Open carry becomes focus after Colorado Springs shooting rampage

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Can't believe I'm starting a gun thread. Should police have responded to the call regardless of open carry laws?


Minutes before 33-year-old Noah Harpham began a shooting rampage Saturday in Colorado Springs that would leave four dead, his neighbor spotted the tall, lanky man standing outside with a rifle.

Naomi Bettis said she called 911 to report Harpham, but a dispatcher explained that Colorado has an open carry law that allows public handling of firearms. Bettis was perturbed by the call taker's response, which she feels could have prevented catastrophe.

"He did have a distraught look on his face," Bettis said of Harpham. "It looked like he had a rough couple days or so."

Colorado's open carry law has taken a central focus in the slayings' aftermath, with scores using social media to call the police department's apparent lack of immediate response to Bettis' 911 call into question.

Police agencies across the state say the statute poses a difficult question of how to react when citizens call — frequently — to report an armed person in public. The response, law enforcement says, is based on circumstances.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Can't believe I'm starting a gun thread. Should police have responded to the call regardless of open carry laws?
What could they have done if they responded? I think it is good that the dispatcher actually told them the reason why they couldn't do anything. If people don't like shootings like this happening then they need to change the laws so they can be stopped before they happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister

webbuzz

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2010
1,522
5,646
I would guess it totally would have depended upon exactly what conversation transpired with the dispatcher.
That is my thought as well. In past open carry 911 calls, most of the dispatchers ask questions regarding the individual carrying.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,195
Simple, have police respond to every call and let the them decide if the person seems distraught or *******crazy.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,164
IOKWARDI
In my view, "open carry" should mean having a gun on your person, slung over your shoulder (rifle) or in a holster (pistol). The instant that a gun is in your hands, that should represent intent to use, at which point the armed person should be expect to justify why they are "brandishing", which is different thing from "carrying".
 

maxsix

Suspended
Jun 28, 2015
3,102
3,683
Western Hemisphere
In my view, "open carry" should mean having a gun on your person, slung over your shoulder (rifle) or in a holster (pistol). The instant that a gun is in your hands, that should represent intent to use, at which point the armed person should be expect to justify why they are "brandishing", which is different thing from "carrying".
There are plenty of laws already in effect, having a gun is not something that just "happened" in the public sector in the last few years. I will use the generic but well understood expressions "bad guys" and "good guys" for clarity.

The bad guys will always get guns and use them because that's their choice. Conversely some good guys will have them, some will not. When confronted by a bad guy making a demand while armed with a gun the good guy without a gun has zero means to protect himself, or herself. More laws are not going to keep the good guys safe, no matter how warm and fuzzy of a picture the politicians paint.

However more laws are good news for some, those who don't care about making the effort to work for a living. They're already everywhere now, and they will only grow in numbers as the liberal progressives grow the already obscenely expensive government we have... even larger.

Why again today we heard Hillary talking about how important it is to press on with the minimum wage hike. Why be as far in debt as we are, when we could be further in debt? The democrats have no clue when it comes to money. They only get excited about spending it at a break neck pace. They love to spend in wretched excess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oudinot

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,841
Anchorage
In my view, "open carry" should mean having a gun on your person, slung over your shoulder (rifle) or in a holster (pistol). The instant that a gun is in your hands, that should represent intent to use, at which point the armed person should be expect to justify why they are "brandishing", which is different thing from "carrying".
To my knowledge in most places that allow open carry it means exactly that, over the shoulder(or other safe manor) and muzzle pointed in a safe direction, brandishing a weapon is still illegal. In my opinion open carry isn't that big of a deal because at least people see the firearm. Sure it makes some people uncomfortable and others freak out over it but what about all the firearms that people carry concealed?

I was in a store just the other day and two ladies behind me were complaining about someone outside the store with a holstered pistol. I was thinking how freaked out they would be if they knew I was carrying concealed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,599
6,958
[QUOTE="maxsix, post: 22194279, member: 974887"

The bad guys will always get guns and use them because that's their choice. Conversely some good guys will have them, some will not. When confronted by a bad guy making a demand while armed with a gun the good guy without a gun has zero means to protect himself, or herself. More laws are not going to keep the good guys safe, no matter how warm and fuzzy of a picture the politicians paint.

Why again today we heard Hillary talking about how important it is to press on with the minimum wage hike. Why be as far in debt as we are, when we could be further in debt? The democrats have no clue when it comes to money. They only get excited about spending it at a break neck pace. They love to spend in wretched excess.[/QUOTE]
except when the good guy becomes the bad guy then what? the whole good guy bad guy is about as lame as it gets. the good guys are the ones most often letting their children get guns and shooting someone or themselves or shooting someone in anger. all the mass murders and murder suicides are usually good guys with guns.
The republicans don't spend as much but they give it away even faster. they give corporate welfare away like it is candy. better to give the poor money then the rich money it improves the economy much better.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,543
8,169
Colorado
In my view, "open carry" should mean having a gun on your person, slung over your shoulder (rifle) or in a holster (pistol). The instant that a gun is in your hands, that should represent intent to use, at which point the armed person should be expect to justify why they are "brandishing", which is different thing from "carrying".
This seems reasonable to me.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,599
6,958
we had a couple ammosexuals carrying assault rifles on their backs walking around Portland. 911 got a lot of calls and the cop came and talked to them and in more words called them idiots for trying to provoke a response. the idiots thought people would approach them and talk to them about carrying guns right approach a idiot carrying a assault rifle.

http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/men-armed-with-rifles-walk-through-portland-to-educate
 

maxsix

Suspended
Jun 28, 2015
3,102
3,683
Western Hemisphere
The bad guys will always get guns and use them because that's their choice. Conversely some good guys will have them, some will not. When confronted by a bad guy making a demand while armed with a gun the good guy without a gun has zero means to protect himself, or herself. More laws are not going to keep the good guys safe, no matter how warm and fuzzy of a picture the politicians paint.

Why again today we heard Hillary talking about how important it is to press on with the minimum wage hike. Why be as far in debt as we are, when we could be further in debt? The democrats have no clue when it comes to money. They only get excited about spending it at a break neck pace. They love to spend in wretched excess.
except when the good guy becomes the bad guy then what? the whole good guy bad guy is about as lame as it gets. the good guys are the ones most often letting their children get guns and shooting someone or themselves or shooting someone in anger. all the mass murders and murder suicides are usually good guys with guns.
The republicans don't spend as much but they give it away even faster. they give corporate welfare away like it is candy. better to give the poor money then the rich money it improves the economy much better.
To your comment: "xcept when the good guy becomes the bad guy then what? the whole good guy bad guy is about as lame as it gets."

I say: Yes, I do not disagree with you to a point.
But it's the truth, and much of it is because parents are not taking the time to be fully involved in raising their children with the proper guidance. Most of us in our 40's 50's and 60's had far better parenting, and if we as young men had a conflict that escalated it broke out in a fist fight not a gun fight to the death. Guns were more available then with no registration or paperwork to be completed.

As far as your comment on the Republicans that's been covered a zillion times here, in large part because the person that occupies the highest office in the USA (whom I refuse to discuss using the title he has soiled) is bent on dividing the country, establishing that the very victims he talks about giving a higher minimum wage to, are also the ones he's punishing with entitlements designed to keep them under the thumb of the government.

As long as he remains obsessed with spewing hate at the Republicans, the message is loud and clear. It's more important to fight, than to act dignified, authentic, honestly and stately. Why be honorable, strong and presidential when you can go on a late night comedy show, have fun, drink a few and be exposed to this:

"Kimmel could ask about the BuzzFeed story titled “Snoop Dogg Says He Got High at the White House,” or maybe the White House suddenly worried Kimmel could pop a question like, “The world has never been less stable in your lifetime, Mr. President, what the hell are you doing here?”

Preferring to hang with Snoop, is every presidents dream!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oudinot

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Meanwhile in Israel:
Israel isn't exactly a country I'd want to copy. Although their reasoning for having guns is similar to the original reason in the US. In the US the guns would help put down any slave rebellions if the federal government didn't want to intervene, and in Israel having guns helps them keep the Palestinians in their place and allows Israel to maintain it's Apartheid system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,476
United Kingdom
Meanwhile in Israel:


Praise Google Image Search.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx

There is a picture going around the Internet that I have seen about a dozen times today that claims that Israeli teachers are packing heat. Well, are they? The answer is “NO.”
...
In the picture, the students are on an outing. While it appears that the teacher is holding a rifle, I have never seen such a thing in ten years of living here. Rest assured however, they are under armed protection. In most cases it is an armed guard or a soldier that will accompany a class, not the teacher. And my guess is that the woman with the gun is a security guard, not a teacher.
...
Secondly, they are not armed in the classroom. Is that really the image you want to imprint on the minds of six-year-olds? (That would be Hamas) On the other hand. I have never seen a school in Israel that was not fenced in. You must go through a locked gate that is guarded by an armed shomer, a security guard. He or she, on the other hand, is not concerned with educating, but protecting. He or she will ask you why you are there? “What is your child’s name?” “Show me your I.D. card.” And he or she would not let you bring a weapon inside.

These types of massacres don’t seem to happen here for other reasons as well. Despite the stereotype of Israel being a violent nation, it is a million times (slight exaggeration) easier to get a weapon in the US than it is in Israel. Gun Control laws are very strict here.
The article notes Israelis are subject to a criminal penalty for losing their firearms. Excellent idea. The U.S. should adopt it.

Losing a weapon will get you a jail sentence, as my wife’s childhood friend, Moti, found out two decades ago. He left his gun in his car because he was just running into a mini-mart. He came back and the gun was gone. He spent six months in jail and God only knows where that gun ended up.
 

Praxis91

macrumors regular
Mar 15, 2011
103
884
Israel isn't exactly a country I'd want to copy. Although their reasoning for having guns is similar to the original reason in the US. In the US the guns would help put down any slave rebellions if the federal government didn't want to intervene, and in Israel having guns helps them keep the Palestinians in their place and allows Israel to maintain it's Apartheid system.
Technically they are copying us because there are many open carry places in the US. Not everyone open carries though.

For example, the entire state of PA is open carry except for Philadelphia.

Now if I grab my AR-15 and start carrying in Bucks County, I would probably be harassed by police after some soccer mom calls them in when seeing someone with an "evil" and "scary looking" rifle. So just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.. but we all did it during Sandy (after seeing all the reports about looting.. no thugs were stupid enough to **** with our area).
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
we had a couple ammosexuals carrying assault rifles on their backs walking around Portland. 911 got a lot of calls and the cop came and talked to them and in more words called them idiots for trying to provoke a response. the idiots thought people would approach them and talk to them about carrying guns right approach a idiot carrying a assault rifle.

http://www.kptv.com/story/20548025/men-armed-with-rifles-walk-through-portland-to-educate
Sounds like people of Portland don't know enough about the laws on the books.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,599
6,958
Sounds like people of Portland don't know enough about the laws on the books.
Portlanders don't go around with guns on their backs we are civilized. These two idiots were not bright enough to know that. Just becase you can't does not mean you should. Even the cop told them.politely they were idiots.
 

pdqgp

macrumors 68020
Mar 23, 2010
2,130
5,432
Portlanders don't go around with guns on their backs we are civilized. These two idiots were not bright enough to know that. Just becase you can't does not mean you should. Even the cop told them.politely they were idiots.
Never stated my opinion on the men. Clearly Portlanders calling cops on their behavior is a little over the top. Kudos to the cops for coming out and perhaps their point is valid, but so is the one these guys were trying to make.

Again, it kills me that people demand more and more laws and gov't regulation when they don't even understand what is already on the books.