Tyndmyr wrote:In regards to the issue of treating open carry individuals as a threat, a bit of anecdotal evidence of non-open carriers acting violently does not establish your perceived risk as rational.
I consider all people with guns in their possession to be a threat. It just literally makes no sense to me why you would want to open carry except for the express purpose of being threatening. Judging by the reactions in this thread, that seems to be more or less correct.
A number of other reasons have been given in the thread by myself and others.
Showing at least one example of open carry going badly would be a more convincing statement against open carry. If you want to be persuasive, some degree of statistics showing they present a significant risk would be better.
Here's an open carry mass shooting
No. If you'd read the article, you'd see that this article is critical of an open carry law. The shooting itself does not appear to have been a result of someone open carrying, and there is no evidence that the shooter was open carrying.
Finally a valid example. You are now 1 for 8.
No, this is just people being critical of open carrying, and repeating your idea that if you get a crowd of people together, and a gun is there, somehow people will be shot. There is no shooting in the reported marches.
The guy is a dumbass, but nobody died or was seriously injured per the article you cite.
Again, no deaths or serious injuries. Also, nobody else hurt. A dumbass managed to minorly wound himself. There is no indication that this is a case of open carrying.
This is not an open carry incident. The guy was carrying a gun in a waistband without a holster. The only significant injury was to himself, though it was not life threatening.
Here's one of an FBI agent who shot someone at a nightclub while trying to do a backflip
on the dance floor.
Again, not open carrying. Also, being a government agent, probably immune to any sort of gun bans. Also, nobody injured.
Firearm accidents at home are not a result of carry laws. Irrelevant to open carry.
Man dead after accidentally shooting himself when his gun fell out of its holster
Doesn't say if concealed or not, as article is extremely light on details. However, it was holstered in a shoulder holster, which is almost invariably a concealed carry setup. Nobody injured other than shooter.
Nobody shot. Also, explicitly not open carry, as it was concealed in a pocket.
It's in the home, the pistol was in a concealed carry holster, nobody but the gun owner was injured.
You have done an excellent job of demonstrating why someone open carrying poses no threat to you. In all the examples you have found, only 1 out of 17 is someone open carrying, and creating injury to passersby. IE, the situation in which you feel threatened, seeing a gun in walmart or what have you. In the one comparable situation you have found, there is nothing to indicate that he went out open carrying, and then decided to engage in violence. It appears to be a planned shooting, and that the rifle was only exposed because he was intending to use it immediately.
This is probably not very comparable to someone with a rifle slung on their back while grocery shopping. It's the closest you've found, and it is unlikely that a law against open carrying would have created any different outcome, and it doesn't seem to justify your fear on anyone with a weapon.
I note that stupidity is a significant thread throughout these injuries, and that one could extend that to accidents without firearms. I suggest that a far more rational fear would be people ignoring obvious safety rules or otherwise engaged in dumb activity.
Statistics are hard to come by since open/concealed carry data is not normally separated, but carrying a gun increases your risk of being shot or killed by about a factor of four
compared to being unarmed.
Yeah, causality's backward on that reading of it. People who feel they are at risk of getting shot and killed tend to get guns for protection.