OK With Open Carry? Or Would You Run?

[screen glare]

If you were in line for the circus with your kids, or walking through the grocery store parking lot with your mom, or at the shopping mall with friends, or at a campground with your dad, or on the sidelines at a parade, or walking your dog through the neighborhood, or at the beach, or at church, or in a museum, or in the doctor's office waiting room, or at a rest stop along a highway on your family road trip, or at the airport, or at a political rally, or a charity ball, etc. - AND STRANGERS WHO DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SECURITY PERSONNEL WERE OPENLY CARRYING LONG GUNS OR HAND GUNS NEAR YOU - would you leave the area ASAP? Be honest in your answer, please.

[Deleted User 8570]

If you were in line for the circus with your kids, or walking through the grocery store parking lot with your mom, or at the shopping mall with friends, or at a campground with your dad, or on the sidelines at a parade, or walking your dog through the neighborhood, or at the beach, or at church, or in a museum, or in the doctor's office waiting room, or at a rest stop along a highway on your family road trip, or at the airport, or at a political rally, or a charity ball, etc. - AND STRANGERS WHO DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SECURITY PERSONNEL WERE OPENLY CARRYING LONG GUNS OR HAND GUNS NEAR YOU - would you leave the area ASAP? Be honest in your answer, please.

Depends on several other factors... How are they behaving, what do they look like etc. if the guy seems normal enough then he probably is harmless...

[TC Talks]

This happened Wednesday:

TRAVERSE CITY — A man carried a semi-automatic rifle through the villages of Suttons Bay and Lake Leelanau because he was frustrated about his suspended driver's license, authorities said.

Leelanau County Sheriff Mike Borkovich said deputies didn't arrest the 55-year-old Leelanau County man. His behavior on Thursday prompted nearly 30 calls to 911, but wasn't illegal.

The man told Borkovich and other deputies he had a right to carry the gun.

"He never threatened to shoot anybody," Borkovich said. "He was really quite cooperative ... Was he upset about things in his personal life? Yes."

The man carried an unloaded AR-15, Borkovich said. He was first reported Thursday at 8:42 a.m. in Suttons Bay. He walked north through the village's downtown before turning left on M-204, where he walked to Lake Leelanau, Borkovich said.

911 callers said the man was in Lake Leelanau at about 11:10 a.m.

"He said he was going to work," Borkovich said.

Watch Record-Eagle.com

[bmw]

Depends on several other factors... How are they behaving, what do they look like etc. if the guy seems normal enough then he probably is harmless...

This. I'm sure I'd do some profiling of my own before making a decision.

[screen glare]

Which "profile" would indicate that the stranger openly carrying a long gun or hand gun is "harmless"? A male? A female? A black person? A white person? An Asian person? A smiling person? A non-smiling person? A person wearing flip flops? A person wearing boots? A person with tattoos? A person wearing a baseball cap? A person who is disabled? A woman who is pregnant? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Which profile of a human being would indicate to you the person is harmless?

I would say your profiling is NOT a reliable indicator.

[bmw]

Statistically speaking, as I pointed out in another post on here, a black person with a gun is 8x more likely to murder you than a white person with a gun. Stats further skyrocket specifically for black males in their 20s.

So if I saw a young black male openly carrying a gun, I'd probably go elsewhere. All other demographics are far less likely to murder me.

[Deleted User 8570]

Which "profile" would indicate that the stranger openly carrying a long gun or hand gun is "harmless"? A male? A female? A black person? A white person? An Asian person? A smiling person? A non-smiling person? A person wearing flip flops? A person wearing boots? A person with tattoos? A person wearing a baseball cap? A person who is disabled? A woman who is pregnant? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Which profile of a human being would indicate to you the person is harmless?

I would say your profiling is NOT a reliable indicator.

If your behavior looks out of the ordinary for one... A guy pacing back and forth with a gun for example or someone casing the joint...

Let's give you a glaring question:
Other than running for your life right away what would be your solution?

[TC Shuts Up]

Believe it or not, but with all the terrorist and cop killer attacks, which are not mutually exclusive, I can understand people being uncomfortable with open carry. And it would be necessary to profile the person by at least the type of clothes they are wearing, whether they "appear" normal, well groomed, car they are driving, or other identifying features like things associated with gangs, etc., to identify whether they might be dangerous or not. The problem with temporary prohibitions is they tend to become permanent.

[Plate Cap]

I was in an electronics shop in Clare last Thursday, and some hyper idiot was there with a 1911 type auto loader strapped to his thigh in a tactical holster.

He would have alarmed me WITHOUT the gun. Store owner seemed to know/like him, so my concern of him back dropped down to simple idiot status.

I carry a gun nearly everywhere I go, but I don't make a spectacle of it. If he encounters a bad guy unexpectedly, he will get the first bullet. They are generally too stupid to figure that out. Maybe they think they will quick-draw their way out of it.

Further, it sets legal and responsible weapons ownership back 10 years every time 'Suzy Normal' sees it.

You can't fix stupid.

[screen glare]

I believe the USA will scratch the second amendment due to mass shooting frequency.

When the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting didn't move lawmakers in that direction I knew it would never be the "total killed" number or "type of victims" (children) or location (first grade class room) that would move lawmakers to act , but rather the frequency of mass shootings.

If mass shootings were happening several months apart it wouldn't be enough to move lawmakers, but if they were suddenly happening more frequently - such as every week or every day - then maybe lawmakers would finally come to the realization that the second amendment does more to harm than protect.

It now feels like we ARE turning the corner toward increased frequency.

Americans who still embrace the second amendment as sacred instead of dangerously obsolete are living in a pseudo patriotic fantasy. If a military coup happens in this country will your automatic assault riffles protect you from a tank? Or from bombs dropping from planes? Or chemical warfare? How about your hand guns? Will they protect you if government military forces drive up on your front lawn?

And what about military forces staging a coup WITH police forces joining them? Then will your private weaponry save you? You're living in a fantasy if you believe you'd stand a chance against organized, trained, military and police with their sophisticated ways of killing and detaining.

Other industrialized countries - most recently Australia - have all outlawed citizens owning guns used to kill each other. These countries are just as nationalistic and as proud as the USA. However unlike the U-S they've come to the common sense conclusion that an armed camp is no place live your life and pursue happiness.

[Deleted User 8570]

I believe the USA will scratch the second amendment due to mass shooting frequency.

When the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting didn't move lawmakers in that direction I knew it would never be the "total killed" number or "type of victims" (children) or location (first grade class room) that would move lawmakers to act , but rather the frequency of mass shootings.

If mass shootings were happening several months apart it wouldn't be enough to move lawmakers, but if they were suddenly happening more frequently - such as every week or every day - then maybe lawmakers would finally come to the realization that the second amendment does more to harm than protect.

It now feels like we ARE turning the corner toward increased frequency.

Americans who still embrace the second amendment as sacred instead of dangerously obsolete are living in a pseudo patriotic fantasy. If a military coup happens in this country will your automatic assault riffles protect you from a tank? Or from bombs dropping from planes? Or chemical warfare? How about your hand guns? Will they protect you if government military forces drive up on your front lawn?

And what about military forces staging a coup WITH police forces joining them? Then will your private weaponry save you? You're living in a fantasy if you believe you'd stand a chance against organized, trained, military and police with their sophisticated ways of killing and detaining.

Other industrialized countries - most recently Australia - have all outlawed citizens owning guns used to kill each other. These countries are just as nationalistic and as proud as the USA. However unlike the U-S they've come to the common sense conclusion that an armed camp is no place live your life and pursue happiness.

While this is all true groups like the NRA are far too powerful... Don't fool yourself...

[Bryce]

While this is all true groups like the NRA are far too powerful... Don't fool yourself...

They sure get a big bang for their buck then.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL

These totals include all campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees (including super PACs), federal 527 organizations, and Carey committees.

The NRA ranks a lowly 74 on this list. Number one? Service Employees International Union. Number three? National Education Assn. Number six? American Federation of Teachers. Hell, George Soros comes in at number 14 easily beating the evil Koch brothers at a lowly 32.

One thing that is clear though, the top 25 is predominately made up of labor unions. Are they too powerful?

[Bryce]

Statistically speaking, as I pointed out in another post on here, a black person with a gun is 8x more likely to murder you than a white person with a gun. Stats further skyrocket specifically for black males in their 20s.

So if I saw a young black male openly carrying a gun, I'd probably go elsewhere. All other demographics are far less likely to murder me.

According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher.

13 percent of the population is responsible for 52.5% of the homicides and we're supposed to focus on a problem with police departments and gun control? Really?

[Turkeytop]

13 percent of the population is responsible for 52.5% of the homicides and we're supposed to focus on a problem with police departments and gun control? Really?

If 13% of your people are murderers, you might want to make guns less accessible.

[screen glare]

The NRA is only powerful because of their promises that any lawmakers contrary to the NRA's agenda will not be reelected. They won't help fund reelection campaigns and instead will spend money on negative ads against such lawmakers.

However if the frequency of mass shootings intensifies to one mass shooting per week or per day - then as I already stated above - most Americans including most lawmakers will realize the second amendment is dangerously obsolete, and they will turn - en mass- against the NRA.

The U-S is seeing the frequency of mass shootings intensify right now. Because of this increase in frequency and the alarm that uptick produces most Americans will find themselves scared to be living in the U-S. They will realize that trying to go to school, raise a family, work, and pursue happiness in an armed camp has finally become full-circle insanity. And as an industrialized nation among all the other industrialized nations America stands alone in that insanity.