PDA

View Full Version : Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom


Milsurp Collector
08-04-2010, 3:48 PM
:rolleyes:


Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/kaile-shilling/headshot.jpg Kaile Shilling

Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA
Posted: July 29, 2010 01:50 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaile-shilling/fewer-guns-in-public-mean_b_663711.html


Let's be honest: Guns are made for a purpose. Handguns, assault weapons -- most of the guns found in urban areas are made so that one person can kill another person. They may -- as the NRA likes to point out -- require a human being to actually pull the trigger, but no one buys a gun in order to help them bake cookies, organize their music collection or paint the house. People buy guns to have the option of killing someone should the desire or need arise.

A bill is currently working its way through the California Assembly that would forbid people from keeping that option readily available by banning the open carrying of guns. The bill has passed the Public Safety Committee, and is currently in the State Senate Appropriations Committee. As we await this final step, it is critical to continue to inform people, including the governor, just why openly carrying guns is a bad idea.

First and foremost, prohibiting "open carry" is not about whether you can carry a gun, but how you carry your gun. Let me repeat that, because opponents want to make this a Second Amendment issue, when the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun. It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place -- the library, the coffeeshop on the corner, or yes, Huntington Beach, where recently a group of "open carry" advocates walked the sands among children playing, parents seeking recreation, teenagers reading -- openly carrying their weapons. :eek:

Who should or should not carry a weapon, or what kind of weapons should be readily available are separate issues. Permits for concealed weapons provide an established, regulated method to determine just who is carrying guns around in public. Banning unconcealed weapons, however, is a specific, responsible measure, one that puts public safety first and foremost and respects the constitutional rights of all our citizens. When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections. Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights.

Open carry advocates claim they are protecting the public by being a secondary, informal police force. Personally, I prefer the trained, publicly accountable and regulated police force. I know the rules that law enforcement are obligated to protect. I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.

Guns are not inherently safe. That is not their purpose. The same day the LA Times ran the story on the front page about the open carry meet-up in Huntington Beach, the inside page detailed a tragic incident of a seven year old accidentally shooting and killing his two year old brother with a gun kept in the house. One has to wonder how safe people would feel if those demonstrating their right to carry weapons openly were not the middle-aged, polo-shirt-wearing, men photographed in the article, but rather a tattooed, twenty-two year old with baggy jeans falling below his waist.

It is no surprise that California law enforcement agencies from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Sheriff's Department oppose open carry. Police are trained to see someone with a weapon as a threat. Civilians toting weapons on their hips makes it hard for the police to do their job and to determine who is the actual danger.

At its heart, open carry promotes a culture of fear -- a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community -- that when it comes to violence, there is no "us" vs. "them." That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals. When someone can walk into a playground, a church, a school or a beach openly carrying a weapon, it strikes a blow not only against our constitutional rights, but also against the very core of our humanity.





Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

tallic68
08-04-2010, 3:56 PM
Consider the source!

Wherryj
08-04-2010, 3:59 PM
It's obvious. Fewer guns means more freedom (for government).

An armed populace is more capable of protecting itself from the excesses of corrupt government.

But she did leave a few of the other uses of guns out. Apparently guns can be purchased so that federal officers may shoot Siberian Huskies at whim. Or perhaps used for hunting, self-defense or target shooting recreation.

She makes it sound like all guns are purchased to murder someone. My father has owned at least a dozen firearms since before I was born. He has at least half a dozen "hunting buddies" who have far more firearms than he. I have at least a dozen friends who also have substantial firearms collections, including a few who shoot regularly on their own property. I personally own 3 handguns (including two evil semi-autos) and a couple long guns.

Strange, but not a single one of the above has EVER killed anyone. Perhaps I'm the only one with this experience? It would also appear that those evil, dangerous, baby-killing open carriers on the beach also somehow refrained from shooting all those innocent children. I suppose that she's a bit upset in the loss of good publicity?

I like the way that she states that only the police are accountable for their actions. I would suspect that an UOC/CCW citizen that was forced to fire would face far more "accountability" than an officer. Just look at this article if you doubt things and compare it to the SLO story on the forums.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel/bs-md-ar-dog-fight-shooting-20100803,0,7786058.story

The officer in this story shoots and kills another person's pet because it was deemed to be acting "aggressively". The citizen in SLO was legally shooting on his own property. Which one walked away without charges and which one was charged with multiple felonies? Which one caused real damage and which one offended someone's sensibilities?

Sam .223
08-04-2010, 3:59 PM
sounds like she supports a shall issue ccw ca.

Munk
08-04-2010, 4:00 PM
they are in effect saying "I could kill defend you, if I chose."

Edited to reflect the viewpoint of those who carry on a regular basis.

Stonewalker
08-04-2010, 4:05 PM
Damn! I come here to AVOID that kind of poppycock!

BluNorthern
08-04-2010, 4:13 PM
sounds like she supports a shall issue ccw ca.
"Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun". Then yes, CCW is the only option left to us.

stix213
08-04-2010, 4:14 PM
but no one buys a gun in order to help them bake cookies, organize their music collection or paint the house.

Next time I bake cookies, organize my music collection, or paint the house I need to figure out how to incorporate a firearm and send her a pic

:p

bodger
08-04-2010, 4:17 PM
sounds like she supports a shall issue ccw ca.

..and she hasn't figured out yet that without OC, that's where we're headed.

What a blowhole.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt10/dingoff/cookiegun.jpg

safewaysecurity
08-04-2010, 4:23 PM
I agree I would be much more comfortable if criminals were concealed carrying as long as I didn't know about it rather then citizens exercising virtually their only form of being armed legally. Her logic is impenetrable. :rolleyes:

safewaysecurity
08-04-2010, 4:24 PM
Does AB 1934 also prohibit LUCC of a handgun outside of a vehicle?

gregorylucas
08-04-2010, 4:29 PM
It the Huffington Post... what do you expect from a bunch of loons like these?

-Greg

libertyordeath
08-04-2010, 4:41 PM
The sheeple only fear guns because of all the bad press and all that other fud only California and other states with such strict gun laws do sheeple quiver at the sight of a gun unless holster on the hip of a Leo.

I forgot what state in south it's like a law for everyone to own a gun. Ask the Chinese , Russians, Austrians how they like the freedom not to bear arms.

And we all know when seconds count cops will be there in minutes sorry a cop con only save your life if you are the same room if that also.

Wherryj
08-04-2010, 4:41 PM
sounds like she supports a shall issue ccw ca.

Yeah, she's only being a LITTLE dishonest in stating that CCW would be an option if ANYONE in particular counties could get one.

Since when is a Constitutionally guaranteed right limited to:
1. You can only practice the right under option 2
2. You can't practice option 2

libertyordeath
08-04-2010, 4:48 PM
What happend this use to be the wild west where you take your firearm every where church and the whole family knew how to shoot and protect themselves or there property if it was needed.

Big banks, goverments, Polticians, basically the corrupt who feared the people when they found out about there corruption. So they came up with there schemes to disarm the people. Plain and simple.

Stonewalker
08-04-2010, 4:58 PM
I glanced over a few hundred comments... a large majority are pro-2A :)

jdberger
08-04-2010, 5:02 PM
Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA

"LA" meaning Los Angeles or Louisiana?

Milsurp Collector
08-04-2010, 5:07 PM
"LA" meaning Los Angeles or Louisiana?

Los Angeles

The bill she mentions in her article is AB 1934

A bill is currently working its way through the California Assembly that would forbid people from keeping that option readily available by banning the open carrying of guns. The bill has passed the Public Safety Committee, and is currently in the State Senate Appropriations Committee.

Scratch705
08-04-2010, 5:09 PM
It is no surprise that California law enforcement agencies from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Sheriff's Department oppose open carry. Police are trained to see someone with a weapon as a threat. Civilians toting weapons on their hips makes it hard for the police to do their job and to determine who is the actual danger.

maybe they should stop doing that then? that would solve that problem. so apparently the instant you have a gun on you = bad guy. nice

well i'm going to do the same, except i'm going to view anyone carrying a gun as a bad guy. regardless of uniform, cause i mean anyone can buy a police uniform and get a fake badge, and also buy a police interceptor and re-decorate it as a police car again.

jdberger
08-04-2010, 5:09 PM
When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections. Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights.

Her understanding of the First Amendment is a little lacking.

Actually, UOC is "speech". She's trying to limit that speech. UOC in no way prevents her from speaking, assembling, dancing, reciting poetry or participating in a drum circle. It's her fear that accomplishes that.

If it were the contrary, she (and others) could successfully sue the denizens of some of LA's more dangerous neighborhoods for violating her rights to assemble in front of liquor stores late at night.

boxbro
08-04-2010, 5:14 PM
http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt10/dingoff/cookiegun.jpg

:rofl2:

radioburning
08-04-2010, 5:17 PM
Next time I bake cookies, organize my music collection, or paint the house I need to figure out how to incorporate a firearm and send her a pic

:p

Hehehe.:D

Colt-45
08-04-2010, 5:56 PM
Sorry Ms. Kaile Shilling but cops ARE NOT obligated to protect you. Hartzler v. City of San Jose.

Oh and since when do burglars wear their guns on their hips? I see a man with a holstered gun on their hip and I carry on, I feel safer, no need to panic and think of the children.

AJAX22
08-04-2010, 6:02 PM
Lol, if she thinks that a determines individual needs to wear a gun on their hip to portray to the world that 'they cab kill you' she is sorely mistaken.

If you want to see if someone is dangerous look in the eyes not the hands or holsters..

Libertarian777
08-04-2010, 7:17 PM
Next time I bake cookies, organize my music collection, or paint the house I need to figure out how to incorporate a firearm and send her a pic

:p

well... you know... knives are only meant for ONE PURPOSE... to CUT something.

Sure, it takes a person to decide to actually do the cutting, but think of all the poor vegetables, dead chickens and massacred cows whose bodies are desecrated by the users of these 'knives'.

There are so many accidental stabbings, and slashings (I cut my finger chopping carrots yesterday) that we should require training and licenses for all knives, ESPECIALLY those used around children (in the kitchen).

I suggest we have a California approved knife-lock that locks down the knives into the storage block (much like the display models at Macy's/Target etc).

But... more directly to her point.. yes... she likes to think once you wear a uniform that you are all of a sudden super-ethical, altruistic and no longer human, but a 'hero'. Yes, these super humans with guns (cops, mall cops, security guards) would NEVER use the gun, with only the one purpose of killing people, to kill people. Cops have NEVER been convicted of killing unarmed civilians (even aggressive ones)... even by accident! NEVER! They're super humans! Heroes! And are highly trained and know how to use their firearms. Especially on BART.

I vote, that AB1934 be amended to require that all persons who wish to UOC wear a uniform (school uniform, security guard uniform, boy scout uniform, nurses uniform, fireman's uniform, soldier uniform all qualify). That way, we know that you are a super human hero who would never use the gun to kill someone.

bohoki
08-04-2010, 8:28 PM
if the cops had zero guns there would be absolute freedom also anarchy

pullnshoot25
08-04-2010, 8:44 PM
if the cops had zero guns there would be absolute freedom also anarchy

If cops had zero guns, the world would be a much better place.

Britain has a brilliant police system. Where they went wrong is disarming the public and bringing in military police.

Pavel
08-04-2010, 10:06 PM
"When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces."

Wow, just wow. What scares me is that the majority of people living in my town would probably have a similar view while totally ignoring statistics emphasizing legally armed societies being more peaceful, about gun control doing NOTHING to reduce crime, and about criminals getting guns anyway. It is the proliferation of this diseased mentality that really makes me want to move away from here, and out of CA while i'm at it. Well, I just saw a nice house up in Montana with 14 acres for $140,000.....hmmm...

cdtx2001
08-04-2010, 11:27 PM
Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom

Kaile Shilling

Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA
Posted: July 29, 2010 01:50 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaile-..._b_663711.html


Let's be honest: Guns are made for a purpose. Handguns, assault weapons -- most of the guns found in urban areas are made so that one person can kill another person. They may -- as the NRA likes to point out -- require a human being to actually pull the trigger, but no one buys a gun in order to help them bake cookies, organize their music collection or paint the house. People buy guns to have the option of killing someone should the desire or need arise.

A bill is currently working its way through the California Assembly that would forbid people from keeping that option readily available by banning the open carrying of guns. The bill has passed the Public Safety Committee, and is currently in the State Senate Appropriations Committee. As we await this final step, it is critical to continue to inform people, including the governor, just why openly carrying guns is a bad idea.

First and foremost, prohibiting "open carry" is not about whether you can carry a gun, but how you carry your gun. Let me repeat that, because opponents want to make this a Second Amendment issue, when the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun. It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place -- the library, the coffeeshop on the corner, or yes, Huntington Beach, where recently a group of "open carry" advocates walked the sands among children playing, parents seeking recreation, teenagers reading -- openly carrying their weapons.

Who should or should not carry a weapon, or what kind of weapons should be readily available are separate issues. Permits for concealed weapons provide an established, regulated method to determine just who is carrying guns around in public. Banning unconcealed weapons, however, is a specific, responsible measure, one that puts public safety first and foremost and respects the constitutional rights of all our citizens. When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections. Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights.

Open carry advocates claim they are protecting the public by being a secondary, informal police force. Personally, I prefer the trained, publicly accountable and regulated police force. I know the rules that law enforcement are obligated to protect. I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.

Guns are not inherently safe. That is not their purpose. The same day the LA Times ran the story on the front page about the open carry meet-up in Huntington Beach, the inside page detailed a tragic incident of a seven year old accidentally shooting and killing his two year old brother with a gun kept in the house. One has to wonder how safe people would feel if those demonstrating their right to carry weapons openly were not the middle-aged, polo-shirt-wearing, men photographed in the article, but rather a tattooed, twenty-two year old with baggy jeans falling below his waist.

It is no surprise that California law enforcement agencies from the Los Angeles Police Department to the Sheriff's Department oppose open carry. Police are trained to see someone with a weapon as a threat. Civilians toting weapons on their hips makes it hard for the police to do their job and to determine who is the actual danger.

At its heart, open carry promotes a culture of fear -- a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community -- that when it comes to violence, there is no "us" vs. "them." That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals. When someone can walk into a playground, a church, a school or a beach openly carrying a weapon, it strikes a blow not only against our constitutional rights, but also against the very core of our humanity.








Hey lady, do the letters FU mean anything to you???

pitchbaby
08-04-2010, 11:33 PM
Wait a second here.... Of all the guns I have owned or been able to get my hands on... I have never once done anything with them or even had one in my hands that had ever done anything illegal... Am I missing out on some opportunity here?!?! Should I have been going on a free for all, shooting babies down at beaches and taking whatever I wanted from anyone I saw.... MAN! I am so behind the curve!

But wait a second... I own a car, in fact, I own multiple cars!?!? Perhaps I have been using them wrong too! I thought they were just modes of transportation, but if Kaile is right... Then I have multiple weapons of destruction... And on wheels no less! WOW, I feel so powerful now knowing that just with the swerve of my steering wheel, I can tell anyone I want, "I can kill you if I choose too!"

Please.... I suppose I don't have to tell anyone here how ridiculous this young ladies article really is. Truly, God bless her for having an opinion and not being afraid to share, I'll defend her right to say that all day long, but I fear for this level of insolence in people in a position to be heard by the masses who might not bother to seek truth.

N6ATF
08-04-2010, 11:41 PM
"When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying "I could kill you, if I chose." Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces."

Fixed.

TWO WEEKS OFF!

Wherryj
08-05-2010, 12:45 PM
maybe they should stop doing that then? that would solve that problem. so apparently the instant you have a gun on you = bad guy. nice

well i'm going to do the same, except i'm going to view anyone carrying a gun as a bad guy. regardless of uniform, cause i mean anyone can buy a police uniform and get a fake badge, and also buy a police interceptor and re-decorate it as a police car again.

Maybe they should also treat people with martial arts skills as threats and "disarm them" (I guess that would have to be literally disarming?). After all, didn't this group state that we could just learn karate as self-defense? Doesn't that mean that those trained in karate are as safe/dangerous as those with a CCW?

Army
08-05-2010, 5:13 PM
Not at any time, did any H-Beach carriers step onto the sand.....that would be illegal.

She has no grasp of fact or reality, as does the rest of Huff-Po.