Open carry in Oklahoma

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Dowly

That's how it goes in the perfect world.

Say, someone wants to threathen someone with a knife, he probably closes
to 1.5-2m before showin his intentions. Try to pull a gun out from your holster/pocket
and you MIGHT get a shot out, but evenso, that knife will very likely be stuck
in some part of your body, in worst case, lethally.

Many in this thread seem to think that criminals are stupid, dont know why.
But if someone wants to rob you and they see the gun, they wont't be
coming at you from the front. Baseball bat/other hard object, or in worst case
a bullet to the back of the head is what they do.

EDIT: Of course, I dont live in the US, but to me this just means more guns for the bad guys who really need them (gangs and such).

Dowly,

I see where your coming from. The thing is - more civilians on the street with guns actually assumes that criminals are smart. You see - its not the guy they choose to rob necessarily. Its about all the other people that might be around when they stab or shoot a victim -because if MORE people are armed - and they start stabbing or shooting someone - they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the "fruits" of their nefarious actions. You see - its one thing to say "I can pop the guy in the back of the head and steall his stuff" - its another to have to worry about getting capped from 5 different directions if you try......

Most criminals don't want to die. So the issue of an armed citizenry - willint to protect itself - every man protecting himself and his neighbor - is the worst fear of the "physical" criminal.

That you get to own a gun if I say so.

So no different from how it is then, unless of course you can name a state that has no regulations at all, or find any period in your nations history where terms and conditions have not applied.

That you get to own a gun if I say so.

So it doesn't ban them then.

He did specifically say "all handguns".

All handguns(with exceptions) isn't anything like all guns is it.

Lets make it easy and turn the initial meaningless parrot fodder statement into a statement that has meaning.
"If they outlaw a certain type of gun then only outlaws will have that type of gun, apart for all the people who are exempt or have permits or have a version of that certain type of gun which is itself exempt....and everyone else not already covered will have to use a different type of gun instead or get a permit or become exempt or buy a gun of that type that is itself exempt"

It kinda loses all its "Oh the drama" impact in reality doesn't it

[August]

Rights are not rights if you need the governments permission to exercise them. That is in effect what the government is attempting to do with licensing and registration schemes.

[August]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...Top+Stories%29

ALCALDE, N.M. (AP) — A 35-year-old woman says she shot and killed a man after he allegedly barged into her Alcalde home and tried to undress her at knife point.The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that search warrant affidavits say the shooting Saturday occurred when 33-year-old Taos resident Lawrence Sandoval forced his way into the woman's home. She told deputies that she believed he followed her home from a gas station.
According to deputies, the woman says Sandoval grabbed a knife, put the knife to her chin and told her to take off her clothes. The woman told deputies she then reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and shot him. She fled from her home and called 911.
Officials say Sandoval died at the scene.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So no different from how it is then, unless of course you can name a state that has no regulations at all, or find any period in your nations history where terms and conditions have not applied.

Here in Utah, a dealer has do do an instant criminal background check. A concealed carry permit card voids that. A buyer only has to show proof of Utah residence. That's for hand guns. A rifle buyer doesn't even have to be a resident.

In Vermont there are no restrictions or requirements, period.

So it doesn't ban them then.

Any government that requires permission can ban them any time it wants.

All handguns(with exceptions) isn't anything like all guns is it.

You can play this game all you want. There are people who want to ban all guns, and they are doing everything within their power to accomplish that. Luckily there are people who stand against them.

Lets make it easy and turn the initial meaningless parrot fodder statement into a statement that has meaning.

"If they outlaw a certain type of gun then only outlaws will have that type of gun, apart for all the people who are exempt or have permits or have a version of that certain type of gun which is itself exempt....and everyone else not already covered will have to use a different type of gun instead or get a permit or become exempt or buy a gun of that type that is itself exempt"[/quote]
Now you really are playing games. The key word is "if". "Outlawed" means totally outlawed. Has that happened? No, but folks have tried. Since you narrowed it to "certain types of guns", I am now free to talk about "assault weapons". People have indeed tried to ban certain categories, mostly based on what they imagine those categories to entail. The logical extension of the saying is also true: If anything is banned then only outlaws will own those things. This is true both of criminals who will do anything and of good people who don't see those things as evil.

It kinda loses all its "Oh the drama" impact in reality doesn't it

It's not about drama. It's about freedom.

Rights are not rights if you need the governments permission to exercise them.

Terms and conditions always apply.

Here in Utah....

You have regulations

In Vermont there are no restrictions or requirements, period.

Bull, if it were true Vermont wouldn't have a agency for unlawful firearms would it, it wouldn't have a commision for the siezing of unlawful firearms and a process for disposing of unlawful firearms or an appeals process concerning firearms that are deemed illegal, they certainly wouldn't make registered gun salemen register handgun sales would they if there are no restrictions or requirements.
Nice try though

You can play this game all you want. There are people who want to ban all guns, and they are doing everything within their power to accomplish that.

And you link managed to contain a single example of a nobody, how much power does an anti smoking doctor have regarding firearms legislation?

Now you really are playing games. The key word is "if". "Outlawed" means totally outlawed. Has that happened? No, but folks have tried.

No the keyword if you want the line to work is "all", so thats all guns which seems to have escaped you as you keep going on about only handguns. Not to mention that you havn't managed to provide a single example of an attempt to ban all handguns let alone all guns.

Since you narrowed it to "certain types of guns", I am now free to talk about "assault weapons".

Sorry Steve, you failed to spot that I hadn't narrowed it at all which was why your own narrow "handguns" attempts were all off target.
Its not like you to miss words and I have repeatedly used the two words throughout the topic so they shouldn't have been hard to spot.

If anything is banned then only outlaws will own those things.

No, as exceptions always apply. Opiates are illegal, lots of non-outlaws can posess opiates can't they.

It's not about drama. It's about freedom.

If it was about freedom then a meaningfull arguement would be made not that parrot fodder which I initially pointed out

[MH]

Most criminals don't want to die. So the issue of an armed citizenry - willint to protect itself - every man protecting himself and his neighbor - is the worst fear of the "physical" criminal

That is also a reason for a criminal to arm himself to his teeth to steal your TV.....you know be prepared just in case.
Things can go downhill very easily here with people get killed over TV or 20$ and not necessarily the bad guys.
I wonder what would be statistics for cases where good citizen save a day vs getting shot orv shoot bystanders.

It a bit unfair question because it is individual choice weather to pull out the gun or not in given situation but still interesting to see if guns really save lives of good guys statistically.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You have regulations

Showing a driver's license?

Bull, if it were true Vermont wouldn't have a agency for unlawful firearms would it, it wouldn't have a commision for the siezing of unlawful firearms and a process for disposing of unlawful firearms or an appeals process concerning firearms that are deemed illegal, they certainly wouldn't make registered gun salemen register handgun sales would they if there are no restrictions or requirements.

Convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns. Therefore any guns in their possession are unlawful.

Nice try though

You're playing games again.

And you link managed to contain a single example of a nobody, how much power does an anti smoking doctor have regarding firearms legislation?

I wasn't talking about that link. I was talking about people I have talked to, conferences I've attended, people I've seen on TV. It's real.

No the keyword if you want the line to work is "all", so thats all guns which seems to have escaped you as you keep going on about only handguns. Not to mention that you havn't managed to provide a single example of an attempt to ban all handguns let alone all guns.

But the quote is true: If "all" guns were to be outlaws then only outlaws would have guns. Prevarication aside, is that concept true or not?


[quote]
Sorry Steve, you failed to spot that I hadn't narrowed it at all which was why your own narrow "handguns" attempts were all off target.
Its not like you to miss words and I have repeatedly used the two words throughout the topic so they shouldn't have been hard to spot.[/quoted]
The man I quoted (the founder of HCI, not whoever it is that you keep refering to) said that his stated goal was to eventually outlaw all handguns. You'll again point to "with a few exceptions". Their exceptions are always heavily licensed and regulated, "approved" special people, not any normal citizen.

No, as exceptions always apply. Opiates are illegal, lots of non-outlaws can posess opiates can't they.

No, they can't. If you are in possession of an illegal substance, you are by definition a criminal, and therefore outside the law.

If it was about freedom then a meaningfull arguement would be made not that parrot fodder which I initially pointed out

You keep playing games. Do you have anything real to discuss?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

It a bit unfair question because it is individual choice weather to pull out the gun or not in given situation but still interesting to see if guns really save lives of good guys statistically.

I've shown stories that would indicate that yes, armed citizens have on many occasions stopped crimes. Not always, but in my own home I'm better off with a gun than without one.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've shown stories that would indicate that yes, armed citizens have on many occasions stopped crimes. Not always, but in my own home I'm better off with a gun than without one.

Yeah sure ...the question rather is how often people get shot needlessly over stupid issues (property or 50$)while exercising their right to self defence.
Or....the good citizens actually make some situations worse while exercising the right, escalating robberies into shoot outs with casualties..

Showing a driver's license?

an instant criminal background check?
Or...A concealed carry permit card voids that....thats a gun license isn't it.
Do you get one of those by showing a driving licence or is there more to it in terms of regulations?
Regulations eh.

Convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns. Therefore any guns in their possession are unlawful.

Same as Utah then...regulations
Plus don't forget the mentals and the underage. Not to mention places where you cannot have a gun or places you can only have a gun with written permission plus of course the regulations for buying guns out of state and the other regulations for out of state buyers.
For a place with no regulation "period" they seem to have a hell of a lot of statutes regulating firearms in the State don't they.

You're playing games again.

You shouldn't have tried an absolute when it wasn't valid.
You should have gone with "Vermont has fairly liberal gun laws in comparison with other states"...but that lacks the impact you were trying for doesn't it.

I wasn't talking about that link.

I was, after all it was the link you posted to back up the claim wasn't it.

I was talking about people I have talked to, conferences I've attended, people I've seen on TV. It's real.

Which comes back to the same question, do they have more or less power than the doctor from Florida who has no power?

But the quote is true: If "all" guns were to be outlaws then only outlaws would have guns. Prevarication aside, is that concept true or not?

A concept built on a false premise cannot be true.

The man I quoted (the founder of HCI, not whoever it is that you keep refering to) said that his stated goal was to eventually outlaw all handguns. You'll again point to "with a few exceptions". Their exceptions are always heavily licensed and regulated, "approved" special people, not any normal citizen.

Exceptions are exceptions, all is all, you cannot have both.

No, they can't. If you are in possession of an illegal substance, you are by definition a criminal, and therefore outside the law.

Oh dear
Think how many well qualified upstanding pillars of the community you have just called criminals because of their proffession.
Some opiates are illegal, but there are a lot of exceptions.

You keep playing games. Do you have anything real to discuss?

Of course, try the first post I put in this topic.
I have asked several times for you to provide actual examples of real bans yet each time you came up short.
So take that first post and find a single example from any period from before or after the ink was dry on the 2nd when there havn't been regulations applying terms and conditions to possesion of firearms.
Because if you have never actually had something how can it somehow be taken away?

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

That is also a reason for a criminal to arm himself to his teeth to steal your TV.....you know be prepared just in case.

Or more likely to eliminate any witnesses to their crime.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

an instant criminal background check?
Or...A concealed carry permit card voids that....thats a gun license isn't it.

No, it's verification that you're not a criminal. After that it's done.

Do you get one of those by showing a driving licence or is there more to it in terms of regulations?
Regulations eh.

No, it's a license not to own a gun, but to carry it concealed in public, just as I don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property.

Same as Utah then...regulations

Only for felons, who also aren't allowed to vote or hold certain jobs.

Plus don't forget the mentals and the underage. Not to mention places where you cannot have a gun or places you can only have a gun with written permission plus of course the regulations for buying guns out of state and the other regulations for out of state buyers.

I also can't carry a gun into a friend's house if he doesn't want me to, at least not if I want to remain friends. On the other hand the University of Utah tried to ban guns on campus and the courts said they couldn't. The state doesn't want us carrying guns into a courthouse, and that's their right. It's not a regulation for ownership.

For a place with no regulation "period" they seem to have a hell of a lot of statutes regulating firearms in the State don't they.

I didn't say "regulation", I said restrictions or requirements. Yes, certain people are prohibited from owning firearms because they are not considered safe. Ordinary citizens do not have to prove their competence, the governing body has to prove incompetence first. I see a big difference. For the ordinary citizen there are no restrictions or requirements.

You shouldn't have tried an absolute when it wasn't valid.
You should have gone with "Vermont has fairly liberal gun laws in comparison with other states"...but that lacks the impact you were trying for doesn't it.

No permit to puchase. No registration. No licenses required. No "assault weapons" law. Free carry, open or concealed. Yes, it is forbidden to sell guns to children. Yes, dealers must have a record of the sale.

Some regulation.

I was, after all it was the link you posted to back up the claim wasn't it.

You keep bringing that up. I don't even know about this guy in Florida.

Which comes back to the same question, do they have more or less power than the doctor from Florida who has no power?

Doesn't matter. They try to get the people in power to listen. That's all that counts.

A concept built on a false premise cannot be true.

But the premise is true and the logic is valid.

Exceptions are exceptions, all is all, you cannot have both.

Government-assigned exceptions mean that the government is excercising absolute control. And absolute is absolute.

Oh dear
Think how many well qualified upstanding pillars of the community you have just called criminals because of their proffession.

Playing games again.

Some opiates are illegal, but there are a lot of exceptions.

And if it's illegal for you to be in possession of a particular one, then you are breaking the law, and are therefore a criminal. If it's legal for you to be in possession, i.e. a doctor or a patient with a prescription, then it is not illegal and you are not breaking the law.

Of course, try the first post I put in this topic.

Fair point. On the other hand I wasn't sure at that time if you were serious or mocking.

I have asked several times for you to provide actual examples of real bans yet each time you came up short.

Not really. I've seen it tried. That you choose to see it as not absolute doesn't mean the threat isn't real. On the other hand I said that the saying was a cliche, but it is still true. You've tried to qualify that, but, trite or not, it's still true.

So take that first post and find a single example from any period from before or after the ink was dry on the 2nd when there havn't been regulations applying terms and conditions to possesion of firearms.
Because if you have never actually had something how can it somehow be taken away?

And that's why we question every single regulation, because one thing can indeed lead to another, and we don't want that to happen.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

Yeah sure ...the question rather is how often people get shot needlessly over stupid issues (property or 50$)while exercising their right to self defence.
Or....the good citizens actually make some situations worse while exercising the right, escalating robberies into shoot outs with casualties..

That's a fair question. How often does that happen? I've heard that argument used, but I've never found anyone who has an answer. One study has been done, but everyone has a differing opinion on its validity.

I can only say that people have used guns to kill other people, including family members, and mistakes have been made, tragic mistakes. Compared to the number of legally-owned guns, the number is still fairly small. Would outlawing guns make the problems go away? Mistakes, probably. Homicides and suicides? Not by much.