The Potential Dangers of Open-Carry Gun Laws

Open-Carry Gun laws are making situations more complicated than they have to be. In the past year alone, The United States has had two mass shootings in which citizens who openly carried their firearms have managed to confuse the police force and first responders. In a dangerous scenario where there are masses of people, those who openly-carry their firearms add to the confusion and may even escalate the situation. Those who openly-carry can not only cause confusion but prevent police officers from doing their job safely and correctly. Open-Carry gun laws endanger those that actively put them into practice as well as the people around them and in my opinion, are worth reconsidering.

Mark Follman, a writer for MotherJones, describes how this process takes place and provides transparent examples of this happening within the past few years. One example in particular that Follman points out is a group of open-carriers at a Black Lives Matter protest in New York.

upwards of 20 to 30 people were open carrying AR-15s and other types of military-style semi-automatic rifles at the Black Lives Matters protest last Thursday, which "created confusion for the police as the attack unfolded, and in its immediate aftermath made it more difficult for officers to distinguish between suspects and marchers."[1]

Follman goes onto describe what these people were wearing at the protest, explaining how they donned bullet-proof vests, gas masks, in addition to the assault rifles they had strapped to their backs. I personally do not understand why a protester would need special forces-level combat gear for a supposed peaceful protest. I understand they are invoking their rights but surely the phrase ‘There’s a time and place for everything’ comes to mind.

In addition, I agree with Follman on the basis that open-carry gun laws can complicate situations for police officers. They cannot only make situations worse by confusing police officers responding to a threat, but can also divert police officers from the person they should truly be pursuing. An example of this is Mark Hughes, a man who was involved in a peaceful protest the day the Dallas attack took place. Hughes was listed as a suspect on the Police department’s twitter and was subsequently detained (after he turned himself in) and interrogated. Situations like this help to exemplify how citizens who openly carry their firearms compound the danger that already exists in these scenarios and for a lack of a better term, waste valuable time the police could be using to stop actual suspects.

President Obama even said the following:

Imagine if you're a police officer and you're trying to sort out who is shooting at you," he said, "and there are a bunch of people who have got guns on them."(1)

The United States’ priority should be the public at large and demonstrations that emphasize people ‘exercising their right’ should be put into context. Citizens who want to open carry their firearms should think about where they are going before they bring their guns around. There’s a time and place for everything and people should undoubtedly reconsider bringing their guns to high risk events, for the safety of themselves and others. Open carry gun laws endanger those who practice them and the public in high risk situations. Gun laws should definitely be restructured in my opinion, to better account for public safety while still giving gun-owners their amendment-given right. It’s all about context, time, and place.

---

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/open-carry-gun-laws-mass-shootings

Gun laws, Police Re-training, or Both?

Can you guess what happened to a 13-year-old African-American boy last week? That’s right, he was shot and killed by one of the men in blue. Yes, again. However, this particular case is not so easy to take sides on. The victim, an eighth grader named Tyre King, was shot during a chase down an alley because he pulled out what looked to be a firearm out of his waistband, which was later found to be a BB Gun. Though he was only a young teenager, I can understand why a police officer would feel the need to defend himself through force because he might have thought his life was in his danger. Situations like this one are a reflection of our Country’s need to restructure laws regarding replica/actual firearms as well as a wake-up call to reconsider traditional police training and tactics.

Investigators on the scene first believed King’s weapon was a handgun, but “upon further inspection, was later determined to be a BB gun with an attached laser sight.”[1]

That’s not all to the story though. The police officer involved in the shooting has a past. Specifically, Officer Bryan Mason was involved in another shooting in 2012.

In 2012, Mason shot and killed a 51-year-old man who was reportedly aiming a gun at another man in his home, and refused to drop the weapon when officers arrived. Mason was cleared of any wrongdoing in that case.(1)

It’s clear that this case is problematic for a number of reasons. Kids that are in their early teens should not be getting shot and killed. But on the other hand, kids in their early teens shouldn’t try to rob other people of their money or walk around neighborhoods with realistic BB Guns tucked into their waistband. Simultaneously, police officers shouldn’t be so quick to pull out their guns on young teenagers that robbed a mere $10 from their victim. Indisputably, America needs to rethink its laws regarding replica firearms and firearms in general but simultaneously also needs to address the police brutality situation.

While it is the police force’s job to protect and serve the citizens of the United States, recently their reputation has been tainted by the seemingly purposeful shootings of African Americans. This is something they cannot ignore. To gain the respect of the public, I think the police have to reconsider how they train their officers. That goes hand in hand with stricter laws regarding firearms/replicas.

I almost sympathize with officer Mason. But, his actions and the way this situation unfolded tells us something. Police in this country need to be better trained on how to de-escalate situations without the immediate use of firearms. In addition, I think more laws should be implemented to prevent minors from acquiring replica firearms, for their own safety and protection. These tragedies have to stop, but it’s a complicated issue that has to be tackled at several different angles all at once.

---

[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/13-year-old-with-a-bb-gun-is-shot-and-killed-by-ohio-cop.html

The Angeleno Identity Crisis

Gentrification has undoubtedly been a touchy subject in contemporary times. Downtown Los Angeles, known for its grimy yet homey atmosphere is the next city on the list for trendy but ultimately money-hungry developers. Grand Central market in particular, a hub for quick on-the-go and often delicious food is on the verge of an urban revival. Caught in the middle of this shift towards the hipper side of things are ‘legacy tenants’, mostly immigrants, who are facing the wrath of gentrification in the food mecca of Los Angeles. Some of these immigrants are losing their entire livelihoods in this city-wide soul search for what Los Angeles wants to be next and it’s problematic to say the least.

One of the people to suffer the consequences of Grand Central Market’s hipster-chic overhaul is Soo Hwan Kim.

Born 68 years ago in South Korea, Kim came to the United States at 19 and earned a bachelor’s in electrical engineering from Pacific States University, but like many educated immigrants facing language barriers, he opted for an entrepreneurial life. In the 1980s, he invested in a Mexican grocery-restaurant in Long Beach—he had learned Spanish during a year in Argentina before arriving in America—and renamed it Kim’s Deli & Market. The business helped raise three children: an actor, a movie producer, and a deputy district attorney. After 20 years, hoping to scale back his hours, Kim obtained a $469,000 loan and in 2005 bought Grand Central Liquor, its ceiling-high wall of alcohol near the Broadway entrance a fixture of the market for decades.[1]

Their ouster was part of a “concerted effort and business plan to ‘gentrify’ the tenant base at Grand Central Market by ejecting long-term and ‘legacy’ tenants based on their race, color, national origin, and/ or ancestry, in order to replace them in the substantial majority of instances with Caucasian tenants,” the two merchants allege in a complaint pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. They contend that of the approximately 15 vendors the market displaced, only two were not ethnic minorities; and of their replacements, all but two were white-owned businesses. The case, which has not previously been reported on, seeks $8 million to $16 million in economic and punitive damages. (1)

This revitalization of a Los Angeles relic obviously has its pros and cons. From its beginnings and its mid-life crisis as a marketplace struggling to make ends meet to its rebirth as a yelp-elite favorite, Grand Central Market yet again faces an uncertain future. It must choose between its past and what it wants to become next. Though it will bring money and consequentially an economic shot of steroids to the downtown area, it will definitely complicate the lives of some of its oldest tenants.

Los Angeles’s looming identity crisis is simultaneously making the city a food destination for yelpers and hipsters alike while robbing honest, hard-working immigrants of their life’s work. It’s more than controversial. The whole gentrification thing isn’t so black and white. There’s a gray zone to all this and we as Angelenos have to decide what is more important: to support and encourage the growth of sustainable and trendy local businesses, or to preserve the Latino- Afro-Asiatic roots, color, and soul of Los Angeles.

---

[1] http://www.lamag.com/longform/grand-central-market-gentrification/