Open-carry laws are attracting a lot of attention in Texas. In a speech earlier this month, Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott proposed allowing concealed handgun license holders to carry their firearms openly. If you have read my previous blogs over guns, you may have noticed a lean towards a “pro second amendment” ideology; however, I am against Abbott's proposal allowing Texans to bear their arms openly in public. My current standpoint over open-carry laws may seem contradictory but I have good reasons.
Prior to my research for creating this blog post, I was in favor of open carry. In my blog post over campus carry, I used common sense to support my argument; however, I discovered the open-carry controversy is not as simple. In order to achieve a more precise analysis, I had to consider many factors beyond common sense.
Charles Cotton, president of the Texas Firearms Coalition and board member of the National Rifle Association, said that support for open carry has become more mainstream, and that legislation allowing it has a chance to pass. The increase in open-carry advocates is no mystery. Open-carry advocates (as I once was) use supporting ideas which appeal to our common sense.
Two of the major supporting ideas for open carry are enhanced safety by further deterring criminals and essentially, “There’s nothing to fear from honest people carrying their legal weapons openly and peacefully.” (Kathie Glass) Furthermore, the majority of states permit the open carry of handguns, with many requiring a license to do so. Texas is one of six states, along with the District of Columbia, that expressly prohibit the open carry of handguns.
In theory, deterrence is a rational argument. Unfortunately, the inability to quantify makes it undependable. As for carrying handguns openly not posing a threat to the public because these people have proven themselves phenomenally responsible, one can’t help but ask. Other than deterrence, what other benefits are there for carrying in plain view? What motivates an individual to display their firearm in the first place?
The point of carrying a firearm is for the ability, within the law, to protect oneself or one’s family. Lets be realistic, not all gun owners are rational and mature. When the limits of civilized behavior are pushed against immaturity, irrational intimidation is inevitable. The purpose of carrying a firearm is not to convince someone else how tough or dangerous one might be. These actions can increase the odd of escalating negative encounters. It is taught in the CHL courses, do not assume everyone will react the same (with fear) when threatened with a gun.
Another disadvantage of open carry is provocation. Open carry creates a tempting target for someone of criminal intent or unstable mind. The pistol’s prime advantage is its small, concealable size. Open carry gives up the pistol’s single greatest advantage: stealth. It alerts every criminal that you are armed, so he can take you out first. He can then relieve you of that pistol which is threat to him. Tactically, concealed carry beats open carry every time.
My colleague, Mark Chao, recently blogged on the new open-carry legislation currently under review. I agree with his argument and would support it any day, but I could perhaps enhance argument by bringing to light the entire reason for having a gun in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment exists so that the people can form a militia, if the government ever becomes tyrannical and turns into a dictatorship overnight, in which case the people can "rise up" and take back the land their ancestors fought for. This argument does not stand any longer, as a common militia would not be very effective against the most expensive military in the world. Furthermore, that argument barely even makes sense considering the soldiers of this military are husbands and wives of the citizens they will hypothetically be suppressing. With that said, it is true, however, that one may want to own a gun to keep their family safe. But to carry it in public for all eyes to see? Like Chao said, the most powerful element of a handgun is its stealth - the hidden weapon.
I noticed that Chao expressed a quote: "There's nothing to fear from honest people carrying their legal weapons openly and peacefully." (Kathie Glass). Surely, there's nothing to fear from honest people, like there's nothing to fear from a dictatorship. Look at Communism. The theory is great, the reality is not. Such as in real life, people are not always honest, especially those with weapons. Wearing a weapon requires a certain authoritative personality. And people "carrying their weapons openly and peacefully"? Isn't a weapon a symbol of everything that is not peaceful?
Furthermore, I agree with Chao's argument about how people might respond. That is, a potential criminal will target the person with the weapon first. There's a reason the bank security guard either dies first or gets cuffed first. You just don't know how people will respond in that situation, so it is better to conceal the weapon. Despite this post, I'm not completely against owning weapons. I think owning a handgun at home is okay, but not something like an assault rifle or shotgun. At least, people shouldn't buy a rifle to protect their family - buy a handgun. Buy a rifle to shoot deer. Buy a shotgun to shoot deer. Don't ever buy an assault rifle because that weapon was created entirely for the purpose of killing others as effectively as possible, hence the lightweight, easy-to-use, easy-loading, and fast-shooting qualities of such a gun. Like Chao said, the only people that would open-carry handguns are "boastful" and "overbearing"; the kind of people just looking for others to say, "Look at the gun I have! I have it! It's mine! I have a gun and I can shoot it! Look!" Catch your breath, open-carry advocates. Protecting a bunch of strangers should not be your prerogative.