BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Open carry of handguns deters crimes from happening

"Open Carry Guns Deter Crimes." Dustins Gun Blog on Opposing Views. March 8th, 2010: "by carrying your firearm openly, you may deter a crime from happening in the first place, which would then lead to a better outcome. [...] We do [...] have at least one documented example in Kennesaw GA where a crew of armed thugs decided NOT to commit armed robbery in a waffle house because the thug who went in to scout the place before the crime saw Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell openly carrying their firearms." [See other examples in argument page.]
Open carry causes discomfort and worsens anti-gun opinions

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "The final factor is political. Post-Heller and McDonald, gun owners are feeling their oats, flexing our political muscles, feeling ten feet tall and covered with hair. But don’t forget that we’re stnority in this country. A significant, well-organized, well-funded, politically active minority, but a minority nonetheless. it’s also worth noting that a huge number of gun owners would be more than happy to support laws that restricted other people from owning guns. In that kind of political environment, Open Carry has two very negative effects. First, it rubs our opponents faces in the fact that we have guns. Gun rights may be front and center in your world, but it’s mostly beneath the radar for most people. OC creates anti-gunners and generates support from uncommitted voters."
Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon

"The case AGAINST open carry firearms." OMFG Alaska. April 27th, 2010: "I support our second amendment, but I am against people feeling empowered to carry their legally permitted weapons openly and here is why: many aren't trained to retain total control of their own weapons and there may come a time when somebody is able to grab it away from them and use it against innocent bystanders. Americans are used to seeing police openly carrying firearms. But because they are uniformed and easily identifiable and their position in society still commands some level of respect from most of society, most would never dream of overpowering or subduing a police officer in an attempt to grab their weapon away from them and then use it against innocents. Not so for some schlub picking his nose in a Def Leppard t-shirt, who may or may not have had the proper training in order to maintain control of their own weapon. Some crazy asshole may get it in his head that Mr. Nose Picker doesn't look all that tough and that he could probably wrest Mr. N. P.'s crappy little 9mm away from him and then use it to cause some righteous anarchy. And that is it in a nutshell. Gun control in this case means maintaining control of who is in possession of ones own weapon. I am not convinced that the majority of Americans are wholly prepared to do exactly that, which is why I'd prefer that those who choose to carry a legally registered firearm keep it concealed."
A right unexercised is a right lost.

If a right is not exercised, then individuals, bystanders, and even law enforcement officers will cease to think of it as a right and will infringe upon it when it is actually exercised. It is often seen, for example, in States that have open-carry laws on the books, that Cops, because they rarely see people openly carrying, will stop, question, and even detain an individual on the grounds that they are causing a "public disturbance" by merely carrying openly. This would not happen if people were more used to seeing guns carried openly. For this reason, a right unexercised is a right lost.
Open carry risks fanatics pushing boundaries of appropriateness

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster. Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as 'crazy gun owners.' That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired 'assault weapons' ban look like a pleasant memory."
Open carrying does not invite trouble.

Garry E. Harvey. "Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." Pennsylvania Open Carry.: "why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one 'looking for trouble' when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL 'looking for trouble' by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively."
Open carry better for things where fewer people are around.

Brad Kozak. "The pros and cons of open versus concealed carry." The Truth About Guns. June 30th, 2010: "there might be cases where I’d carry concealed and others, that I’d carry in the open. For instance, if I’m camping, hiking, or doing some activity where I’m somewhat isolated – maybe on a trip and pumping gas after dark – carrying in the open sounds to me like a really good idea. The kind of situation where I don’t need the element of surprise, but would be better off with a deterrent sounds perfect for open carry."
Bystanders often feel intimidated by openly carried guns.

It is common that bystanders will feel intimidated and threatened by an open-carry weapon. A deadly weapon gives another individual over-powering lethal force, and bystanders are forced to make judgments as to whether the person bearing the weapon is likely to use that force responsibly or brazenly. Forcing other citizens to make this kinds of life-or-death calculations and run flush with nervousness and apprehension is simply disrespectful. This is particularly true in a town or culture that is not accustomed to seeing weapons openly carried.
Open carry helps educate public about guns

Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a "counter-reformation" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality."
Attacker is unlikely to try to take openly carried gun

Garry E. Harvey. "Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." Pennsylvania Open Carry.: "The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN."
Open carrying need not be seen as intimidating.

The idea that openly carrying a weapon is about brandishing it and intimidating other people is misinformed. It relies on a prejudiced view of the intent of gun owners and those that choose to carry weapons openly, ignoring the fact that they are probably attempting to a. deter and prevent crimes against themselves and other citizens, b. carry their weapon comfortably if they are intent on carrying, c. offer easier access to a weapon in case of need, d. express one's second amendment rights, along with other reasons offered in this article. If people take the time to try to understand these reasons, instead of passing judgment, then they should not feel intimidated.
Concealed weapons buy time to draw gun.

An extension of the above argument is that while an open carry gun might be slightly faster on the draw (perhaps a second or two), a concealed carry gun offers the element of surprise, which buys an individual plenty of time to choose the right opportunity to draw the gun on the unsuspecting assailant. In addition, with an open carry gun, the assailant knows exactly what the person is reaching for, so will move faster to try to overcome them. With a concealed carry gun, the person to act casually and inconspicuously while reach for gun, perhaps saying something like, "OK, I'm reaching for my wallet." There are many situations in which, therefore, a concealed carry weapon buys more time than an open carry weapon.
That some "can" open carry doesn't make it a good idea.

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "[Open Carry] advocates claim they’re simply capitalizing on the fact that there’s no law against strapping on a gun and walking around in public in most parts of the United State (even in urban areas). Yes, but— there’s no law against carrying a gun openly for the same reason as there’s no law against break dancing in the middle of Death Valley in July while wearing a fur parka. It’s something that very few people would even consider doing."
Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.

Nikil Arora. "If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: "The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer."
Open-carry laws could help reduce costs of private security.

Nikil Arora. "If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: "Why don’t we stop relying on low-paid staff at stations to provide visible security, and instead have open-carry firearms laws? Open-carry is very ‘visible’ – far more so than staff in neon jackets on station platforms, or standing behind ticket counters. It allows people to take charge of their own security. In addition, it empowers people to look out for one another as good neighbours, rather than relying on there always being someone official on hand to bail them out."
Concealed carry broadens deterrence by keeping criminals in dark.

Paul Hager. "Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry." November 19th, 2000: "there is some evidence of a societal benefit from carrying concealed. That benefit is called the "halo effect" or, for the economically inclined, a positive externality of deterrence. This benefit accrues from the fact that some number of people will be carrying at any given moment but no one, included a would-be assailant, knows who is carrying and who is not. Criminals, though socially deviant, are not stupid and can be expected to come up with an assessment of their risk of encountering an armed citizen. The greater the perceived risk, the greater the inhibition to act and, therefore, the more the would-be criminal is deterred. This means that people who don't carry a gun or would never carry a gun, nonetheless are protected somewhat by the deterrent effect of those who do. If everyone who had a gun only carried openly and no one carried concealed, it would make those not carrying openly prime targets."
Concealed weapons can be very comfortable.

This is particularly true with the right set-up. Often, concealing a weapon means that you can use the same hip holster as someone who is openly carrying, but that you simply must wear a lengthy or baggy vest or coat to ensure that the gun is concealed. There are also chest holsters that hold the gun at around the left or right rib cage, and which are very comfortable (perhaps even more comfortable than a hip holster) and which need only be concealed by a vest. Comfort, therefore, is not a good enough reason to open carry
Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly.

If the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court officially ruled in 2008, then it is a fairly logical extension of that right that one should be able to exercise it openly. Making concealment a condition of that right hardly makes it a right at all. Free speech rights allow an individual to openly scream absurdities through a megaphone in Times Square. A right to bear arms, analogously, should also preserve the right to openly express that right.
Open carry provokes reactions and hassle

"Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry." YouCanCarry.com: "Concealed Carry: This is usually the preferred method mainly becuase people don’t like other people to know that they have a firearm on their person. It draws a lot of attention (both good and bad). A lot of people don’t want to deal with that kind of attention as it may lead you to getting banned from stores, homes, or shunned by people. I personally have a family member that doesn’t like to be in the same house as me when I have a firearm. And since I always have my firearm that makes for some awkward situations."
Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly."
Cell phone use in cars is unnecessary; people went without them before.

, and little else about life has changed radically enough to make them indispensable, so there is no real loss of personal liberty in having your ability to communicate restricted in this way. If there is a pressing need to make a call, then drivers can always pull over and dial from a parked vehicle. The ban will also protect drivers from pressure from bosses who call them while on the road, effectively requiring their employees to risk their lives for the company.
Society can't "trust judgement" of drivers with cell phones

"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction."
Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions

"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - "Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now."
People should not explain in car on phone why they are running late.

If one is late, there is little difference in apologizing while in their car over a cell phone and apologizing in front of their boss at the office. So, they should have the restraint to drive at the speed limit, arriving late, and being willing to apologize then; an apologetic cell phone call in a car to a boss shouldn't be the cause of one being able to then relax, slow-down, and drive the speed-limit.
People will adjust to not using cell phones

"Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - "California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile."
Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume."
Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks

Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. "The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones." - "The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits."
Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents

Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]
Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers

Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.
Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents

Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - "Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents."
Cell phone ban in cars would simply be ignored

Craig Miller. "Laws Limiting Car-Phone Use Tough to Enforce". NPR. 21 Aug. 2007 - "'We might come out to the vehicle and find 11 or 12 phone calls we have to return,' [Tom] Sherman says. 'So we have to choose between either doing business or following the law, which is pretty much ignored by everybody else also. It's kind of looked at like a jaywalking law.'"
Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets

"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload." LA Times. 30 June 2008 - "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed."
Russia attacked Georgia to halt its NATO membership

"South Ossetia." Global Security.org "Russia has opposed NATO membership for Georgia. Georgia's application for NATO membership was deferred in April 2008 due to the unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. By exacerbating these conflicts, Russia renders Georgia an un-appetising candidate for NATO membership. A decisive defeat for Georgia could also be seen as a defeat for the United States, and result in diminished American influence in the region."
Russia exaggerated the humanitarian crisis in South Ossetia

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili denounced as "a lie" Russian claims of more than 1,000 civilian deaths in South Ossetia's main city. He said "practically no civilians" were killed. He continued that the claims were an "egregious lie. There were practically no civilians dead. But Tskhinvali is ruined as a result of Russian bombardments."[6]
Russia's humanitarian intervention was justified to protect Russians

Russia's intervened in South Ossetia to protect Russians from Georgia's hard-handed military intervention in South Ossetia, which resulted in a significant humanitarian crisis. Some claim that upwards of 2,000 civilians had died in the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali as a result of Georgian military operations there, most of them Russian citizens. Russia's constitution requires that it protect its citizens no matter where they are in the world. Russia aggressive response to the death of so many of its citizens was, therefore, justified.
Russia invaded Georgia to reassert its empire

Robert Baer. "The Russian Empire Strikes Back". Time. - "Russia's invasion of Georgia has less to do with South Ossetia than with a Russia that never reconciled itself to losing an empire — or to being treated like a second-rate power all these years. Russia's resentment has only grown as oil prices have risen, turning Russia, with the 5 million bbl. of oil it exports a day, into a first-world economic power. It was only a matter of time, then, before Russia taught the world a lesson."