Objecting to open carry: Equating 'moral harm' with intimidation

[friendly_iconoclast]

Regarding all the recent claims that open carry of guns is 'intimidating' to some- I think it's just a rehash of Robert Bork's

theory of "moral harm", as pointed out by writer Dan Baum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=335504#335606


friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-18-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. Strange seeing Robert Bork's theory of moral harm espoused at DU
For those unfamiliar with it, Dan Baum's recent (August 2010) article in Harper's related this to the objection to open carry:

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

As concealed carry, so open carry. Having a prejudiced challenged by the sight of an inanimate object is harmful only to certain

sensibilities.

[jpak]

1. Robert Bork is an ignorant RW republican asshole who perpetrated the Saturday Night Massacre

try again

yup

[Euromutt]

2. That was the point (n/t)

[TheWraith]

26. Bingo. And jpak doesn't get that he is on Bork's side.

As I've said previously, the people who object to others lawfully carrying guns have as much right to be free of guns in the public square as the bible-bashers have a right for the public square to be free of gay people. It's the same moral panic BS.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. So the open carriage of handguns isn't "morally harmful", then?

It's a yes or no question...

[jpak]

5. No - it is physically harmful - handguns are meant to kill humans

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. By that metric, it's physically harmful to drive a car or serve fatty foods.

Are those that are killed in crashes or die of atherosclerosis less dead than those shot?

[jpak]

9. No it is not - cars are transportation - fats are essential nutrients

Handguns were purposely designed to kill humans

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

22. And yet carrying them does not physically harm anyone.

Five years in July, and no harm done yet.

Nope.

Try again.

[spin]

24. I've been carrying one for 15 years ...

and I've owned handguns for 41 years. I've never used them to kill anyone yet. I doubt if I ever will have to use my handguns for legitimate self defense but then I an not clairvoyant, a fortune teller or a seer.

Also, If handguns were designed to kill humans they are a failure. They are underpowered for that task and often a person who has been shot survives. Actually, a defensive handgun is designed to stop an attack not kill.

Now my 12 gauge coach gun IS designed to kill humans especially when loaded with 00 buck.

Hero Training: The Best Weapons for Home Defense
» By Jeff Barnett

Here are my top picks for home defense weapons:

1. 12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun

***snip***

At ranges of less than 25 yards there is scarcely a more effective weapon than 12-Gauge loaded with #1 or larger buckshot. When it comes to shotshell loads, smaller numbers mean larger projectiles. Example: #1 buckshot consists of (10) .30” diameter projectiles while #4 buckshot consists of (21) .24” diameter projectiles.

***snip***

3. Handgun

While one of the least overall effective tools for the job, small size and accessibility to the beginner have made handguns one of the most popular home defense weapons used today. Handguns are easy to learn, cheap to practice with, and store comfortably in a nightstand.

Despite what you may have seen in movies, pistol caliber projectiles simply do not create the type of damage that instantly incapacitates an aggressor. The key is to place your rounds on target and have plenty of rounds available.
http://www.primermagazine.com/2008/learn/hero-training-the-best-weapons-for-home-defense

[DonP]

16. Bork agrees with you on this - again with the reading comprehension?

[X_Digger]

17. RIF - reading is fundamental..n/t

[rl6214]

21. Is this an illness

That anyone that has an opinion that differs from yours is an ignorant asshole because I have seen it posted by you multiple times. I really think you have some serious problems.

YUP

YUP
'
YUP

[Callisto32]

25. WOOOOSH.

[jpak]

3. "but if we aren’t adversely affected by it" - provoking fear is not a Constitutional right

no matter what this Baum dink says

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Do you fear cars? They kill more Americans each year than guns do.

If fear were entirely logical, a walk through any parking lot would be scarier than a visit to a gun show.

Like guns, cars are only harmful when operated poorly.

[jpak]

8. No - cars are transportation - not weapons designed specifically to kill humans

try again

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Cars are still deadlier than guns in the US, and there are more guns than cars here.

So we've established that your fear is not in proportion to the actual danger represented.

Thank you for confirming this for us....

[Euromutt]

14. A car is a two-ton plus bludgeon traveling at a couple of dozen miles per hour (or more)

Even if the purpose of its design is not to be a weapon, simple physics dictate that it is a lethal instrument. And people are damn sight more likely to lose sight of that fact with motor vehicles than they are with firearms--nobody thinks there's nothing wrong with talking on a cell phone or fixing your make-up or trying to eat a chili dog(!) with your finger on the trigger--which is precisely why some 46,000 people are killed in motor vehicle collisions every year, almost all of them unintentionally.

[PavePusher]

18. I am still in far more danger from your car....

than from someones gun.

Therefore, I must insist on my Right to be free from fear of your car.

At least I have relative statistics on my side.

[speltwon]

19. Cars can be harmful even when operated properly

If a kid runs out into the street right in front of a car, he's going to get harmed. A gun on my hip otoh cannot harm anybody without my drawing it and pulling the trigger. As pedestrians and other drivers, we must take positive action to stay safe - watch where we walk, look both ways, etc. That's true even if everybody drives responsibly. People have no such duty with people carrying concealed or openly. Statistically speaking, those doing so w/a permit (CCW) are less likely to harm them than the average person

[petronius]

10. "Provoking fear" is an inaccurate description. If Person A is going about his lawful,

peaceable business, and Person B is frightened at the sight of Person A, or an inanimate object in Person A's possession, is it valid to say that Person A "provoked" Person B?

More generally, there's no right anywhere to be spared the sight of things we don't like or things that frighten us. So long as a gun carrier is behaving safely, legally, and within the law, there is no rational (or legal) basis to claim an effect on another person.

[Katya Mullethov]

15. But .........they're sitting at ----MY---- lunch counter !

Uppity sons of bitches .

[YllwFvr]

27. got some balls dont they?

they should know better than to be offensive!

[NewMoonTherian]

23. Certainly not.

But firearms should not provoke fear except in ignorant, unreasonable people. Have you ever seen a list of documented phobias? Look around you, and you will not find an item or substance that does not provoke fear in someone.

[YllwFvr]

28. antis seem to think

us carriers fear human kind.


*cowers* They scary!

[rrneck]

12. If we could write legislation

to manage people's feelings it would put all the science fiction writers out of business.

[Euromutt]

13. As I noted earlier, there are TWO kinds of open carriers

(Report from here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=373040&mesg_id=373499)

The "Open Carry Movement" (henceforth "OCM" for ease of typing) existed before anyone outside Illinois had even heard of Barack Obama. Their objective was to normalize open carry: to get the general public used to the idea that a person openly carrying a firearm does not necessarily present a threat to public safety. In other words, their objective was precisely not to intimidate.

Then there were the Teabagger types who showed up packing outside Obama's town hall meetings over the summer of 2009, and have continued to do so intermittently. Their purpose is to intimidate, I can't argue with that, though I'm inclined to think the entity they want to intimidate is the federal government, rather than other private citizens present.

Because the Teabagger types showed up at (the periphery of) presidential events, they attracted way more media attention, and thus created a misperception on the part of the general public that they were representative of the OCM, when in fact few to none of them were part of the pre-existing OCM. In fact, their shenanigans did a lot of damage to the OCM's cause, setting it back by at least five years, and prompting a major effort at damage control on the OCM's part, including a voluntary moratorium on open carry for the remainder of 2009. The OCM was--and probably still is--rather angry at the OCing Teabaggers over this, and any Teabagger who shows up on the Open Carry forum is likely to get a frosty reception at best.

-+-+-+-+-

So, to recap, the intent of most open carriers is not to intimidate. Their object is to send a message saying "I am just a private citizen who carries a firearm for self-defense, and I intend you no harm."

[YllwFvr]

29. Thank you

Good post, and as an OCer you are correct. I continued to OC after the fools pulled that stunt but kept it low key. I avoided starbucks ;).
Some folks have deliberately pushed the envelope. One man carried an ak47 pistol into a park a few days after it was legalized wearing all cammo and a black stocking cap and painting the tip orange.

Legal... yes. Intelligent? Many times rights are expanded upon by those willing to push, but I really question some people. But then again, many question OCers who do the same thing so who am I to be outraged? You will offend people in life no matter what you do.

I wouldnt do those things myself but wont condemn them for what they did, though I didnt exactly approve. A fellow went to a pre president Obama rally carrying across the street from the secured zone with a revolver on his hip, an apple in one hand and a bible in the other. He was arrested then released. He must have been a half mile from the man without a line of sight and wasnt even in the "safe zone". I agree with the point he made and supported his defense, but an ar15 is a whole different animal. Its a fine line to walk I guess.

I support OC, not to intimidate.

[Bold Lib]

20. Wow, what a GREAT post! KandR n/t