Paul Helmke is at it again with Open Carry Equals Open Season?

From sunrise to sunset. In cities, suburbs, and rural areas. In climates both hot and cold. Every day, somewhere in America, people disagree over the littlest things. One person mistakes another person’s expression or gesture for an insult. And if one of those persons has a gun, then that littlest thing might lead to that gun being used.

What is it about open carry that differs from discreet carry that Helmke thinks will result in a little disagreement escalating into lethal force being used? We have millions and millions of people legally carrying guns, knives, Tasers, and pepper spray. Yet the occurrences of those being illegally used is quite rare. So why the hang up with open carry? Why should he believe a openly carried gun will be more likely to be used illegally than a discreetly carried gun?

It’s simple. It’s not about crime prevention. Open carry, over time, will desensitize the general population to the presence of ordinary people carrying defensive tools. Helmke and his organization rely on irrational fear to push their agenda. The more accepted it is for people to carry firearms in public the less able they are to accomplish their goals. It’s no different than mixed race or homosexual couples holding hands or kissing in public. Some people find it extremely disturbing and get all bent out of shape about it. It’s a specific enumerated right to freedom of association and it’s a specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Helmke is a closed minded bigot and cannot let go of his prejudices even when he is staring at the face of factual data, and constitutional and common law going back hundreds of years.

In the foreground are Countertop, Paul Helmke, and Say Uncle. See also Alan Gura v. Paul Helmke.

The word came out this morning that there was going to be a protest at 2:00 PM here at the NRA Annual meeting. About 10 minutes early Say Uncle and I started scanning the sidewalks and plazas in front of the convention center. Nothing. We followed a video camera crew around for a while as they interviewed a bunch of gun people.

About 10 minutes after 2:00 Say Uncle approached the camera crew and asked if they were here for the protest. They said no, but the protesters had shown up earlier. But there were maybe ten of them and they already left, “They were little old ladies in their 80’s and they had to go home and take a nap or something.”

Update: Alan caught them and has some pictures on Facebook:

Say Uncle beat me with my own picture and what I planned to make QOTD tomorrow (I’ll have a different one from Paul from today to use tomorrow).  Countertop has a picture of us. Jeff has some more pictures.

Here is my take on the debate we just saw with a slightly edited version of the same picture Say Uncle used:

Proof I shared space with Alan Gura and Paul Helmke. 

Alan Gura. Our point man in the war for our civil rights.

Paul Helmke. The point man in the war on our civil rights.

Paul Helmke shakes hands with Say Uncle.

Countertop, Paul Helmke, Jeff Bishop, and Say Uncle.

The debate was civil and interesting. The gun bloggers (yes, we have some biases) were of the opinion that Alan was holding back some and could have “mopped the floor” with Helmke.

Paul did make a point that surprised us. He pointed out that the First Amendment has been ruled to protect the right to view pornography and other potentially harmful material in private but allows “reasonable regulation” of those same activities in public. “The Second Amendment should allow similar restrictions.”, he said. We would disagree with this point in that the Second Amendment specifically enumerates the right to bear arms and the purpose of defending innocent life. But it was a surprise and an interesting take on things.

I asked the first question when it was opened up to the floor. I pointed out that Paul had specifically called out gun violence when comparing U.S. v. U.K. when Alan had pointed out that the U.K. is one of the most violent countries in the world. Paul had sidestepped Alan’s point by ignoring the total violence rate. Paul responded by saying his organization focuses on the one component of violence. Alan followed up better that I could have. He said the violent crime rate in the U.S. is lower than in the U.K. even though the rate of violent crimes committed with guns in the U.S. is higher. For example the burglaries in the U.S. are done when the occupants are away because they are afraid of being shot (prison interview confirm this). In the U.K. criminals frequently invade homes when people are home because people have money and person items of value. This causes more confrontation between criminals and their unarmed victims. He also pointed out that regardless of the utility (or lack thereof) of some social policy we are talking about a protected constitutional right that does not depend on the crime rate for it to be protected. Constitutional law does not look to the social sciences for validation.

When I was in college at the University of Idaho I remember fellow electrical engineering student Marget M. (her father happened to be one of my favorite EE professors) explain “The Fudge Function” as was sometimes used in the labs by students who didn’t get the correct results. “You multiply by zero and add the correct answer”, she said.

Jeff explains how the Brady Campaign does it.