daily show on guns on Texas "open carry"

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

The Daily Show has three segments on "open carry" in Texas.

My two favorite segments (for entertainment) were:

The third video (don't carry a gun as a black person) - it did an excellent job poking fun at folks who don't know how to deal with their guns properly. Among other things

The phrase "If you don't use your rights, you'll lose them" - I don't exercise my Miranda rights (the right to remain silent when arrested) because I've never been arrested. But that doesn't mean I've lost it.

The rest was very good to. I liked that they looked at the intersection of "open carry" and "stand your ground."

I live in an area where most people don't have guns. Not counting police officers/the military, I think I've seen a gun twice in my life. Neither of which was in my state. So the concept of "open carry" is definitely an uncomfortable one.

I have been to Texas. I know many people there have a gun on them. But it is different knowing that and seeing it. It's also different seeing a riffle than a smaller gun. I assume they are of similar dangerous levels (maybe incorrectly), but the bigger one looks scarier.

I'm curious what members from "traditional gun states" make of this.

[Bear Bibeault]

I'm a Texan¹ (for the past 18 years), ex-military, and a gun owner. My partner is an ex-cop, and also a gun owner. We both think that the "Open Carry" folks are bat-shit crazy. As is the NRA.

It's one thing to own guns for target practice, or hunting (we don't hunt), or because you feel you need one to protect your property (we don't really). It's completely another to take loaded assault rifles (which, in my opinion have no business in civilian hands) into a Dunkin Donuts.

And yes, an assault rifle can do a lot (a lot) more damage than a handgun.

And as to The Daily Show: as usual. Best line "You're sitting on a bunker of assault rifles, and you use scissors?"


¹ To be honest, we consider ourselves Austin-ites rather than Texans. Once you step out of Austin, it is, as they say, a "whole 'nother country".

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Bear,
If the state of Texas passes a law, it does affect Austin .

The New York Times had an article on this yesterday. It contained this passage:

Or that he seemed shocked when the gun-control advocacy group Moms Demand Action publicized photos from his own website of Open Carry Texas members toting guns at a Target.

“What Moms Demand Action is doing is digging into our photo archives and trying to smear us,” Mr. Grisham told The Journal.

If the photos are from your own website, you’ve done the smearing yourself.

[Bear Bibeault]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:If the state of Texas passes a law, it does affect Austin .

Sadly, yes.

I could never live outside of the progressive cities in Texas, though.

To keep on-topic, I've never come across anyone doing the "Open Carry" thing, and even as a gun owner, it'd make me very uncomfortable if I did.

[Maneesh Godbole]

So this is some macho thing? Carry guns visibly? Make you feel more manly?

Bear Bibeault wrote:...ex-military, and a gun owner. My partner is an ex-cop, and also a gun owner. We both think that the "Open Carry" folks are bat-shit crazy.

Is it because you know what a bullet can do?
I think Bear and his partner are the real machos. With great power, comes great responsibility! I salute you!

As a non American, I sometimes am amused (other times exasperated) when I hear about the "big three"(in my uneducated opinion) during American elections
1) Gun control
2) Abortion
3) Evolution

If my perception is true, then I wonder who has the worse politicians (or the worse voters). In India, the big three are
1) Secularism
2) Eradication of poverty
3) Caste based reservations

[J. Kevin Robbins]

I live in a southern state where guns are part of the culture. I've hunted and shot guns since I was about 8 years old. I've carried a concealed weapon daily for 20 years and I can't imagine leaving the house without it. I think the open-carry people are, as Bear put it, bat-shit crazy. They are doing more to damage the pro-gun movement and concealed carry laws than any crazy mall shooter can do. Personally, I think they should be arrested and locked up until they come to their senses. There is just no good justification for walking around town with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. Even in pro-gun states it scares the crap out of people. All that does is paint all gun owners as crazy.

[fred rosenberger]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote: I've carried a concealed weapon daily for 20 years and I can't imagine leaving the house without it.

Ironically, I find you to be crazier and more scary than open carry. What is the point of carrying a concealed weapon? Carrying it out in the open lets everyone know you are armed and should be avoided at all costs.

Not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't is MUCH more terrifying in my opinion.

[J. Kevin Robbins]

fred rosenberger wrote:

J. Kevin Robbins wrote: I've carried a concealed weapon daily for 20 years and I can't imagine leaving the house without it.

Ironically, I find you to be crazier and more scary than open carry. What is the point of carrying a concealed weapon? Carrying it out in the open lets everyone know you are armed and should be avoided at all costs.

Not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't is MUCH more terrifying in my opinion.

It's a tactical advantage. If the bad guy sees you have a gun, guess who he's going to shoot first?

Why do you think I'm crazy because I want the ability to defend myself? I'm too old and weak to physically fight off a younger attacker and I can't count on the police to be there at a seconds notice. What other option is there other than hoping for good luck?

[Paul Clapham]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:Why do you think I'm crazy because I want the ability to defend myself? I'm too old and weak to physically fight off a younger attacker and I can't count on the police to be there at a seconds notice. What other option is there other than hoping for good luck?

The other option is to live in a place where people aren't likely to attack you for no reason. I'm nearly 65 years old and I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been of any use at all, because I live in one of those places. Apparently you don't, or you don't think you do. I'm not recommending that you move, I'm recommending that you try to change the place where you live.

[J. Kevin Robbins]

Paul Clapham wrote:The other option is to live in a place where people aren't likely to attack you for no reason.

I don't think there is anyplace that is 100% safe, just some places that are safer than others. Obviously living in the middle of Montana is safer than living in Chicago or Detroit. Moving is not an option. My work and my family are here. Our neighborhood seems safe yet I still have to leave home to go to the grocery store and other places in town. The cops in our nearby town will tell you one of the most dangerous places in town is the parking lot at Wal-Mart.

I can say than in all my years of carry I've only had to draw in self-defense once and no shots were fired. Just the presence of a firearm prevented me from getting beaten by three attackers. I held them at gun point for the almost 10 minutes that it took for the police to arrive. How badly do you think they would have beaten me in 10 minutes?

I hope I never have to fire my weapon in self-defense. When I strap it on the morning I'm not thinking "gee, I hope I get to use this today". That would be the height of foolishness and a sign of serious mental illness. But I also don't want my last dying thought to be "if only I'd had a gun...". I think of it like a tourniquet. I will probably go my entire life without ever needing it. I hope I never need it. But if I ever do need it, I need it quickly, and I need it desperately.

[fred rosenberger]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:It's a tactical advantage. If the bad guy sees you have a gun, guess who he's going to shoot first?

Why do you think I'm crazy because I want the ability to defend myself? I'm too old and weak to physically fight off a younger attacker and I can't count on the police to be there at a seconds notice. What other option is there other than hoping for good luck?

If a bad guy sees you have a gun, then perhaps he won't attack you at all.

I don't think you are crazy for wanting the ability to defend yourself. It's the implementation, not the requirement that I question..

[J. Kevin Robbins]

fred rosenberger wrote:I don't think you are crazy for wanting the ability to defend yourself. It's the implementation, not the requirement that I question..

I understand that your opinion differs from mine. I'm glad that we can have a civilized discussion about it and agree to disagree without heated emotions getting in the way.

But back the OP's original question, I still think the open-carry proponents are extremists who do more harm than good. They will cause lasting damage to the gun rights movement if they keep up this nonsense. More damage than even Michael Bloomberg can do.

[Bear Bibeault]

The NRA didn't help by backpedalling. That just reinforced the impression that they're all extremist nutjobs.

[fred rosenberger]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:gun rights

So this raises another question. Why is it "gun rights"? The constitution uses the word guns ZERO times, yet that is the only thing anyone ever talks about.

In Missouri (where I live), to get a concealed WEAPON permit, I need to take a GUN safety class. I don't own a gun, I don't want to shoot a gun, I'm actually uncomfortable holding a gun, so how am I supposed to get my permit so I can exercise MY constitutional rights?

[Paul Clapham]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:

Paul Clapham wrote:The other option is to live in a place where people aren't likely to attack you for no reason.

I don't think there is anyplace that is 100% safe, just some places that are safer than others. Obviously living in the middle of Montana is safer than living in Chicago or Detroit. Moving is not an option. My work and my family are here. Our neighborhood seems safe yet I still have to leave home to go to the grocery store and other places in town.

Hey Kevin, I didn't mean to be facile about that. I was trying to suggest that it would be better if people in your part of the world eased up so that everybody didn't feel the need to have guns. But from what I see it's going the other way. Obviously I don't have anything helpful to say about that.

I live in a place which isn't 100% safe. We have gangs around here, and since they have poor conflict management skills they indulge in drive-by shootings from time to time. Other people generally don't have guns (yes, only the outlaws have guns) but then having a gun isn't going to be of any use if you happen to be an innocent bystander at a drive-by shooting. And I don't see people going out to acquire guns because the gangsters have them. Just part of the culture I guess.

Also, you might be surprised to find out that in my part of the world you're more likely to be the victim of gun-related violence if you live in a rural area rather than in an urban area.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

fred rosenberger wrote:In Missouri (where I live), to get a concealed WEAPON permit, I need to take a GUN safety class. I don't own a gun, I don't want to shoot a gun, I'm actually uncomfortable holding a gun, so how am I supposed to get my permit so I can exercise MY constitutional rights?

What other weapons does one conceal? A sword? Slingshot? Safety pin? (shortly after 9/11 I was told that I had to take the safety pin off my pants and throw it out because it a "weapon")

Ok, so I say that jokingly. But I am curious what other weapons one would conceal. The only other thing I can think of is mace, but I don't know if that is a weapon.

J Kevin: Would they have beat you up or "just" stolen your stuff if you didn't have the gun? I'll grant you that neither is good. I'm curious if you prevented getting hurt or getting robbed. Or both.

[fred rosenberger]

Tazers. Mace. Batons. Knives. Clubs. Many weapons that have a much smaller chance of hurting an innocent bystander if you miss.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

fred rosenberger wrote:Tazers. Mace. Batons. Knives. Clubs. Many weapons that have a much smaller chance of hurting an innocent bystander if you miss.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought you'd need a permit for a knife. How do they differentiate between a swiss army knife and a weapon knife.

The others I would have had they occurred to me.

[fred rosenberger]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Interesting. I wouldn't have thought you'd need a permit for a knife. How do they differentiate between a swiss army knife and a weapon knife.

The others I would have had they occurred to me.

The common believe (i.e. what every kid in high school ever told me) is that it's the length and size of the blade. Although switchblades and stilettos are illegal regardless of the size, due to to their very nature of being a concealed weapon.

[J. Kevin Robbins]

fred rosenberger wrote:

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:gun rights

So this raises another question. Why is it "gun rights"? The constitution uses the word guns ZERO times, yet that is the only thing anyone ever talks about.

In Missouri (where I live), to get a concealed WEAPON permit, I need to take a GUN safety class. I don't own a gun, I don't want to shoot a gun, I'm actually uncomfortable holding a gun, so how am I supposed to get my permit so I can exercise MY constitutional rights?

I think the meaning of the second amendment is fodder for a whole different thread. I will say this; remember that the Bill of Rights defines your God-given rights that cannot be infringed upon by any government. They are not rights granted to you by the government. Whether you choose to exercise them or not doesn't matter; they still exist for you to exercise at any point in the future.

[J. Kevin Robbins]

Paul Clapham wrote:I live in a place which isn't 100% safe. We have gangs around here, and since they have poor conflict management skills they indulge in drive-by shootings from time to time. Other people generally don't have guns (yes, only the outlaws have guns) but then having a gun isn't going to be of any use if you happen to be an innocent bystander at a drive-by shooting. And I don't see people going out to acquire guns because the gangsters have them. Just part of the culture I guess.

I don't know what to say about drive-bys. I think all you can in that case is dive for cover. I agree that shooting at a fleeing vehicle isn't going to accomplish anything except likely get another innocent bystander shot. In our area, the scary change that we've seen since the economy went to hell in the last few years in a big increase in home invasions. I don't think a day goes by that I don't hear about another one in our local area. Many times the home owner successfully defends himself. Sometimes not. In a recent case, the home owner was beaten to death. The perp (who got 43 years) was a former tenant of mine! This P.O.S. was in my home! That could just have easily been my house. I got cold chills when I read that story.

Paul Clapham wrote:Also, you might be surprised to find out that in my part of the world you're more likely to be the victim of gun-related violence if you live in a rural area rather than in an urban area.

That is surprising and interesting. I realize that Canada has a very different perspective on gun ownership. Care to speculate on why the rural areas are more dangerous?

[J. Kevin Robbins]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:J Kevin: Would they have beat you up or "just" stolen your stuff if you didn't have the gun? I'll grant you that neither is good. I'm curious if you prevented getting hurt or getting robbed. Or both.

They were trespassers on my property attempting to steal property from me. I ordered them to leave. They refused. I called 911 and got jumped from behind as I walked away while talking to the 911 operator. We struggled briefly and I took a hard punch to the nose. I went down and bounced back up with the gun in my hand, ordering my attacker to get on the ground. That's where he stayed until the police arrived. I feel lucky to have gotten out of it with only a broken nose.

Should I have just hidden in my house and let them take whatever they wanted? Some might argue so. But we live in a rural area and it took the police over 10 minutes to get there. It seems like an eternity when you are holding someone at gunpoint and bleeding profusely from the nose. What if they had entered the house? I decided long ago to take responsibility for my own safety and security, and that of my family. I prefer that to hiding out and hoping that 911 will get there in time.

[fred rosenberger]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:What if they had entered the house? I decided long ago to take responsibility for my own safety and security, and that of my family. I prefer that to hiding out and hoping that 911 will get there in time.

I see a huge difference between having a gun to defend ones home/private property, and going out to the mall or a public park.

[J. Kevin Robbins]

fred rosenberger wrote:I see a huge difference between having a gun to defend ones home/private property, and going out to the mall or a public park.

I see it as protecting my life and the lives of my loved ones, no matter where we are. I don't think the right to protection stops at my front door. And I'm not going to rely on police who are minutes away when seconds matter.

I think we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree on this topic. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. But it's been a very interesting discussion. Thanks for a reasonable debate.

[Paul Clapham]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:

Paul Clapham wrote:Also, you might be surprised to find out that in my part of the world you're more likely to be the victim of gun-related violence if you live in a rural area rather than in an urban area.

That is surprising and interesting. I realize that Canada has a very different perspective on gun ownership. Care to speculate on why the rural areas are more dangerous?

I'm pretty sure that we have more guns per capita in rural areas, because people there are more likely to be farmers or hunters. These are mostly long guns, for sure, but those can be used against people too and sometimes they are.

[fred rosenberger]

J. Kevin Robbins wrote:I see it as protecting my life and the lives of my loved ones, no matter where we are. I don't think the right to protection stops at my front door. And I'm not going to rely on police who are minutes away when seconds matter.

I live in Kirkwood, Missouri. I don't know where you live, or if you heard about this. It happened one mile from my house. The first thing Mr. Thornton did was kill two cops - both of whom were armed. He then went into the City Council meeting room and killed three more people, seriously wounding two more (one of whom eventually died from complications).

If everyone in that council chamber had a gun, I am terrified to think how many more people would have been killed if they all opened up.

Whereas, if Mr. Thornton had not been able to get a gun at all, he'd not have been able to kill anyone in this way.


Having said all that...I still don't want a gun, and think that anyone who feels the need to carry a weapon with them at all times is, to quote, bat-shit crazy. That is my opinion, and no, I don't expect to change your mind. This is one of those issues that people hold so deeply, that no amount of arguments will ever change their minds (and I say that about both sides).

[Sean Corfield]

As an ex-pat Brit - now American citizen (since 2005) - this subject fascinates me.

In England, guns are heavily controlled after just a handful of spree killings. The first one that caused a legal change banned the "bigger" guns, the second one caused a ban of hand guns too. I believe only rifles and shotguns are legal now and you need a permit that has to be renewed every five(?) years - and the local police can deny your permit without cause any time they want. And gun violence is very low in England.

I'd handled an air rifle once, as a teenager, in England and nothing more serious.

My first visit to the US, back in '90 or '91, was to Dallas, TX. Culture shock doesn't begin to describe it. And my hosts were shocked I had never handled a gun so they said they'd teach me to shoot. They had a huge safe in their bedroom and it was literally full of guns: when they unlocked it, guns tumbled out onto the floor. My host selected a "38 Special" as a first weapon for me, and I found a 9mm semi-automatic pistol in the pile and wanted to try that. He finished the selection with a "357 Magnum" (I had no idea about that other than it being something I had heard of). We went to an indoor shooting range and he taught me to shoot. It was both fun and terrifying. I haven't touched a gun since.

I spent a fair bit of time in Texas in the early 90's and it was interesting to see regular folks walking the streets with six shooters on their hips. Real life cowboys. One time I came to visit and it was the NRA Convention. Guys in full camo, with bullet belts across both shoulders, wandering around the parking lot with some very big guns. It was somewhat comical (but, yes, also pretty scary).

I moved to America in '99 and lived in Oakland, CA for a while. Gunfire was not unheard of. A colleague was held up at gunpoint two doors down from my apartment. I never saw a gun, but I knew they were around. I knew a lot of people who owned guns. Looking back, I was a bit surprised at how quickly I just got used to the facts of life in America - people have guns.

I now live somewhere "quieter" in the Bay Area and the only guns I ever see are on the hips of the police here (including BART transit police which kinda freaks me out!).

To the point of the thread, as an ex-pat Brit, I actually find open carry itself far less concerning than concealed carry - at least I can see who is armed - but the advocates of open carry don't do themselves any favors: all that marching around, heavily armed, in public restaurants and stores... That's just wrong on so many levels for me. Open carry is fine, open carry advocacy is scary, but I don't think open carry plays into the current gun violence issues very much.

[fred rosenberger]

Sean Corfield wrote: all that marching around, heavily armed, in public restaurants and stores...

All other points aside...

those "Public restaurants and stores" are actually private property. Gun wielders are not a protected class. They have zero rights to carry those guns into the store, if the store's policy says 'no guns'.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

fred rosenberger wrote:those "Public restaurants and stores" are actually private property. Gun wielders are not a protected class. They have zero rights to carry those guns into the store, if the store's policy says 'no guns'.

That reminds me. In Chicago, a lot of stores had "no guns" signs.

[fred rosenberger]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

fred rosenberger wrote:those "Public restaurants and stores" are actually private property. Gun wielders are not a protected class. They have zero rights to carry those guns into the store, if the store's policy says 'no guns'.

That reminds me. In Chicago, a lot of stores had "no guns" signs.

And for what it's worth, does that mean that concealed weapons other than guns ARE allowed?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

fred rosenberger wrote:And for what it's worth, does that mean that concealed weapons other than guns ARE allowed?

Apparently!