Where do you stand on banning guns?

[gejohnston]

88. someone interpreting an OC as such a sign sounds fearful and paranoid to me.

Concealed carry has the potential to make a safer environment, but also has the potential to make a more dangerous environment. The madness hasn't stopped, it is in full bloom and the consequences are still unknown.

It does neither. Vermont was "green" when it was easier to get a NYC CCW than a Wyoming one [although Wyoming was not really a may issue in the same sense NY is. From 1886-1995 it was shall issue to specific occupations such as PIs, pharmacists, MDs who made house calls etc) and no issue to everyone else. That includes all weapons such as sword canes, sling shots, and knives designed as weapons. Nonresidents visiting God's Country still need a CCW for any of those items as well as pistols. But I digress] Washington state and a few others have been "shall issue" at least a couple of decades before Florida liberalized theirs. So we have a pretty good idea. We also know that the Czech Republic and Bulgaria don't have shoot outs in the street any more than much of Europe did before stricter gun laws are in place. We do know, Chicago is worse the Mexico City. We also know El Paso has half the murder rate of London. Either way, I seriously doubt more than one or two percent of Wyomingites or Vermonters carry concealed. You are either in the woods or Mayberry. The spike in gun sales is more about "oh shit it could happen to me too" than it is about Obama signing laws.

A little reality check tells me that Open Carry would be far more likely to create a safer environment. Plus, it would be honest. Seriously, who's arguementgonna fuck with some guy sporting a sidearm? It's like a sign saying "IF I DON'T KNOW YOU, APPROACH AT YOUR OWN RISK!"

Funny thing about open carry. Even in places like Wyoming, people don't unless they are going to or from the woods. The only OC I saw in town was a guy riding a motorcycle to a range and he stopped to get gas. Under Wyoming law at that time, he could not legally put it in a saddle bag unless it was in a locked case. Couldn't be in glove box or under seat of car.

Imagine living in a society where the majority of individuals walked around with concealed sidearms. Is that what we really want? Is that what we consider progressive? My problem is not so much with the law or Constitution, but with the mentality and behavior of a huge chunk of the population that buys into this climate of fear and delusion. We should be way beyond that kind of social thought process.

I don't see it happening based on what argument I explained above, but I don't see it as issue either way. If there is no empirical evidence (like blood in the streets, duels, etc) then there is no social harm. Is it progressive? Doesn't matter. It is what it is. I stick to my previous rant on the difference between liberal and progressive. Climate of fear? Those opposed to liberal CCW policies are basing their opinions on fear. What delusion? How does one tell if the other guy is being delusional and not them? Much of what we think of as real is really an illusion. Most of what is objective reality, really isn't. Just ask the color blind guy why his socks don't match.
Ever hear of Briggs Myers? I have a hard time buying into value judgement arguments like "not a good social thought process" for a couple of reasons. One reason is that it doesn't sound that much different than anti marriage equality BS. Different words, but same basic argument. The other is, quite frankly, it doesn't mean anything to me.
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html