Open Carry

[HemiEd]

My last two trips to our little town of Branson West resulted in seeing private citizens with a pistol holstered.

I was right behind one in line at the bank and the other one came in to shoot the shit with the barber cutting my hair. The only thing holding the second guys gun in the holster was gravity, no strap.

I am pro gun and all for peoples rights, but why? Why does someone feel they need to be packing heat while running errands?

It makes me pretty uncomfortable to say the least. Is this person stable enough to packing heat? Is he or she sober? Are they worried about a jealous lover or spouse gunning them down? Is there going to be a shootout?

What is your opinion? Are we all going to have to be packing soon? Are we going to regress to 200 years ago, like the wild west?

Who vetted this person to have this weapon in public?

[Delano]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

From the BJS in 1995

Hmm I didn’t really read in there how much violent crime is done by illegally acquired firearms.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Delano

Hmm I didn’t really read in there how much violent crime is done by illegally acquired firearms.

The BJS stats from 1995 showed ~40% of inmates polled that they had stolen or sold/fenced a stolen firearm. While there is no "smoking gun" it can reasonably be inferred that those firearms were used in a crime. They certainly weren't just collecting them.

The journal of epidemiology study in 2107 showed "tens of thousands of firearms stolen" and stolen firearms are 9x more likely to end up in the commission of a crime. So to simply the #'s if it was only 10,000 firearms stolen that's 9,000 firearms used in the commission of a crime. or 90%. And by definition a firearm used (brandished or fired) in the commission of any crime makes it violent.

[CapsLockKey]

I am not a gun owner but don't care if people do own them or carry on their person. However if you are open carrying out in public shopping or at a restaurant for everyone to see it's not going to stop me from thinking you are a douche with a small dick trying to get people to notice you are some Billy badass.

[DenverChief]

38,441 stolen handguns recovered in California from 2010 - 2021. 28,376 of those handguns were recovered either during a violent crime or as a weapons violation (illegal concealed carry or other improper carrying ie. felon in possession) = 73% almost 3/4ths of all crime involving a firearm (according to this study) were with a stolen firearm

There were 6,954,410 legal firearms transactions recorded in California in the same time frame.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

38,441 stolen handguns recovered in California from 2010 - 2021. 28,376 of those handguns were recovered either during a violent crime or as a weapons violation (illegal concealed carry or other improper carrying ie. felon in possession) = 73% almost 3/4ths of all crime involving a firearm (according to this study) were with a stolen firearm

There were 6,954,410 legal firearms transactions recorded in California in the same time frame.

I feel like you’re missing some key variables in your math, but you’re going to come up with whatever answer you choose anyway. Hell, even your percentage isn’t really an answer to the question ‘how many of the stolen guns recovered in California were used in a violent crime?’ (You included nonviolent crime as well). Remember the original question was what percentage of gun violence was committed with an illegally obtained firearm? You also didn’t include legally obtained firearms that were used in violent crimes.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Delano

I feel like you’re missing some key variables in your math, but you’re going to come up with whatever answer you choose anyway. Hell, even your percentage isn’t really an answer to the question ‘how many of the stolen guns recovered in California were used in a violent crime?’ (You included nonviolent crime as well). Remember the original question was what percentage of gun violence was committed with an illegally obtained firearm? You also didn’t include legally obtained firearms that were used in violent crimes.

Are you saying a gun being used to rob someone is a non-violent crime?

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Delano

I feel like you’re missing some key variables in your math, but you’re going to come up with whatever answer you choose anyway. Hell, even your percentage isn’t really an answer to the question ‘how many of the stolen guns recovered in California were used in a violent crime?’ (You included nonviolent crime as well). Remember the original question was what percentage of gun violence was committed with an illegally obtained firearm? You also didn’t include legally obtained firearms that were used in violent crimes.

I took the numbers straight out of the study your beef is with them - you can certainly deduce the numbers if you would like - I am also missing 49 other states for that time period. I'd be willing to bet those numbers go up when you include states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Arizona (and most likely DC).

The study included "non-violent" crimes as well which just further goes to prove the point that criminals with firearms have illegal firearms and commit crimes with those firearms- they didn't go to a gun show or a gun store or buy it off craigslist. There were 7 million legal transactions for firearms purchases in California alone.

[WilliamTheIrish]

I’m in the Frazod camp. It’s there, others don’t need to know and I’m not giving off an easy “tell”. Quietly go about my business, keep a wary eye and know that the second you draw it out, you better use it.

And after you use it, be ready for the consequences that follow.

[CapsLockKey]

As I stated before, I'm not against gun ownership but I don't see how the stat on whether a gun was illegal or not when involved in a crime matters in an argument about any sort of regulation. At some point the gun was legally owned by somebody and some irresponsible gun owner allowed it to get stolen by not keeping it in a secure location which I find ironic.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

Are you saying a gun being used to rob someone is a non-violent crime?

No.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

I took the numbers straight out of the study your beef is with them - you can certainly deduce the numbers if you would like - I am also missing 49 other states for that time period. I'd be willing to bet those numbers go up when you include states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas and Arizona (and most likely DC).

The study included "non-violent" crimes as well which just further goes to prove the point that criminals with firearms have illegal firearms and commit crimes with those firearms- they didn't go to a gun show or a gun store or buy it off craigslist. There were 7 million legal transactions for firearms purchases in California alone.

Gotcha. You said 90% of firearms in criminal hands were stolen and my original follow up question was if that meant 90% of gun violence was committed with stolen guns. Your studies proved your original comment, but didn’t answer my question which isn’t really your responsibility.

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Delano

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. There was a loophole in the Brady Act and now it’s being closed by ATF rules. Sellers with a federal firearm license now need to do a background check even at a gun show. They cannot sell to an individual with a flagged check. Unfortunately, gun show sellers aren’t all holders of an FFL.

This is incorrect.

If you have an FFL, you always need to do a background check, even at a gun show or from listing on a classified ad website. The statutory language is whether you are in the business of selling forearms or intend to make a profit.

What has recently changed is that the ATF has re-defined those terms to be far broader than they used to be interpreted. They are now so broadly interpreted that the rules effectually ban private gun sales. Those newly promulgated rules are being challenged, though.

[Delano]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

This is incorrect.

If you have an FFL, you always need to do a background check, even at a gun show or from listing on a classified ad website. The statutory language is whether you are in the business of selling forearms or intend to make a profit.

What has recently changed is that the ATF has re-defined those terms to be far broader than they used to be interpreted. They are now so broadly interpreted that the rules effectually ban private gun sales. Those newly promulgated rules are being challenged, though.

The way I understood what an FFL was included that second sentence, so thanks for the clarification.

When you say the new rules would ban private gun sales, does that mean at a gun show or ALL private gun sales?

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by Delano

The way I understood what an FFL was included that second sentence, so thanks for the clarification.

When you say the new rules would ban private gun sales, does that mean at a gun show or ALL private gun sales?

ATF’s proposed new rules would, in effect, require an FFL to sell a firearm, which would require a background check. But those rules are on hold as challenges are fought in court. There are several reasons to doubt the legitimacy of these rules, from 2A grounds to the ATF’s failure to follow the administrative procedures act.

Right now if I have 10 guns and want to sell 3 because I just want cash, I can (I don’t have an FFL). The ATF is seeking to change that.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Delano

The way I understood what an FFL was included that second sentence, so thanks for the clarification.

When you say the new rules would ban private gun sales, does that mean at a gun show or ALL private gun sales?

I applaud you for learning something from this thread.

As with most things people fear, ignorance is generally the root of the fear. The great thing about ignorance is it can be cured with knowledge.