Counter argument to the Open Carry folks

Not my opinion and I don't agree but figured I'd since I'd posted the OpenCarry article that I'd post this too.





My 20-month-old nephew loves Elmo and Dora. He also has started making explosion and gunfire noises.
I get the inevitability of little boys' fascination with guns.
What I can't figure out are the men and sometimes women who don't grow out of the gun-crazy stage of childhood, who need to have a handgun on their hips at all times, who need their neighbors to notice.
Ten of them stormed the West Valley City Council meeting last week to back up Travis Deveraux, a 36-year-old credit card company worker, who was detained by police in December while exercising with his Smith & Wesson.
"I don't blame them for being a little bit extra careful," Deveraux said. "But there's a line they crossed between being a little bit careful and a little bit too careful."
I thought there was no such thing as "too careful" - especially with a gun. But the OpenCarry crowd's literal interpretation of the "right to bear arms" and self-appointment as our "well-regulated militia" undercuts careful law enforcement, membership in a civil society and even reason.
It's in the Constitution, their thinking goes. They are "peaceably going about their business while armed," standing on the watchtower, the last line of defense against government tyranny and crazed criminals. We should thank them.
I understand the thrill of firing a Glock (I've done it), the euphoria of hitting the center of a target (and that, too), generations of family deer-hunting weekends and the legitimate self-preservation instincts of Utah's elected concealed weapon carriers.
But the OpenCarry movement is a mystery to me. What kind of psychology - overcompensation, paranoia, antisocial personality - is behind that thinking?
Steven Gunn, an attorney and board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, believes it's pure ego.
"We have inconsiderate boors walking around on the street carrying firearms openly," says Gunn. "I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety. Most of them are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment."
Anthropologist Charles Springwood says open carriers are trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood."
OpenCarry.org, run by two Virginia gun lovers, claims 4,000 members nationwide. According to the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco, just seven states prohibit packing in public and eight restrict carrying handguns openly without a permit.
Utah's OpenCarry activists put on a show for the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago, trying to appear warm and fuzzy, shopping at Costco, just like you and me - but with their handguns flapping in the breeze. They meet once a month at restaurants like Denny's and Sweet Tomatoes to socialize.
"We don't want to show up and say, 'Hey, we're here, we're armed, get used to it,' " Kevin Jensen told the Times reporter.
But that's just what the showdown in West Valley City was about. The cowed mayor and City Council members referred the case to the officers' professional standards review board.
Police are struggling to strike a balance between gun owners' rights and those of the rest of us.
"There has to be some common sense on their part, too; they have to take into consideration the concern that they cause other citizens," says Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe. "I do not walk around when I'm off-duty with a weapon displayed."
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank would rather gun owners get concealed weapon permits than carry openly.
"In light of Trolley Square, mall shootings, school shootings, anyone walking around with a gun potentially creates a lot of phone calls for us," Burbank says. "How do you expect an officer to deal with that - other than to point a gun at them and go through the process [of elimination]? There's no other way to make that determination safely without putting officers at risk."
Utah lawmakers set up this stalemate when they wrote the state's anything-goes concealed weapon law. They deliberately left open a loophole for those who carry their guns out in the open. Under Utah law, open carriers must be 18 years old and keep their bullets out of the chamber. That's it. No training, no background check required.
"Second Amendment questions aside," says Springwood, a professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, "the real debate seems to me a cultural and social one: Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"
Legislators already have made that decision for us; we're living in the modern heart of the wild, wild West.

Her column

3 comments:

Mike Stollenwerk said...

Oh good grief! Open Carry's not a loophole - it's the basic right to bear arms. Concealed carry is the privilege for which reasonable regulation, like requiring licensure, is appropriate.

And just a little factoid - Utah's gun carry laws are already stricter than most of the nation because unlike Utah, folks in most states can lawfully open carries loaded handguns without any license. See OpenCarry.org.

VC said...

Mark,

I agree with you and find her argument childish and emotional.

I live in California and would love to be able to open carry but our laws are too strict.

I originally posted the open carry article that this woman ridiculed and even a link to opencarry.org because I believe in what they do.

I included this in the blog to give equal time to the opposition and show folks what a ridiculous argument they put forth.

Anonymous said...

OpenCarry crowd's literal interpretation of the "right to bear arms" and self-appointment as our "well-regulated militia" undercuts careful law enforcement, membership in a civil society and even reason.

Sounds like a premise statement to me. Did anyone see anything to back up any of these contentions in the piece? Other than hysterics, hyperbole and ad-hominem that is.

Police are struggling to strike a balance between gun owners' rights and those of the rest of us.

Since when did that become the Police's job? I always thought it was the Police's job to enforce the laws lawfully enacted by the people's elected representatives...which would make it the legislator's job to "strike a balance" between any competing interests that need to be balanced.

Besides, the author never mentions which right "of the rest of us" is being unbalanced by people carrying defensive arms.

Would that be the much touted right to "feel safe?"

How anyone can claim a right to a feeling is a bit beyond me.

I have to point out the one part they did get almost right:

Anthropologist Charles Springwood says open carriers are trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood."

They're close...the gun is not a symbol, it is a tool. It is a tool of ordinary FREE persons.

An armed person is his own master. A disarmed person is a slave just waiting for a master to come along.

The American people (as most of the rest of the "civilized" world in recent times) have for too long been brainwashed into thinking that guns are bad.

Guns are inanimate objects and, as such, are incapable of morality. They can be neither good nor bad. They can be used for good purposes or bad purposes, but the objects themselves are morally neutral. The morality lies in the mind and actions of the user.

In the hands of a law abiding citizen, guns are the tools of freedom and protection. The more people that are made conscious of this basic truth, the better.