Open Carry Laws/Protests Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   6/6/2014 10:06 AM

   Wonder what everyone's thoughts are on the recent news items of people openly carrying their "long guns" into restaurants and other areas.
   
   I think it's pretty ridiculous and I am worried that more accidental shootings will occur.
   
   Jon Stewart I thought hit the nail on the head last night about it in my opinion, and man the NRA will just flip flop all over the place, when they originally said it isn't a great idea, to then backing the open carry people.
   
   Great clips from Stewart as he went back and forth on the debate of open carry and then stand your ground laws.
   
   
   https://tv.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-o ... 00975.html
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   6/6/2014 11:06 AM

   Personally I think it's stupid and nothing more than flaunting the 2nd amendment in a ridiculous manner. I'm all for the 2nd amendment and carry laws (both open and conceal) but this flies against the dignity and intent of the amendment. No body and I mean no body carries a long rifle with them on a normal basis. My usual check list when leaving the house in the morning; keys-check, phone-check, coffee-check, long riffle-ahh, no. These people are doing a disservice to the amendment and to the fight to maintain the 2nd amendment.

   
   
   
   
3. Curtis Nickerson

   

   0 posts
   
   6/6/2014 3:06 PM

   Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Personally I think it's stupid and nothing more than flaunting the 2nd amendment in a ridiculous manner. I'm all for the 2nd amendment and carry laws (both open and conceal) but this flies against the dignity and intent of the amendment. No body and I mean no body carries a long rifle with them on a normal basis. My usual check list when leaving the house in the morning; keys-check, phone-check, coffee-check, long riffle-ahh, no. These people are doing a disservice to the amendment and to the fight to maintain the 2nd amendment.

   
   
   Clay,
   You nailed it, I carry concealed and say to each their own when it comes to open/concealed for hand guns. But for me, I wouldn't carry open if given the choice.

   
   
   
   
4. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   6/9/2014 1:06 PM

   I agree with you guys, those guys are not helping their cause, it would make me real nervous around them, and I'm not "packing", and probably a good thing I'm not, as I might "stand my ground" and probably have a good chance of winning, heck if it worked for George Zimmerman?
   
   I'm not a gun owner; we gave away my dad's guns to my uncle and cousins who hunt. I also know many laws being proposed won't stop much of the violence that get's our emotions running high on the issue. There are probably plenty of laws on the books now. I have no problems with people owning guns for sport and protection.
   
   But a few common sense items should/could be debated. More background checks, especially at gun shows and auctions. I know there are issues when sales are made to family members, something could be worked out? Also I don't believe registrations are bad, we register everything else. It would help prosecute those gun owners/straw buyers that aren't responsible gun owners.
   
   A big one in my book would be smaller magazines. During the Gifford shooting as I have read, even though there were CCW people on site, they did not pull their guns and start shooting (probably because of bystanders) but they were able to subdue the shooter when he was reloading. I hear the argument that they can be changed out so fast, well if that is the case, then after squeezing of 15 rounds, it won't take long to reload, so why do they need to be bigger?
   
   But those are opinions, if statistics and evidence show that it isn't effective; I'm willing to change my mind. I know some of what is proposed wouldn't have changed the Newtown shooting, or the recent shooting in California. It might have spared some lives in the Aurora Colorado shooting. But I know when those events are looked at individually, laws already in place should have prevented them or, no laws could have prevented them, well except maybe mental health laws?
   
   I think the issue when gun rights come up, emotions run high on either side and common sense ideas and solutions go out the door.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
5. Curtis Nickerson

   

   0 posts
   
   6/9/2014 1:06 PM

   Look at Chicago, some of the most strict / restrictive guns laws in the country and they had 30 shootings this weekend. And have some of the highest murder/gun violence rates in the entire country. More restrictive gun laws are as effective as the "no guns" signs that were placed on the school and movie theater. Sadly criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS.

   
   
   
   
6. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   6/10/2014 8:06 AM

   Curtis Nickerson said: Look at Chicago, some of the most strict / restrictive guns laws in the country and they had 30 shootings this weekend. And have some of the highest murder/gun violence rates in the entire country. More restrictive gun laws are as effective as the "no guns" signs that were placed on the school and movie theater. Sadly criminals DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS.

   
   
   So that means because of one city that can't police itself, the whole country should be over arming? I believe (although since I don't live there it's my opinion) that Chicago's problem is not enough police or smart policing, and many societal issues. New York City has similar laws and shootings are not near the problem as Chicago. Just as a blanket statements made by the far left to "take away" guns is based on emotion or lack of facts, the right who uses the Chicago example as to why laws don't work really aren't digging into the real issues of why there are so many shootings there and not in New York or LA (where I believe gun laws would be fairly restrictive as well). Could part of Chicago's problem be access since the states around there have much less restrictive laws, allowing a flow of guns into the city? I know NYC and Newark claim many of their guns come from the Carolinas.
   
   Again, just my opinion, but I just think as we want (I guess we do) to live in a civil society, for our citizens to arm themselves like they are in the wild west, (which I think was more restrictive, when cowboys had to turn in their guns in certain towns at the end of their cattle drives), or some third world country, is just not the answer. I would hazard a guess that there are more accidental shootings just because of the large access of guns compared to shootings in regards to committing crimes. But I will say I have not looked that statistic up.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
7. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   6/10/2014 8:06 AM

   Mel, you may view Chicago as an anomaly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While the guys carrying rifles into donut shops are idiots and are doing more harm than good, it's pretty clear from the evidence that restictive gun laws do nothing to curb crime. We have a mental health problem in this country which needs as much attention as gun laws tend to get but it's easier to just pass restrictive gun laws and feel superior about it.
   
   regards,
   
   Steve

   
   
   
   
8. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   6/10/2014 9:06 AM

   Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
   
   But those are opinions, if statistics and evidence show that it isn't effective; I'm willing to change my mind.
   
   Mel

   
   
   Here ya go, Mel. Let us know if you have changed your mind. If I were a betting man...
   
   http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

   
   
   
   
9. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   6/10/2014 9:06 AM

   Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: Mel, you may view Chicago as an anomaly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While the guys carrying rifles into donut shops are idiots and are doing more harm than good, it's pretty clear from the evidence that restictive gun laws do nothing to curb crime. We have a mental health problem in this country which needs as much attention as gun laws tend to get but it's easier to just pass restrictive gun laws and feel superior about it.
   
   regards,
   
   Steve

   
   
   I agree Steve, Chicago it seems is an anomaly, and why, it would be interesting to study and debate. The one side always seems to use it to try and make their point. I mention it as it is always brought up as why restrictive gun laws don't work, yet they seem to be working in other cities. Crime is crime and they will use whatever means possible to achieve their goal. If a city wants to lower crime, they will need to invest in their police force to help, probably with other support as well. Of course that takes money, usually tax dollars and nobody wants to pay those anymore, (but that I suppose is another topic and debate for another thread). Does that mean we as citizens need to arm ourselves to the teeth, more so then law enforcement? That is for debate, but I don't think we need to be that way.
   
   For those events that trigger the call for more restrictive laws, and is used by the other side to loosen them, I agree with you, the problem isn't the guns, but the mental health of the people. That is why if we step back from those events and look at the facts, I can see that for the most part new laws wouldn't have prevented the events. Mental health needs to be a top priority, but since any health care for people doesn't seem to be a priority for some politicians, mental health will continue to fall by the wayside, (but that is another debate and topic as well). I do believe though in my opinion, if the large capacity magazines would not have been available, maybe Aurora wouldn't have been as deadly? But that is just one event and that is my opinion. To me it does seem like common sense, but I know others will not look at it that way and will insist on having large magazines for protection from those large gangs of criminals, or even the government.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
10. Curtis Nickerson

    

    0 posts
    
    6/10/2014 11:06 AM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:

    Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: Mel, you may view Chicago as an anomaly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. While the guys carrying rifles into donut shops are idiots and are doing more harm than good, it's pretty clear from the evidence that restictive gun laws do nothing to curb crime. We have a mental health problem in this country which needs as much attention as gun laws tend to get but it's easier to just pass restrictive gun laws and feel superior about it.
    
    regards,
    
    Steve

    
    
    I agree Steve, Chicago it seems is an anomaly, and why, it would be interesting to study and debate. The one side always seems to use it to try and make their point. I mention it as it is always brought up as why restrictive gun laws don't work, yet they seem to be working in other cities. Crime is crime and they will use whatever means possible to achieve their goal. If a city wants to lower crime, they will need to invest in their police force to help, probably with other support as well. Of course that takes money, usually tax dollars and nobody wants to pay those anymore, (but that I suppose is another topic and debate for another thread). Does that mean we as citizens need to arm ourselves to the teeth, more so then law enforcement? That is for debate, but I don't think we need to be that way.
    
    For those events that trigger the call for more restrictive laws, and is used by the other side to loosen them, I agree with you, the problem isn't the guns, but the mental health of the people. That is why if we step back from those events and look at the facts, I can see that for the most part new laws wouldn't have prevented the events. Mental health needs to be a top priority, but since any health care for people doesn't seem to be a priority for some politicians, mental health will continue to fall by the wayside, (but that is another debate and topic as well). I do believe though in my opinion, if the large capacity magazines would not have been available, maybe Aurora wouldn't have been as deadly? But that is just one event and that is my opinion. To me it does seem like common sense, but I know others will not look at it that way and will insist on having large magazines for protection from those large gangs of criminals, or even the government.
    
    Mel

    
    
    Look at Detroit, Dc, or just do a little research Mel, take off the blinders.... and stop making this political, it should not be a red or blue issue... Neither should the VA, IRS, Healthcare...I am so sick and tired of the hard working american people getting used as political pawns.... If any of us broke promises, manipulated facts and told out right lies like BOTH PARTIES do we would be unemployed at the very least and possibly jailed...
    
    I didn't like Bush and I don't like the current administration so that's not my "angle"... And as a good friend mentioned to me recently, No good and honorable people will ever run for office because the "establishment" will tear them down and destroys them.
    
    I would like you to answer one question...
    Who is more likely going to be disarmed by more restrictive gun laws, law-abiding citizens, or criminals?
    
    "Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to own cars"
    
    and on that note, "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than any of my guns"

    
    
    
    
11. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    6/11/2014 9:06 AM

    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    
    But those are opinions, if statistics and evidence show that it isn't effective; I'm willing to change my mind.
    
    Mel

    
    
    Here ya go, Mel. Let us know if you have changed your mind. If I were a betting man...
    
    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

    
    
    Clay a quote from the article, as I read it, Boston is having an issue with violence, but the state itself doesn't seem to be. Of course the study is from 2007, the Federal Assault weapons ban ended in 2004, could the 2007 study been too soon after the ban ended to see a change? Could that same study be done now and see the same results?
    
    [quote">While the research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide.
    
    So as you say, I haven't changed my mind. Although from what I've seen a new Assault Weapons ban really isn't going to do much, so while I might support one, I am also willing to let it stay the way it is. What I would support is better registration and background checks especially at auctions and gun shows, and a ban on larger magazines. Like I have mentioned before, I thought I read that the shooter in the Gifford's case was reloading when he was subdued, without shooting him, and I thought I read that there were CCW holders in the crowd. Could the Aurora shooting have been less deadly if the guy had a smaller magazine? I know both cases the root of the problem was mental health and those should be addressed before anything else. I am sure there might be other cases that would show larger magazines made no difference.
    
    Curtis to answer your question you asked me might be mute, because no one has talked about disarming anyone. I would suspect even under the current laws, criminals if they have the means are going to try to arm themselves more than law abiding citizens. That would be the case even if guns were banned altogether. Look at when machine guns were banned during the 20's the mob still had them.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO