Kirk Gordon wrote 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.

The correlation between "open (visible) carry and actual numbers of
those *legally* carrying, is not statistically signifcant. Whether
this should be true or not, is open to genuine disagreement. See my
comments earlier, about stupid people and their fears. If we start
allowing unjustifed "fears" (or, if you will, dislikes based on any
irrational basis) we will lose all freedoms. I do not feel threatened,
because someone is Gay/Lesbian, carries a gun (or any other personal
weapon) openly, the existence of Alcoholic beverages for sale in
public, the existence of Porn, etc., yet some are. So "threatened"
that they would remove the freedom of these to even exist.

Personally, having been injured in *two* traffic accidents, I would
be more afraid of idiots in multi thousand pound vehicles, than guns.
I've heard that less than 2% legally carry guns in Indiana, which
means, based on personal experience :-), Cars are infinitely more
dangerous. Totaling up, "gun injuries" and "Auto injuries," would
probably be similar, but closer to real numbers. Yet, carrying a "gun"
is more terrifying, than walking across a street (even with the
light). AS to "peer pressure," take a look at drunk driving arrests.
:-(

Fewer DUIs, but those who do, are getting caught with higher Blood
Alcohol Contents. In fact, there is more legislative effort put into
regulating guns, than is spent on the more statistically lethal DUI.
Someone please explain that to me.

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.

I fully agree. It would weed out the truly stupid, rapidly. Yes, it
would temporarily cause the death of those not involved, but that
happens already with Drunk Drivers. You cannot legislate personal
responibility, nor prevent stupidity. I would have a good knee, and no
back injury, if it were possible.

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.

How do you feel about not knowing the mental acuity of the drivers
on the road with you? They could be drunk, on drugs, half asleep, not
paying attention, or just plain stupid. A bullet can only kill/injure
one person. A car can do it to a dozen or more. Now, would at some
point unthinking acceptance of risks become stupid behavior? Of course
it would. The half blind idiot driving a car, is not concerned by the
danger he/she represents. Neither will the unthinking idiot with a
gun.

We cannot prevent such people from being a menace to others. We can
seek to make it possible to rectify the mistakes made. In the case of
cars, we have lawsuits available. If "open carry," is available, we
can exercise immediate physical means to stop the problem. Up to and
including shooting the person ourselves.

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.

I agree. Like the car example, if I see possible problems, I can
take steps to minimize them.

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.

This is true *only* in a rational world. However, we do not live in
a rational world. If you have sex with someone, absent witnesses (or
video) to the contrary, can you _prove_ you did not commit rape? Which
brings us back to the existence of people with irrational fears.
Should they have a right to remove the freedoms of others, simply
because they are afraid? Look at the warning labels on things, today.
They exist, because people did brainless things, and now the
"intelligent" people are paying for it. Perfect safety is *not*
attainable. No matter how hard someone may try to bring it about.
OTOH, neither should we accept casual endangerment.

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".

As I said, a better example is Drunk Driving. Any rational reasons
for restricting cigarrettes have been lost in the political
extremisms. Except in a few cases. there is no _immediate_ danger.
OTOH, cars are dangerous even under legal circumstances. I will
concede that there would be pressure to "act more adult." I.e., not
allow action to be taken that is excessive to the provocation.

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.

You ignore the laws making smoking illegal in many places. Including
your own yard. IIRC, an East Coast court ruled that a *neighbor* could
claim "harm" from "drifting tobacco smoke." Even restaurants are no
longer being given the option of a smoking/no smoking section (with
appropriate air flow handling). So, please do not use it as an example
of "peer pressure." BTW, I am _allergic_ to cigarrette smoke, but with
proper ventilation, have no problem with a smoking section. So, I am
just a unhappy as smokers are, with the current trends.

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

Unfortunately not, for the reasons cited above. Irrational fear
mongers, and those who pander to them will always exist. Too many want
to be "free from all possible harm." Regardless of how they define
what will "harm" them.

WD