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.
I agree. The firearm epidemic is starting to get out of hand.
ReplyDeleteMaybe i'm biased, since I personally don't care about guns, but I feel as though they need to establish incredibly strict laws on them. As in, the extensive background checks prior to purchase, to assure them being in the possession of ones who have it for merely self defense.
The owning of guns I feel like has become a taboo phrase just because of all the negative backlash from these occurrences.
Not sure exactly what should be done, but this issue definitely needs to be taken more seriously.