Open carry becomes focus after Colorado Springs shooting rampage

[SecularMotion]

Source: Denver Post

An emergency call placed moments before Saturday's shooting rampage in Colorado Springs has sparked intense debate on how police should respond to armed people in public given Colorado's open carry law.

Naomi Bettis told The Denver Post she called 911 after spotting her neighbor, 33-year-old Noah Harpham, armed with a rifle on the street. She says a dispatcher explained Colorado allows public handling of firearms.

Harpham went on to kill three people.

The open carry law has become a central focus in the tragedy after scores across the country took to social media to question the Colorado Springs police department's apparent lack of immediate response to Bettis' report.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29064963/open-carry-becomes-focus-after-colorado-springs-shooting

[Hoyt]

1. Does it really make sense to allow yahoos like this to walk down the street armed?

?zoom=1.5&resize=508%2C282

[Hoppy]

3. Well, Pilgrim, its Winchester and Remington that made the west safe for you and me.

[Hoyt]

4. When we road into Tombstone in 1880s, they made us leave concealed/open weapons with the sheriff.

Cowboy towns were smarter back then.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. The sheriff was a tax collector. The marshall was charged with law enforcement

The cowboys wouldn't leave their guns with the Earps, which is what led to the famous gunfight.

[JonathanRackham]

45. Wooh dudes, sell the guns.

Buy a better wardrobe and call Weight Watchers.

[Hoyt]

58. No joke. Lol

[Person 2713]

80. OK since you went there , my thought when looking at the pics was that more likely diabetes

will take them out than a criminal threat

[Drahthaardogs]

60. Colorado has always been open carry statewide.

Some cities have ordinances against it. In some parts of the state, yes, it makes a lot of sense to have open carry. In downtown Springs, probably not...

[Turbineguy]

77. So, the ones who are

obvious morons are nothing to worry about while the ones who look vaguely intelligent are mass killers.

That does make it easier to know the difference. I'll just keep a little IQ test in my pocket that they can take first. After all, I would not want to misjudge somebody!

[Hoyt]

83. I'm kind of the opinion that anyone with a gun strapped on is someone to worry about. At very least

they are paranoid. Worse, they are ignorant, angry, care little for their fellow man/woman, are an accident or Zimmerman waiting to happen, one of those silly fools who thinks they should be prepared so they can be a hero or protect their family from the boogey man, etc. Whatever it is, ain't rational.

[Jerry442]

2. Let's provide a resettlement stipend...

...for people who can show some evidence they're relocating out of a state because of its insane gun laws.

[pipoman]

74. Colorado has to be among the fastest growing population in the US...

Nobody is leaving the state because of insane gun laws. ..Chicago/Illinois OTOH....do people leaving Chi-Town because of insane gun laws get the stipend?

[TeddyR]

5. Don't most states allow open carry?

I know Virginia does though I've never seen anyone do it and frankly it wouldn't bother me if they did. In any event, while I support an individual Second Amendment right I see no value at all in open carry and wouldn't care if it was banned.

[Darb]

6. More blood on the hands of the immoral....

gun humpers. RKHA all the way!!!

[Duckhunter935]

7. only call on the ones that seem to be threatening

calling when there is obviously no threat causes the issue of to many false calls and the police will not take the caller seriously. There is a difference to carrying a rifle on the back and sling-ed and carrying a rifle in a position to shoot.

[Jerry442]

8. Always carry your weapon so as to avoid unduly alarming people.

Me, I'd think in a locked container in the trunk of your car would be a tasteful and considerate way to do it.

[Duckhunter935]

9. True, I do not care for open carry anyway

and those knuckleheads that do it with long guns do the RKBA side no good.

[A Simple Game]

10. Yes.

There is a difference to carrying a rifle on the back and sling-ed and carrying a rifle in a position to shoot.

Yes there is, with some slings it's all of about 0.25 seconds.

It seems that this caller was right about the threat.

So who gets to judge the degree of the threat? Apparently the 911 operator wasn't a good judge, but maybe the next one will be. Should we allow the caller to over rule the dispatchers? Should all callers have to wait for the first shot? How many lives do you think this dispatcher cost by deciding without actually seeing the "threat" that there was no threat? Maybe we should automatically send the police to the scene to be the actual judges. That is what they are paid for.

An operator doesn't give all the information to the police and a 12 year old boy with a BB gun dies, an operator doesn't even bother to call the police and 3 people die. I see a need to update the standard procedures for 911 operators.

[Duckhunter935]

11. true but the other 100 plus times

there was no threat and the police wasted their time on a fruitless call on a fully law abiding citizen. Cry wolf too many times and they will not take the public seriously. I agree the dispatcher should have sent an officer. Do you think the police should be called for every weapon seen, even holstered weapons and the person not being threatening? Common sense should prevail.

[Blue_Tires]

19. Well, if she said there was a black male with a gun

I bet you any amount of money the 911 dispatcher wouldn't be quoting the open carry laws...

[Duckhunter935]

20. probably true, sadly

[A Simple Game]

59. I think if a person is concerned enough to call then someone should respond.

Very few people abuse the 911 system and if the do continuously they can be punished.

[Duckhunter935]

61. I agree

but abuse of the 911 system has been suggested several times here on DU. That helps nothing.

[A Simple Game]

64. It does happen but this was covered a long time ago with a tale about a boy who called wolf.

It's nothing new. You will always have the nosy person with nothing better to do or the person wanting to "get even" with the neighbor for something or other, but a stern talking from the police after a few false alarms should stop most of it.

[Darb]

12. Wrong. The answer is really quite simple,

but with RKHA folks gotta make the question completely kookified. Dumbasses should not be able to carry their guns around like fucking ridiculous kooks.

"Well, Darb, how do you know who's a dumbass and who's not?". Easy, the one carrying the gun around in public is the dumbass.

Any questions?

[Duckhunter935]

13. and still 99% of the dumbasses

do nothing wrong and are just looking for attention. They are idiots but still the law allows it.

[Paladin]

14. People who need to open carry firearms "for attention" are a real problem.

They're not doing it "for attention," they're doing it to overtly intimidate the public. It sure would be nice to see the pro-gun movement take action, just for once, to clean up its act. Coming out in an organized fashion against open carry would be a great starting point. Absent a horrific series of tragedies, I don't see it happening; you people have been catering to the lowest and ugliest segment of your movement for so long, you don't know how to do anything else.

[Duckhunter935]

18. Give them no attention and they will stop it.

[Paladin]

21. Give them a pass, in otherwords.

Yeah, that worked really well in Colorado Springs, didn't it? Give them no attention=lawful behavior, except for those three dead people.

[Duckhunter935]

22. that one seemed to need attention

as he was pointing the rifle. The other hundred or so did not and and as you notice have dropped off considerably as they no longer seem to draw as much attention to themselves and just look stupid and are being called out by all sides as looking idiotic.

[Darb]

24. Oh goddamn you logic is for shit.

The police didn't respond because of you. People like you advocating for idiots to walk around town sporting rifles like fucking two-year olds. It is not ok, it is fucking stupid. You are to blame. Own it.

Goddamn this country is fucked up. Grow the fuck up.

[Paladin]

25. Well put. (nt)

[Darb]

27. THUD!

That's the sound it makes when it hits the rock heads of the RKHA crowd, falling to the ground next to climate change information.

[Duckhunter935]

32. What his telling untruths about me

or is it the insult directed at me. Point out one time I advocate for open carry in this thread, I have not. Quite the opposite I have called it stupid and idiotic.

[SecularMotion]

38. See post #34

[Duckhunter935]

40. see my response in #39

[Duckhunter935]

30. I will take your apology when you make it to me

just link to one time where I advocated that behavior. I never have and do not. I do believe in this thread I have called that behavior stupid, idiotic. I have also stated in this thread I do do not care for open carry. So since I have stated the opposite of what you just accused me of I ask politely for you to apologize to me to correct the record on your false statement.

Please quit with the insults, it gets you nowhere.

[SecularMotion]

31. See post #18

Silence is consent

[Duckhunter935]

33. see post #9, #13, #22

No it is not and I just point out I do not care for open carry but it is legal

[SecularMotion]

34. And you see no problem with open carry being legal?

[Duckhunter935]

39. I would prefer only concealed carry

I have problems with open carry of long guns and prefer that to be heavily restricted. I can see open carry of handguns in hot weather climates if properly holstered. It is somewhat hard to legally conceal in hot weather because even a print of a weapon through clothing can be a violation of the law.

Of course I expect some kind of snarky response back.

[SecularMotion]

41. Just to be clear

You approve of open carry in general, but feel there should be restrictions on the open carry of long guns.

Is that correct?

[Duckhunter935]

42. I do not approve or disapprove

As I see the reasons that open carry is the only available option to legally carry a firearm. If a pistol must be carried, it must be in a proper holster at all times and not removed. I do not know how much more clear I can be. I favor restrictions on long gun open carry as hunters and transport of weapons to armorers must be accounted for. I am for reasonable restrictions. It seems you on the pro controller side only want it your way only.

[Paladin]

44. You're the one trying to have it both ways. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

46. I am trying to be reasonble for both sides

it seems your side is not. This is why gun control legislation generally fails. One side tries to compromise and be reasonable and the other side does not and is only for bans.

What would you and your side be willing to compromise on?

[Paladin]

48. We've done enough compromising. Time for your side to do the same.

Your side has attained so much of what it wants, it's at the point of demanding that machine guns be easily available. Spare me the idiotic notion that your side "...tries to compromise and be reasonable..." and that my side "...is only for bans." You know that's bullshit. You know it.

[Duckhunter935]

49. What has your side compromised on?

Post one thing, that should be easy for you.

Point to one person that wants machine guns easily available? Provide a link.

Since you will not be able to, I stand by what I posted.

[Paladin]

53. Golly, you ask the tough ones, don't you?

Open carry, campus carry, Stand Your Ground laws, suppressor/silencer availability, just to list a few---you were right, that was easy. The machine gun thing is a standard part of gun discussion threads, these days.

But you knew all of the foregoing, didn't you? What has Wayne "Mr. Compromise" LaPierre gone soft on, lately? Where's the list of matters on which the NRA has squealed "We give up!" and walked away?

Just a heads-up for you: I don't see this conversation going anywhere, so your response to this post will probably end it, as far as I'm concerned.

[Duckhunter935]

56. lets see

Open carry, campus carry, Stand Your Ground laws

you did not compromise, you lost at the ballot box and legislature. A compromise is if you give something up voluntarily, these were not.

suppressor/silencer availability

As far as I know nothing has changed and these are still restricted under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Some states may have legalized suppressors but they are still an NFA item that require tax stamp, federal, state and local background checks. In otherwords nothing has been made easier for that safety item to be used.

the big compromises were in 1934, 1968 and 1986.

[Darb]

23. Obviously, the law should disallow that ridiculous bullshit.

For obvious reasons. Obvious, that is, to everyone other than the humpers. It is complete nonsense to have idiots walking around with rifles strapped just because they can.

You are part of the problem apparently. If you cannot see the obvious solution, you are blind. Ignoring them is not an answer, it is appeasing the kooks.

[Duckhunter935]

47. what does it mean when I say I am not for open

carry of long guns? I think it is quite clear. no offense but is English a language you understand? I think I have stated my positions very clearly and you seem to have a problem grasping that I am not in favor of open carry of long guns and not really in favor of open carry at all. I do however see how it might be the only legal option for open pistol carry in very hot climates.

You might get a better response if you would stop with the insults directed at me.

[KT2000]

54. people walking in public naked

are doing it for attention too. They will be arrested.

[Duckhunter935]

62. that might not be legal though

change the law, I do not think long guns should be open carried.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. The 911 dispatcher should be fired. Immediately.

And whoever called 911 should be allowed to sue that dispatcher and/or management for negligence.

It is NOT a 911 dispatcher's job to play lawyer and "explain" open carry or anything else in an emergency call, not when there may be SECONDS between life and death.

[hollowdweller]

16. That's the problem with Open Carry IMO.

Somebody is carrying an AR15. You don't know if that guy is an in your face gun activist or a mass killer till the shooting starts.

Now that last guy who has a Mosin Nagant with the bolt open. That wouldn't scare me because it shoots slow and only holds 5 rounds.
Any self respecting mass shooter would have a semi auto.

[LannyDeVaney]

17. Sorry, but folks have spoken ...

they are willing for thousands to die so they can carry their guns in pizza joints.

It is totally acceptable in the US.

[0rganism]

28. yes, it's the price we've agreed to pay

because you know... good guys with guns and all.

continuing bloodshed? the occasional mass slaughter of innocents? well gee, it's not the guns' fault. and besides, FREEDOM!

if we were still okay with rampant gun wagging in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, nothing is going to happen to restrict it in the next 10 years.

[Javaman]

26. this is basically: shoot first ask questions later. nt

[randys1]

29. I am looking forward to laser guns. You could kill a dozen people in two seconds with no sound

I mean any gun is OK, right?

How about laser guns like in Star Trek?

[LonePirate]

36. Why stop there? Why not develop the tech to create an atomic bomb handgun or a Death Star handgun?

Those would also just be guns and I'm sure we would hear countless refrains of "guns don't destroy cities, people do" or "guns don't destroy planets, people do." Gundamentalists have no respect for other people, plain and simple.

[randys1]

37. I love that "Guns dont destroy planets, people do" and gundamentalists, new one, love it

I dont know which is worse in our society

The so called liberal party having so many racists and misogynists or gun folks.

But when the so called liberal party has so many people in it that are obviously not liberal, then boy are we in trouble.

Because I can assure you that other party is full of racists, misogynists and gun folks.

[hack89]

35. Open carry is stupid. nt

[Duckhunter935]

43. Be careful

Certain people in this thread will say you condone it, lol

[Skittles]

50. GUN HUMPERS HAVE WON

THIS is the inevitable result

[KT2000]

55. +1

[leftyladyfrommo]

51. Open carry is really scary.

I see someone with a gun and I am out of there. If it's a store I will leave what I have in the Isle and get out.

Fortunately most businesses here in KC don't allow arms of any kind. Thank God.

If someone is so paranoid they can't leave the house without a gun or has such an ego problem that they have to show they are a real man by openly carrying a gun , I don't want to be anywhere near them.

[LonePirate]

52. Open carry is very scary indeed.

How does any regular person distinguish between the open carrier who won't shoot them and the open carrier who will shoot them in a few seconds? They are already fearful and trigger happy if they are openly carrying so who knows what might cause them to pull the trigger.

[Duckhunter935]

57. I would be more afraid of the police

[leftyladyfrommo]

63. Not here.

For the most part our police are good people. And they support concealed carry. People that have gone thru those programs have a lot of training.

We don't have open carry. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I think gun nuts are mentally ill. And dangerous.

[Hoyt]

67. The might be worrisome, but not as much as you gunners who tote on city streets.

[Duckhunter935]

69. we concealed carry seem to be better trained

by the numbers

[Hoyt]

70. I can assure you someone without a gun in their pants is not going to pull a Zimmerman,

Dunn, Reeves, etc.

[Duckhunter935]

71. I have the

license but do not carry as I do not feel the need, but the option is always available.

[Hoyt]

73. Just wondering, when would the option become necessary?

[Duckhunter935]

76. They have not yet

[Paladin]

78. That's exactly the way open carriers want you to feel.

Public intimidation is what it's all about. Never doubt it.

[Hoyt]

84. +1. There's some of that with concealed toters too.

[Silicosys4]

66. Open carry

While I prefer concealed carry,
There is literally no difference between the two except for a layer of cloth. Banning one and allowing the other makes no sense.
In my area, there have been exactly 0 problems arising from people open carrying rifles. Banning open carry of rifles or handguns would do absolutely nothing except criminalize a behavior that CRIMINALS don't display, but LAW ABIDING CITIZENS do, in the incidental times such as transport to and from legitimate activities such as hunting and target practice, and in the occasional accidental displays of concealed firearms due to clothing malfunctions.
We already have laws against brandishing of firearms in a threatening manner, so that is covered.
Yes, there are idiots, widely ridiculed both from pro firearm people and anti firearm people, who are attention seeking media whores, but the fact stands, that no matter what you may think of them, the open carry activists have broken no laws and hurt no one. They are in the gross minority. The vast majority of people impacted by an open carry ban would be people who do no harm. Criminals don't open carry, and the vast majority of open carriers are no criminals.

So no, I personally see no need for a ban on open carry where I'm at.

[Hoyt]

68. Let me guess, you think the Zimmerman types are responsible gun toters.

[ileus]

72. IMHO OC is best for outdoor activities like hunting and fishing.

I never OC in public, except when fishing or hunting.

And IMHO there are very few times when OCin' of a long gun would be acceptable.

[Paladin]

75. There are plenty of pro-gunners, expressing "IMHO" sentiments like yours about open carry.

The question becomes: are you willing to advocate any measures which identify open carry as a bad practice, subject to repeated abuses, and in need of restrictive measures?

[ileus]

79. Nope.

not really...


have there been repeated abuses?

is it a bad practice?

does it need restrictive measures?


What is the track record in areas where OC has always been the law? Do they have repeated abuses?

[Paladin]

82. Always a pleasure to offer really good advice to an opponent.....

with the sure and certain knowledge that said advice will be rejected. Thanks for living down to my expectations, and please enjoy the ongoing damage which open carry inflicts on your movement. I know I will.

[branford]

81. I have an idea.

If you want restrictions on open carry, an idea that I could potentially support, ensure that any jurisdiction that bans the practice also mandates a strict, transparent, inexpensive, and expedited "shall issue" permitting regime for concealed carry, the necessit of which was discussed by the federal appeals court that dealt with similar issues in Illinois.

You can restrict open or concealed carry, but not both, either explicitly or implicitly through a "may issue" permitting scheme or with financial and administrative mechanisms designed to thwart the practice.

If you believe banning open carry is "just the beginning" or a "first step" to further or more pervasive gun control, don't be surprised when more moderate gun rights supporters, such as myself, refuse to compromise or do not take your objections seriously.