Today in class we got to talk about
a very interesting subject that most of us probably have not heard addressed as
becoming a state law. The fact that people are considering creating a law where
handguns would have to be left unconcealed is a foreign one to most, but
honestly an interesting one to explore. The difference would be instead of the
law to this point where people could get a permit to carry a handgun and have
to keep it concealed under clothing to not alarm those around them they would
have to carry it on their hip like they were Billy the Kid.
The thought of this change alarmed
a lot of the people in the class very quickly, but maybe there is a way to look
at this change in a positive light. Most claimed that they would not feel
comfortable being in a public space and seeing someone that is not in uniform
carrying an unconcealed weapon because this would imply a power that the
carrier of the happen would have over most others. Although this may be true
and in some cases would be my natural response to the situation, can there be
an assumption that if the law were to change that attitude would change as
well. My thought would be that if the law were to change the community ideals
on carrying would loosen to a point that some people would either not feel
discomfort when around the unconcealed weapon, or even feel comfortable when
they see someone with an unconcealed weapon.
Just as much as we can assume
someone with a weapon has it to do harm, we can assume that there are a large
amount of people that have it purely for protection. I know it may be hard to
imagine with the amount of negative media we see and the statistics set in
front of us, but if I saw someone, especially someone I knew, with the weapon I
would almost feel a sense of safety incase the loose minded killer had entered
the public space I was inhabiting.
Of course there will be those who
never feel comfortable around a weapon. With this I think a law for requiring
the carry of an unconcealed weapon would be further supported by this because
those who are uncomfortable would be able to alleviate themselves for the
situation since they would know that the weapon was there. These are just a few thoughts on the subject,
and I would love for some comments of further exploration.
In my opinion, the perception of a threat is subjective. The majority of people resent weapons, specifically handguns, because of the role they have played in our society recently. Objectively speaking, a baseball bat or machete may prove to be just as dangerous as a fire arm. People abuse the laws we have in place today by obtaining weapons illegally and using an object meant to ensure safety for harm. No matter what bills our legislators pass, there will always be that select few that break the law. In addition, the only way some feel comfortable is while he or she is carrying a gun. Is it just to take away the security of these people for the benefit of those who feel the opposite?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting topic too, Trey and you raised a lot of good points. The part that I question the most with the open carry is how that will affect the concealed carry law. Yesterday in class I kept wondering if the open carry permit meant that people could no longer conceal carry or if it was just an option. To me, having an open carry law does not really bother me because in a way you can be more aware of your surroundings. Many people are walking around with concealed weapons. When we were talking about the threats open firearms posed it seemed to me that what we were sort of saying was that ignorance is bliss. If we don't see the weapon, we don't feel threatened even though there might be one there. However, if we see it we see a threat. If having an open carry law means that you can open carry or conceal carry I wonder how that choice will play out. People will start to question what thinking goes behind a person's decision to do one over the other. The way guns have been abused in our society (college shootings, etc.) makes us more skittish. Open carry laws are something that might take a little time for some people to adjust to but overall I don't see the harm in an open carry law.
ReplyDeleteOne of the intriguing things about our understanding of gun laws is a misconception of the nature of the 2nd amendment, and why we have “the right to bear arms”. While we have a protected right to weapon systems, the nature of the protection is not for self-defense per se. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So while our right to keep and bear arms (not use, I might add), is in the Bill of Rights, it is for the sole purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The reality of gun ownership is that it is hard to conceive of how the founders would have wanted it in this modern day and age. While an argument could be made for gun possession as a means by which to assure us of our individual liberties, it is also possible to argue for an interpretation of the document as limiting in the capacities with which we can own guns- our militia is quite well regulated, and their guns are government property. I would finally like to remind some people of the realities of what the modern guns are. A gun is a weapons system designed to kill or seriously hurt another human being ( or animal in the case of hunting, but the end result would be the same). The effects of pulling a trigger can no more easily be reversed than going back in time, and although it is not always the case that the weapons system is effectively employed for its purpose, when it is, its effectiveness is overwhelming. I do not think there are many times in which any individual can justify killing another individual, particularly in a society as safe and insured as ours. We are not living in a war zone- Can you really justify the carrying around of a killing machine on your hip?
ReplyDelete