"Fewer Guns in Public means more Freedom"

[anonymouse]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaile-..._b_663711.html

Kaile Shilling
Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA
Posted: July 29, 2010 01:50 PM

Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom


Let's be honest: Guns are made for a purpose. Handguns, assault weapons -- most of the guns found in urban areas are made so that one person can kill another person. They may -- as the NRA likes to point out -- require a human being to actually pull the trigger, but no one buys a gun in order to help them bake cookies, organize their music collection or paint the house. People buy guns to have the option of killing someone should the desire or need arise.

A bill is currently working its way through the California Assembly that would forbid people from keeping that option readily available by banning the open carrying of guns. The bill has passed the Public Safety Committee, and is currently in the State Senate Appropriations Committee. As we await this final step, it is critical to continue to inform people, including the governor, just why openly carrying guns is a bad idea.

First and foremost, prohibiting "open carry" is not about whether you can carry a gun, but how you carry your gun. Let me repeat that, because opponents want to make this a Second Amendment issue, when the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun. It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place -- the library, the coffeeshop on the corner, or yes, Huntington Beach, where recently a group of "open carry" advocates walked the sands among children playing, parents seeking recreation, teenagers reading -- openly carrying their weapons.

Who should or should not carry a weapon, or what kind of weapons should be readily available are separate issues. Permits for concealed weapons provide an established, regulated method to determine just who is carrying guns around in public. Banning unconcealed weapons, however, is a specific, responsible measure, one that puts public safety first and foremost and respects the constitutional rights of all our citizens. When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections. Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights. (OK, but still -- why is this worse than carrying a concealed weapon?)

Open carry advocates claim they are protecting the public by being a secondary, informal police force. Personally, I prefer the trained, publicly accountable and regulated police force. I know the rules that law enforcement are obligated to protect. I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.

Guns are not inherently safe. That is not their purpose. The same day the LA Times ran the story on the front page about the open carry meet-up in Huntington Beach, the inside page detailed a tragic incident of a seven year old accidentally shooting and killing his two year old brother with a gun kept in the house. One has to wonder how safe people would feel if those demonstrating their right to carry weapons openly were not the middle-aged, polo-shirt-wearing, men photographed in the article, but rather a tattooed, twenty-two year old with baggy jeans falling below his waist.

It is no surprise that California law enforcement agencies from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Sheriff's Department oppose open carry. Police are trained to see someone with a weapon as a threat. Civilians toting weapons on their hips makes it hard for the police to do their job and to determine who is the actual danger.

At its heart, open carry promotes a culture of fear -- a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community -- that when it comes to violence, there is no "us" vs. "them." That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals. When someone can walk into a playground, a church, a school or a beach openly carrying a weapon, it strikes a blow not only against our constitutional rights, but also against the very core of our humanity.

[Connal]

First, I must say this. . .



Secondly, once you give up one freedom, they come for the next. And it is a cycle that will not stop. I wonder if there is anything we could do, seeing as how it is in Cali, and not here.

[IronSight]

The comments pretty much handle it, it's just another article using emotional pleas and irrational fears to try and make a point.

[cigarmanpa]

fewer articles she writes means more freedom

[t1m0thy]

After reading this I needed to blow off some steam...

Kaile Shilling
Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA
Posted: July 29, 2010 01:50 PM

Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom


Let's be honest: Guns are made for a purpose. Handguns, assault weapons -- most of the guns found in urban areas are made so that one person can kill another person. They may -- as the NRA likes to point out -- require a human being to actually pull the trigger, but no one buys a gun in order to help them bake cookies, organize their music collection or paint the house. People buy guns to have the option of killing someone should the desire or need arise.

No shit you dumb ****. Guns are made to kill people...what would you prefer I use for self defense? A NERF gun?

A bill is currently working its way through the California Assembly that would forbid people from keeping that option readily available by banning the open carrying of guns. The bill has passed the Public Safety Committee, and is currently in the State Senate Appropriations Committee. As we await this final step, it is critical to continue to inform people, including the governor, just why openly carrying guns is a bad idea.

First and foremost, prohibiting "open carry" is not about whether you can carry a gun, but how you carry your gun. Let me repeat that, because opponents want to make this a Second Amendment issue, when the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun. It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place -- the library, the coffeeshop on the corner, or yes, Huntington Beach, where recently a group of "open carry" advocates walked the sands among children playing, parents seeking recreation, teenagers reading -- openly carrying their weapons.

You dishonest piece of human trash...the only way people can carry right now is open carry because getting a concealed permit is almost impossible in California. Banning open carry would effectively ban the right to carry for most gun owners in that state.

Who should or should not carry a weapon, or what kind of weapons should be readily available are separate issues. Permits for concealed weapons provide an established, regulated method to determine just who is carrying guns around in public. Banning unconcealed weapons, however, is a specific, responsible measure, one that puts public safety first and foremost and respects the constitutional rights of all our citizens. When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections. Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights. (OK, but still -- why is this worse than carrying a concealed weapon?)

You really are an ignorant vacuous hole aren't you? Open carry is no danger to anyone. It is a more open and honest way to carry letting the public know who is armed and who is not. The fact that someone is concealed doesn't make him any less armed it just lets you live in your gumdrop palace of ignorant bliss while you shit rainbows on a toilet of gold.

Open carry advocates claim they are protecting the public by being a secondary, informal police force. Personally, I prefer the trained, publicly accountable and regulated police force. I know the rules that law enforcement are obligated to protect. I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.

What baseless drivel...no one I know that open carries thinks of themselves as a police officer or part of some police force. As for your blind trust in the competence of the police, do me a favor, tell that to the unarmed victims of rape and murder that thought the same way.

Guns are not inherently safe. That is not their purpose. The same day the LA Times ran the story on the front page about the open carry meet-up in Huntington Beach, the inside page detailed a tragic incident of a seven year old accidentally shooting and killing his two year old brother with a gun kept in the house. One has to wonder how safe people would feel if those demonstrating their right to carry weapons openly were not the middle-aged, polo-shirt-wearing, men photographed in the article, but rather a tattooed, twenty-two year old with baggy jeans falling below his waist.

Prejudiced much you intolerant dog faced bitch?

It is no surprise that California law enforcement agencies from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Sheriff's Department oppose open carry. Police are trained to see someone with a weapon as a threat. Civilians toting weapons on their hips makes it hard for the police to do their job and to determine who is the actual danger.

At its heart, open carry promotes a culture of fear -- a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community -- that when it comes to violence, there is no "us" vs. "them." That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals. When someone can walk into a playground, a church, a school or a beach openly carrying a weapon, it strikes a blow not only against our constitutional rights, but also against the very core of our humanity.

Your intellectually dishonest and smarmy blather strikes a blow to the collective intelligence of the human race. Your irrational fear of an inanimate object rather than a rational fear of the criminals who actually commit crime shows that you should do us all a favor by finding the nearest freeway and kindly walk into oncoming traffic.

[IronSight]

After reading this I needed to blow off some steam...

go ahead, tell us how you really feel

[andrewjs18]

you can rebut her entire article by saying this:
"Show me the facts that fewer guns in public means more freedom"

[GregorOneEye]

they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose."

Walking around empty handed could mean "I could kill you, if I choose." You know how easy it is to strangle/choke someone to death?

Maybe if everyone stopped working out and became slabs of Jelly we would all be safe from each other.

[WVneighbor]

Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun. It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

[t1m0thy]

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

She wasn't even being honest about that part. In CA they have a "may issue" policy which is pretty much a no issue policy for CCW. Banning open carry will effectively erase the ability of law abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public for self defense.