In a sign many Americans feel powerless as economic events threaten them, some gun owners are openly carrying their weapons into public places such as restaurants and stores, claiming it's their right to do so.
But what about the rights of the rest of us? Should we be subject to the potential threat of a loaded gun? And if so, should there be any limitation on the kinds of guns and how many can be carried. For example, is a machine gun acceptable? How about shoulder carried anti-aircraft weapons?
Should there be any restrictions on the public places the guns can be carried? For now they're being holstered and worn in stores and restaurants, but how about in schools? Court houses? Police stations? Post Offices? Court rooms? Airports? Banks? Bars? Restaurants that have bars? Office towers and other places of employment?
In any case, how does society benefit by this? Does this make us safer? And isn't it a threat to those we have selected to keep us safe, police officers?
I suggest so called "open-carry" guns be kept only in the hands of law enforcement officers and others we as a civilized society may designate, as a means of keeping everyone safe.
Dick
9 comments:
Dick, I suggest that you first familiarize yourself with federal gun laws that regulate machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons, then take a close look at how your state regulates the open carry of loaded firearms. If you still live in California, you will find that a permit is required to do that in most places including all urban areas of the state.
California allows open carry of UNLOADED weapons, so your concern about the "potential threat" of a loaded gun is overblown.
Firearms are completely prohibited in ALL federal buildings, all courthouses, banks, and the secured areas of restaurants. Places of employment, restaurants, etc. are privately owned, and are subject to restrictions imposed by their owners and managers.
You're shooting from the hip here, and you come off as ignorant in the eyes of those of us who have taken the time to learn about the legalities of firearms. I'm a federally licensed collector, so I am obligated as a condition of my license to know about gun laws. You obviously haven't bothered to study teh subject.
I meant to say "secured areas of AIRPORTS". Sorry about that.
"And isn't it a threat to those we have selected to keep us safe, police officers?"
Yet time and time again, the courts have ruled that the Police owe you no duty of care unless you are in their custody. They can fail to respond to your 911 call, ignore your daughters pleas for help as she is raped by an abusive ex even though she has a "restraining order", and you have zero recourse.
Now, I'm a big fan of property rights, and believe that any business should have the right to ban anything they like from the premises. But that desire must be enforced, or it is useless. Such "Gun Free Zones" should be required to have tight perimeter security, metal detectors and x-ray machines, plus armed guards in order to make sure that it's not just the law-abiding citizen who is disarmed, but the criminal as well. You know, just like we do at airports, and courthouses?
Mass shootings happen at schools and malls that are designated "gun free zones", but have no security to enforce that claim.
When was the last mass shooting at an NRA convention, or a police station? And before you raise it, the Muslim terrorist attack at Fort Hood was possible precisely because our soldiers who we trust with machine guns, grenades, tanks, artillery, and all other manners of weaponry when fighting wars on our behalf, are kept forcibly disarmed while on-base.
As a retired police officer, I will share that Mr. Voth is correct in that there are laws that prohibit ownership of machine guns and shoulder fired rockets. California law does not CURRENTLY allow for people to carry concealed hand guns. That said, it is a misdemeanor while carrying metal knuckles or nun-chucks are a felony (thanks to the NRA).
When I chased a suspect into somebody's backyard in the middle of the night, I was just as concerned about the suspect shooting at me as I was about the homeowner. The job of a police officer is difficult enough without making the streets more and more like the wild west.
In addressing the comments about failing to respond to 911 calls, I will say that it is my belief that all calls get some sort of response. In cities where the citizenry doesn't support the police, the response times are often longer (or much longer) than in areas that support the police and law and order.
If a business owner wants to allow gun toting on his/her property than that is up to them. It is up to potential clients to decide if they feel safer or not and want to patronize the biz.
The NRA propaganda (right or wrong) about Obama and a bad economy are scaring people. I both trust the police and keep a gun in the home. Going back to spurs and holsters doesn't make sense to me but if we do than don't be surprised if the police shoot more citizens because of unfortunate accidents...
Mr Kazan,
Please educate yourself as to firearms law and usage. You very obviously do not know what you are talking about.
Your ignorance does not in any way equate to truth. Your fears, rational or otherwise, do not justify the abrogation of the rights of others.
The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, well worth reading as an introduction to this heated topic, is qualified by its preceeding clause which has been variously intepreted. In this prefactory clause, the apparent justifiction for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is that WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessar fir the security of a free state. Each state, muncipality and county does have legally entitled and well regulated law enforcement officials: police, sherriffs and state patrol, among others. Such law enforcement are subject to close scrutiny of their actions and to both criminal and civil penalties for any infractions or violations, There is also the National Guard usually under the control of a state's governor for use in emergencies, such as environmental catastrophes. Members of the NRA are bascially vigilantes, under no regulation other than their own self-perceptions and self-control. They are using a specific las to undermine the rule of law. I am very frightened of their presence when carrying openly weapons, whether loaded or unloaded (and how am I to tell) wandering streets, parks, and other public places where the public are invited to come and go, as for example Starbucks. This nation has enough problems to solve in a rational way without the exercise of vigilante justice. Weapons of course may be used in defense of one's person within one's home and private property, but we do have public law enforcement, well regulated, to detect and respond to crimes, whether actual or perceived, potential, or possible.
It appears to me that Mr. Kazan's point was this push to carry guns in public (along with the huge jump in sales of guns and ammo) is indicative of public fear. I agree that as the country goes broke and we as a nation are faced with shortages and/or hyper-inflation, we will see more and more militia/vigilantes.
A movement to remove guns from America will NEVER happen as there is an inbred mistrust of government. While I don't like the symptom (love of guns), I understand the mistrust as the elected imbeciles on all levels (National, State, County, City) are spending money they don't have an mortgaging their respective constituency.
David Voth of San Diego rightly took me to task for not knowing my gun laws. But the point of the piece was to challenge readers to consider why this trend is happening and its consequences.
Dick
I agree that the trend of open carry gun laws is madness.
Post a Comment