Braeden Davis
English 1010- 109
Mrs. Allison Fernley
April 12, 2014
Gun Carry Issue: What should it be?
As we watch or read the news we see that violence crimes with guns have
been highly publicize, and a major focus people across the country, for instance
Sandy Hook Elementary, and more recently the Fort Hood incident, just to name a
couple. In each of these incidents guns were used to take many innocent lives, and
once again brought the gun control debate to the attention of the nation as a whole.
It especially came to my attention because I am a gun nut, but with open mind
regarding gun control. I am especially drawn to the debate around carrying, as my
brother-in-law and my sister carry and I am also trying to determine whether to
carry or not. Those who support gun control seem to be mostly opposed to open
carry or carrying at all. Those who advocate for gun rights and very limited gun
control are known for supporting both types of carrying. So what it is the best
solution for the gun carrying issue—open, concealed, or not all?
Barrett, Paul. "How to Understand Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere' Law: Four Blunt
Points." Business Week 25 03 2013, EARLY EDITION n. pag. Web. 29 Mar.
2014. <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/how-to-understandgeorgias-guns-everywhere-law-four-blunt-points>.
Barrett observes the fact that non-gun owners wouldn’t understand the “Guns
Everywhere” law. He gives the four blunt points of the law. The first point is the effect of
the Sandy Hook Elementary. Yes, it did cause gun control law, but it also caused the
opposite where there is more gun rights law. Second point, is that the National Rifle
Association has the advantage in the gun control debate. Where he stated that the gun
control lobbyists and the effect after Sandy Hook are fading and had faded away. He
describes it as the “NRA scare tactics”, that they are do very well having people rally
behind more aggressive gun rights measures. Third point, Barrett states “Skeptics of
expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently.” Which is where he describes that the
circumstance of the law is that people want to deny guns in the establishments they can
and that it up to the owner to post signs and up to the churches to allow or deny guns in
there building or congregation. Fourth and finally point, is the best response to gun-rights
extremism. It is a focus on fighting crime. Which is where we must focus, not on
carrying, but on the violent crimes and the ownership of illegal guns, because the stance
on the carry and having it on your person is where the NRA has the fight right now.
Barrett uses the current event of Sandy Hook to describe why they passed the law,
but also helps the non-gun owner understand ways to fight those who would stem the
growth of gun rights laws. In addition he uses more logic to explain the facts and
evidence of the power that the NRA has now in the government. In fact that it can scare
and overwhelm the gun control lobbyists in the states. I do agree with his understanding
and explanations of the law.
This article will help with understanding the current position of government at
state and nation levels on gun carry. I also see that it fits to explain the way people in
rural areas are thinking about carrying and gun rights. It is the overall country v. city on
the way gun rights and gun control is really being affected.
Henry, Jerry, John Pierce, Dave Workman, Larry Pratt, Ralph Shortey, Lindasy Nichols,
Constance N. Johnson, Josh Sugarman, and Joshua Horwitz. "Debate Club:
Should People Be Allowed to Carry Guns Openly?" US News. U.S.News &
World Report, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. <http://www.usnews.com/debateclub/should-people-be-allowed-to-carry-guns-openly>.
US News and World Report has a Debate Club. This particular edition was over
the issue: “Should people be allowed to carry guns openly?” Within the debate people for
it and people against it give their input on the topic. The people for carrying guns openly
try to make it clear that it’s okay to carry, since it deters crime if people carry (Henry,
Pratt). Also that “armed society is a polite society (Henry).” Additionally to those
answers to the question they argue that it’s a right due to the 2nd Amendment (Henry,
Pierce, Shortey). Plus if we want to account for whom has a gun we should open carry
said Workman. Finally, the gang members and the people who commit the violence using
guns try to conceal their intentions and their weapons (Pratt, Workman, Shortey).
However, the individuals representing the opposition have their own opinion about the
question. First, they argue that it will mean more law enforcement to cover the projected
increase in 911 calls and harder to determine who are the criminals (Nichols, Johnson). It
also is an endangerment to the community and could cause chaos (Nichols, Johnson).
Sugarman gives an example of why we shouldn’t allow open carry. Due to the irony of
the story he told he makes you think about the community not being safe. Finally, Joshua
stated that it is a privilege and it should be regulated by the state.
The Debaters use a lot of appeal to natural emotion and logic. They use the
emotion of fear and our need to protect each other. They use it for both sides of the
argument. For instance the supporters of open carry give the reason that carrying openly
deters crime, and one gives a story that helps promote that emotion. In contrast, the
opposition draws on the emotion of fear by the story of Melanie Hain, a young lady who
owned a gun and was killed by a gun, to deter people from open carry. Then those in
favor appeal to logic through the fact that open carry could reveal criminals due to the
fact that criminals try to hide their intentions. Finally, the logic used by the opposing side
was supported by the fact that it will cause more trouble for law enforcement if it was
allowed.
This debate helps me by giving me the foundation for my argument. It gives the
position of both, for and against open carry. Plus it gives the reasons behind the issue. It
refines my opinion on the issue further.
Winkler, Adam. "Want Fewer Guns on California Streets? Open Carry May Be the
Answer." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 23 Feb. 2014. Web. 05 Apr.
2014.
Adam Winkler argues that the people who want fewer guns on California streets
must consider open carry. He starts with the fact that California gun control lawmakers
are thinking of allowing more relaxed open carry rules. Winkler brings up the fact that
citizens are scared about it, because they don’t want it to be like the Wild West. He goes
on to describe that the law was so strict that people who want to have a gun had to have a
personal reason. He also describes the fact that if they go to open carry, they could make
outlaws conceal carry all together. Winkler also points out that we can’t run if people are
concealed, but open carry we run out if we feel scared. He concluded with the fact that
“2nd amendment experts predict that the Supreme Court, like the federal appeals court this
month, will eventually hold that people must be allowed to ‘bear’ arms in some fashion.
That means California will have to allow either concealed carry, which will be popular,
or open carry, which won't be.”
Winkler’s rhetorical appeal is that he is a trusted source, as a UCLA professor of
law and he has written a book on Gun Rights and the fight behind it. He then uses
California statistics to prove his points. He also uses places that are public to the all the
people that live in the cities. Finally, he uses the statistics of the skyrocket for concealed
weapons permits from 56,000 to 1 million and he projects that the permits for guns will
continue to skyrocket to the point that 341 people out of every 300,000 will carry
concealed if we do not go open carry. I believe his stand on the gun rights position is a
strong one.
This article will help me in my argument that even states that are strict on gun
control should consider open carry. It also describes the fact that it is going be easy for us
to respond to the people who open carry their guns, and the fact is that concealed
weapons make it harder for us to respond.
Loren, Jennifer. "What It's Like in an Open Carry State." What It's Like in an Open Carry
State - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports KOTV.com |. World Now, 14 May 2012. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Jennifer Loren insists that the open carry has a good side to it, and she goes to
explore Medford, Oregon for more experience on people who do open carry. She
observes the YouTube’s Brady Brunch of Guns, Steve and Lisa, and how they show their
rights for gun carry. Loren quotes Steve on the fact that you have to prepare mentally and
physically to carry a gun mentally. Loren asked why they think it is important that they
should be allowed to carry a gun. They respond, for their personal safety. In addition
Steve and Lisa she ask a police officer up in Medford and he says, “Open carrying hasn't
caused any major problems, but it definitely makes some people feel uneasy.” This leads
Loren to do an experiment on a street corner where she used Steve with him open
carrying a pistol. Few really noticed and if they did it was only with a second glance and
then moving on. She continued with the experiment adding a few more people to the
experiment. The responses she got from the people were either “it didn’t bother me.” or
they would just walk by with disgusted faces and shaking their heads. One guy got into a
discussion with the people open carrying. He left feeling a little safer.
In addition, Loren asked the sheriffs in Oklahoma about open carry. She
concluded that the sheriff disagrees with theses example and that they won’t know the
bad guys. In addition to that is the fact it is dangerous to have open carry, because there
were more officer-involved shootings.
Jennifer Loren does a good job in her rhetorical appeal, using the personal
knowledge of a people who open carry regularly. In addition, she used the experiment of
the how people respond on the street if one or more than one are with their gun open
carry. She then concluded with a survey of all the sheriffs in a state that is deciding open
carry, concealed carry, or no carry.
This article helps the argument because doesn’t shoot up different statistics, but
provides a first person experience of people who do open carry. They also give reasons
why and what we must prepare for in carrying a gun. It then gives some reasons why
some sheriffs may not like it. So this article does give a good source for the gun carry
argument.
Byme, Matt. "Police Chiefs Taking Aim at Maine's Open-carry Gun Law." Maine News,
Sports, Weather & Breaking News. Portland Herald, 5 Jan. 2013. Web. 07 Apr.
2014.
Matt Byme claims that police chiefs are taking aim at the open-carry gun law in
Maine. The reason Byme gives is the fact that in the weeks that followed the passage of
the law a man walked through the neighborhood of Portland, Maine. Police officers
responded to the call and the guy got away without incident. Byme is very clear to make
the point that police officers really “lack the authority to determine the gun was loaded or
whether it complied with the Federal ban on automatic weapons or either if [someone]
possess it legally.” He clearly showed the fear of the police force in Maine. Additionally,
Byme quoted the Police Chief of Sauschank about it being “voluntary” to the point that
people can just walk by when the police come to the question. He goes into detail about
how Maine laws are so loose that most people who can carry are. Byme concludes with
quote of one Harwood who founded Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, where
he stated, “this is part of the cultural war that's at the base of the gun control debate.”
Matt Byme did really well on his rhetorical appeal by using the people view and
the people who are credible with this. The people he has as his source are credible
because most are police officers, and the other was the founder of a group against guns in
violence. The fact he uses how police truly have to respond to the calls about guns that
are open carry, when the state rights give people the right to carry openly.
The article is great because it the true about how law enforcement feels about
open carry. It gives in the way that it doesn’t help other people, since people can just
ignore the fact that the police are talking to them and that they are scaring the neighbor or
bystanders near them. In conclusion it is the article that is truly fighting against open
carry because people are scared and so fear guns.
In conclusion, it has become clear that the best way to solve the gun carry
argument is to have open carry in public, no more concealed carry for the general
population, and no carry in limited places, for example government facilities,
educational institutions, and religious buildings. Also, those who do open carry have
to be trained and certified. Interestingly, both sides of the debate used a lot of
rhetoric including: emotions, plenty of data, followed with logic. For instance, I
observed that the opposition to carrying used fear and those in favor used respect
for gun rights.
It is so important to understand that there are an increasing number of
people who are getting licensed to carry; and that they even have a sub group that is
pushing to open carry, and they do so where ever they can. This action is destined to
cause more of an uproar if we do not come to an agreeable solution.