Ed Huntress wrote:

The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To
suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime
rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on
and walk around "the streets," anyway. A note on the Packing.org site from a
guy in Kansas, says it all: involved enough with guns to have written to his
local sheriff for an explanation of open-carry, and to have posted the
Sheriff's reply on the Packing.org site, he notes at the bottom that, in his
20+ years he's lived in the state, he's never seen anyone open-carry a
handgun.

I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However...

I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them. If we can all tell that someone is armed, just
by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully
informed decisions about our own behavior. (If Jehova's Witnesses knock
on my door at 7:30 in the morning, and they're all wearing gunbelts and
357's, then I'm a lot more likely just to pretend I'm not home than to
open the door and chase them away. If the weapons are concealed,
however, and if I open the door and let the dog out, and THEN learn that
the JW's are packing, things could get ugly.)

It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more of a problem, and
should be more of a concern than, say, a rifle or shotgun clearly
visible in the back window of a pickup truck. I never think twice about
that, when I happen to see it. The gun-owner is probably a farmer, or a
rancher, or someone else who benefits from being able to prang a
groundhog or a coyote when the need arises. Same with the handguns worn
by cops. I know they're there. I know there's a reason for them that
has nothing to do with threatening me. And I don't mind a bit.

Someone who wants to protect himself could probably, in most cases
be better protected by announcing himself as armed, rather than by
concealing his gun and looking like unarmed prey to a prospective
criminal. Surprising the criminal might be fun or satisfying for
someone who doesn't get killed while trying it; but it can't possibly be
the best way to be safe.

When someone conceals a weapon, then it makes perfect sense for
others to question the reason for the concealment, and the real purpose
for which the weapon is intended. If I have to make the choice, I'd
rather see "Open Carry Mandatory" laws, with VERY stiff penalties for
concealment, than wasted attempts to outlaw guns that we don't even
know are there.

And, if guns were as visible as, say, cigarrettes, then I suspect
we'd do a much better job of policing ourselves through the time honored
practice of "social pressure". My sister-in-law's house is an absolute
no smoking zone. It's her house, and she has a right to make the rules,
and everybody in the family knows it. And, SHE'LL know immediately if I
decide to unwrap a cheap cigar and light up in her living room. If I
did the same kind of thing, and decided that my home was a gun-free
place, then anyone who wanted to visit, or some young man who came to
pick up my stepdaughter for a date, or the delivery people bringing my
new sofa, would have to make the same kinds of choices that smokers do,
since their weapons would be as easy to detect as a plume of smoke.
Better yet, I could do this WITHOUT having to limit the rights of any
person to be as armed as he/she cares to be. I'd only be exercising my
own right to detrimine what goes on in my own house.

The results of peer pressure and widespread social disapproval of
smoking have been pretty astonishing, and have developed pretty quickly,
as large scale social trends go. I wonder if the public wearing of
visible guns, even if completely legal, couldn't be moderated in the
same way, and for very similar reasons.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.