Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Riku3220

Open carry and gun law discussion

Recommended Posts

I always thought it'd be funny if humans never figured out how to create tools as weapons, yet still retained their capacity for violence. Instead of mass shootings, you'd have like this one super-strong disgruntled guy that just beats the shit out of dozens of people all by himself :lol:

 

idk what that says about me

don't let the government take our fists!


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a stance really though nyosuht, that was my point if I didn't make that clear. I know I'm not into guns but I wouldn't try to take the guns away from anyone that wants/has one


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if the question is limited to just open carry, then my only objection to open carry from any standpoint that concerns me is that it's going to be easier to disarm someone who has their gun in plain sight if they are so inclined (for immediate use or run of the mill theft). I'm not sure how much of a concern that actually is, but that's what came to mind.

 

I suppose another concern, though I think this is already a thing, is that if criminals see that a lot of people are armed, that means they need to be armed too, and the level of violence, when it happens, has therefore escalated. I'm not sure that qualifies as a concern though, since it's common knowledge any American can be armed, and guns are so easy to acquire in the states that there is no reason for a criminal not to be armed anyway.

 

If I were actually living in the States, or planning on it, then yeah, I'd have a huge personal issue with it. People just aren't armed in Canada, especially not with handguns. Even criminal elements are often armed with rifles, not pistols, because it's just not easy to get your hands on a handgun here. Where I grew up, if you are armed in public and you aren't a cop, it means you are in the process of, or about to start, shooting at people, so an armed civilian is to me an implicit threat: Cross me and die. For an analogy, imagine if the law was instead about the right to bring your dog(s) to work with you. Now, I would be totally fine with that. I was raised around dogs, and I had friends who also had dogs that would have attacked if you threatened their family. Anyway, I'd be fine with that, but I imagine people who didn't grow up with dogs, and don't know how to interact with them without being bitten, they would be really nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People just aren't armed in Canada, especially not with handguns.

Rough estimates are that 10% of the Canadian population owns Firearms. That's not an insignificant number.

 

Even criminal elements are often armed with rifles, not pistols, because it's just not easy to get your hands on a handgun here.

Not true. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with restricted or prohibited Firearms, mostly handguns.

 

Where I grew up, if you are armed in public and you aren't a cop, it means you are in the process of, or about to start, shooting at people, so an armed civilian is to me an implicit threat: Cross me and die.

Well, yes, because it's illegal. The Canadian public has had the opportunity to prove otherwise taken away from them.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a stance really though nyosuht, that was my point if I didn't make that clear. I know I'm not into guns but I wouldn't try to take the guns away from anyone that wants/has one

Yeah, I didn't think we were discussing confiscation or barring new purchases. You definitely seemed to have a stance against carrying in cities, while violent crime stats seem to indicate that I'm more likely to want to carry in cities.

 

 

I suppose if the question is limited to just open carry, then my only objection to open carry from any standpoint that concerns me is that it's going to be easier to disarm someone who has their gun in plain sight if they are so inclined (for immediate use or run of the mill theft). I'm not sure how much of a concern that actually is, but that's what came to mind.

So, here's a holster I use to carry concealed:

[hide]2vjfpo7.jpg[/hide]

Notice how there's only a clip to hold it to my belt, and only the tight fit of the leather to hold the gun in the holster? Ideally, nobody would know it was there, but there's not much in place to keep someone from taking it in the event that my shirt rides up or the gun prints through the shirt.

 

Here's my open carry holster:

[hide]

aJKMYIr.jpg

Hwb2yMU.jpg

nOETQFa.jpg

[/hide]

 

That gun isn't going anywhere unless it's down in the holster when the button behind the shield is pressed toward my body. If the gun is pulled up even slightly, the strap catches on the gun and doesn't disengage. If the button isn't pushed, or isn't pushed in the right direction, the strap doesn't disengage. If the strap is disengaged, but the gun isn't pulled straight out, it usually binds in the holster and doesn't come out. You can see where the belt threads through the plastic in the second picture... much more secure than the other holster. If your cops carry openly, they probably use similar gear.

 

That's not to say that everybody uses appropriate equipment, but most people I know do, and most of the organizations supporting open carry push proper equipment and training.


rnHJQwZ.png
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. ~Samuel Adams; 1 August, 1776
There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster; 15 March, 1837

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's a holster I use to carry concealed:

[hide]2vjfpo7.jpg[/hide]

Ew, leather. I would never use one after seeing this picture: (although yours does look like much higher quality).

 

leather-holster-ad-nd-2.jpg


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose another concern, though I think this is already a thing, is that if criminals see that a lot of people are armed, that means they need to be armed too, and the level of violence, when it happens, has therefore escalated. I'm not sure that qualifies as a concern though, since it's common knowledge any American can be armed, and guns are so easy to acquire in the states that there is no reason for a criminal not to be armed anyway.

We have enhanced penalties for crimes committed with weapons, which I guess are supposed to discourage the use of weapons in the furtherance of crime. I couldn't say off-hand whether they are effective.

 

If I were actually living in the States, or planning on it, then yeah, I'd have a huge personal issue with it. People just aren't armed in Canada, especially not with handguns.

Even criminal elements are often armed with rifles, not pistols, because it's just not easy to get your hands on a handgun here.

Pretty much any rifle is going to cause more damage than most pistols. Rifles tend to have larger, heavier bullets, more powder pushing the bullet, and longer barrels allowing more acceleration of the bullet. The main appeal of handguns is that they can be concealed and are more convenient to carry. Of course, it's not terribly difficult to cut down a rifle or shotgun to a more concealable size. Knock down the barrel and hack off the stock, and you basically have a rifle-caliber handgun or a shotgun pistol.

 

Where I grew up, if you are armed in public and you aren't a cop, it means you are in the process of, or about to start, shooting at people, so an armed civilian is to me an implicit threat: Cross me and die.

Because it's not generally legal for people to show you that they are armed, the only people you can see are armed are the people who are already operating beyond the legal bounds.

It's almost as though only criminals carry guns when carrying a gun is criminalized.

 

For an analogy, imagine if the law was instead about the right to bring your dog(s) to work with you. Now, I would be totally fine with that. I was raised around dogs, and I had friends who also had dogs that would have attacked if you threatened their family. Anyway, I'd be fine with that, but I imagine people who didn't grow up with dogs, and don't know how to interact with them without being bitten, they would be really nervous.

A few important disctinctions, I think:

Dogs have minds of their own, whereas guns are under the control of those who possess them. I can't make sure that my dog isn't going to bite someone, even though I think it's unlikely; I can be sure that my gun isn't going to pull itself out of my holster and start shooting people.

You touched on that when you mentioned that some people "don't know how to interact with [dogs] without being bitten." If someone else is carrying a gun, there's no special way to act around it to not get shot. Unless you want to count not attacking the person carrying it, I guess.

As dogs do have minds of their own, they require attention. If my dog comes to work with me, he's going to want me to play with him, he will need food and water, he will need to go outside and do his business. If my gun goes to work with me, it sits on my belt and nobody knows or cares; it doesn't interfere with my work in any way.

 

 

 

Ew, leather. I would never use one after seeing this picture: (although yours does look like much higher quality).

I don't know about higher quality, Galco has a pretty good reputation and lots of happy customers. A better design, certainly. That holster leaves the front end of the gun completely uncovered, which provides an opportunity for the front sight to catch on the holster while drawing.

 

It also doesn't cover as far back on the gun as I think it should. I get that the pistol maybe isn't fully inserted there, but look at these photos that come up when searching for that holster model:

[hide]

This one is from the manufacturer's site:

Jak-Slide-SM_b.jpg

This one is from a reseller:

gal-jak.jpg

Here's another angle of the one you posted:

leather-holster-ad-nd-1.jpg

[/hide]

The trigger guard isn't completely covered on either gun, and the trigger is almost completely exposed on the second. It doesn't look like the holster is formed to the gun in any of the pictures, so I'm having some trouble imagining there's much friction retention. Even if the leather wasn't initially soft enough to fold like your picture shows, it's probably not a great choice.

That said, equipment does wear out and should be checked periodically.

 

I do have a left-handed (in the waistband) kydex holster for the smaller gun that I use when I carry it on my left side, and I don't really have any complaints about it or the leather one shown earlier.


rnHJQwZ.png
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. ~Samuel Adams; 1 August, 1776
There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster; 15 March, 1837

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyoshut, you ever read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott? It'd pretty much just be confirming your biases at this point but for me it removed any skepticism I had about legalized carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyoshut, you ever read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott? It'd pretty much just be confirming your biases at this point but for me it removed any skepticism I had about legalized carry.

He doesn't seem biased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nyoshut, you ever read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott? It'd pretty much just be confirming your biases at this point but for me it removed any skepticism I had about legalized carry.

He doesn't seem biased

 

 

 

There's a difference between having biases towards a political belief and being biased. I just mean the book wouldn't challenge his point of view, but likely reinforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is biased. Except me. I'm bi-assed

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyoshut, you ever read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott? It'd pretty much just be confirming your biases at this point but for me it removed any skepticism I had about legalized carry.

I have not. John Lott doesn't seem like a particularly compelling speaker, and I doubt he would challenge my opinions, so I haven't been eager to read his writings.

 

He doesn't seem biased

I definitely have an opinion and I don't think it's likely to change significantly, but I like to think that it's reasonable, at least within the context of my own experiences.

rnHJQwZ.png
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. ~Samuel Adams; 1 August, 1776
There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster; 15 March, 1837

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, how many times have you seen anyone use gun in self-defense? Do you know anyone who has used a gun in self-defence?

Carrying a gun for self-defence only makes sense in upper-Northern Canada and Svalbard and Greenland, where they do have polar bears roaming aroung who actually can attack and kill you.

I think I can count on the fingers of one hand for how many times the cops in the whole country have had to use a gun for the whole last year for anything other than a warning/attention shot in the air.

My dad did when I was 10.


TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.