohibited firearms on the premises. They've been attacking the schools for the same reason. Easy targets that don't have the ability to fight back.



edit on 20-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
I tend to think that if a nutjob sees a man or woman packing one of these they are going to lose confidence in their plan pretty quick.

Remember.. James Holmes targeted that specific movie theater because it had signs posted that prohibited firearms on the premises. They've been attacking the schools for the same reason. Easy targets that don't have the ability to fight back.



edit on 20-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)


Depends on how nuts they are. The armed "good guy" may have just made himself target #1.

I don't remember hearing a statement from Holmes about why he chose that theater. Could you link me please? Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by 11235813213455
I tend to think that if a nutjob sees a man or woman packing one of these they are going to lose confidence in their plan pretty quick.

Remember.. James Holmes targeted that specific movie theater because it had signs posted that prohibited firearms on the premises. They've been attacking the schools for the same reason. Easy targets that don't have the ability to fight back.



edit on 20-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)


Depends on how nuts they are. The armed "good guy" may have just made himself target #1.

I don't remember hearing a statement from Holmes about why he chose that theater. Could you link me please? Thanks in advance.


Yeah.... thats some junk John Lott wrote.
www.foxnews.com...
I have better things to do than to double check his statements, but the guy is infamous to make "data" that fits his hypothesis.

But there is another thing with Aurora: Lots of people thought it was part of the premiere at first, so there you have a scenario where the initial fear factor wasn't present. Didn't seem to make that much of a difference.





top topics
 
1

log in

join