Why is open carry such a big deal?

[RSillsbee]

This seems to be such a debate even among the pro rights community. You can go to THR, TFL gunrightsmedia.com or any number of firearms related sights and it seems that gun owners (let alone non-gun owners) seem to be split right down the middle on the question of open carry.

As I’ve stated before I OC frequently (usually when it’s hotter than a monkey’s ass) and I don’t seem to draw all that much attention. Now that may be because I’m a middle aged, white guy who doesn’t dress to make a political statement ( IE no camo no Chinese (the irony is sooo delicious) Gasden hat, no NRA memorabilia) I generally wear jeans and a polo or a Tee when I OC and I act like the gun doesn't exist.

Carrying an gun does not , in the words of our dear departed friend, Shares, "embolden me to commit crimes" . If I was a law abiding citizen before you saw the gun why am I a threat now that you see it?

[harun]

1. Because in most big cities we have a war going on and open carry would make it worse.

[RSillsbee]

2. What war?

[iverglas]

50. what war ...

The war the right wing is engaged in against the public, I'd say.

For any good war, you gotta let the public know you're in control and they'd better get used to it, and stomping around with guns hanging off your person, alone or in gangs at the local family diner, is always a good way to do that.

[SteveM]

111. If the Right Wing is "engaged...in war," maybe YOU should start packing. nt

[iverglas]

151. no thank you, I am already living where I want to live

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

40. And how does legal exercise of a Civil Right "make it worse"? n/t

[iverglas]

51. kinda the same way the legal exercise of some other "civil rights" does

You know, like using one's right of free speech to intimidate and incite hatred against vulnerable individuals and groups in one's society ... like racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic minorities, the GLBT community, women ...

"I gotta right to do/say it" just says everything that needs to be said, eh?

[stuckinarut]

3. I feel that the gun issues are..

usually used to divide.

I am from a place where guns are a non-issue...some people have a problem with them, but frankly, in a country where 330 million people can have a gun (legally or not), I reserve my right to have them too.

I don't think OC is a big deal..I usually CC but here we don't need a permit or anything.

It is naive to think that defending yourself is a danger to others, and they are right when they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people"...sometimes non-trained people kill others with guns..but everybody who is going to interact with one should know what they are doing.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Assuming you are one who is a trained toter, why do you carry if not to possibly kill?

Would you aim for a foot or a wing? Most "trained" toters say it is essential to aim for center mass, double tap, followed by a nice clean shot to the head, just to make sure.

[RSillsbee]

30. Even the times I have killed

I wasn't trying to kill someone I was trying to stop some one from killing me. I was trained to aim center mass and shoot till the target isn't a threat anymore.

During the New Life Church shooting Jeanne Assam stated that she emptied her pistol into the attacker and he was still able to stick his own gun in his mouth and kill himself. He could have just as easily shot her.

[stuckinarut]

36. I carry mostly at night,

When we have to park the car across town. If it came down to it, I would defend myself, yes. And no, the reason to shoot center-mass is so that you don't get sued for negligent homicide.

[Starboard Tack]

67. But you said "sometimes non-trained people kill others with guns.."

Now you say "the reason to shoot center-mass is so that you don't get sued for negligent homicide."
Don't you think that shooting center-mass might kill them? Or is intentional homicide not suable in your special part of the world?
Or am I missing something here?

[stuckinarut]

84. My bad...

By untrained I meant children, and morons.

I grew up with guns and was taught how to clean, disassemble, and handle them safely, and with respect from a very young age.

Most accidental misfires are the result of a family trying to keep their kids away from the weapon, instead of making them understand just how powerful they are, and that they are NOT toys.

As with most things, it all comes down to experience and education. I never glourified gun play, because I was firing weapons very young, and understood how devastating they were.

[RSillsbee]

134. You shoot center of mass

because it's the largest target. Only on TV do you disable the bad guy by shooting him in the leg. If you are properly focused on your sight alignment all you will see is a blob in front of the sights

[Starboard Tack]

271. I'm not stupid. I know why you shoot center of mass. To kill.

I have fired weapons, including handguns and I have killed with them. Fortunately, no humans.

[X_Digger]

272. To stop, dear.

Center mass has the best chance of stopping an attack, and being the largest target on a person, has the least chance of missing.

Or are you claiming telepsychological powers, again? If you think you'd intend to kill, well, perhaps you really shouldn't have a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

296. Followed by that lovely head shot, or is that just to part his hair.

I am not the problem.

[X_Digger]

297. If two shots to the chest didn't stop the threat, yes, then one to the head.

But all along, my intent would be to stop, not kill.

Let me remind you..

I know why you shoot center of mass. To kill.

Did the cape come with the kit, or did you have to buy that separately?

[Starboard Tack]

298. I prefer yelling. Never fails. Lot less messy.

[X_Digger]

302. Good thing that what you prefer has nothing to do with what anyone else can do. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

305. I'm sure that makes you feel good thinking anyone who disagrees with you has no relevance

Because what you prefer has a lot to do with what anyone else may be able to do. Like continue living.
How would you like it if I trained dogs to respond to anyone carrying a gun who got within 20 feet of it's owner? Wouldn't have to attack, just alert. Lots of barking. Passers by would wonder what all the commotion was about and the owner would just explain that the target was a toter. I think that would be a good way of exposing toters who hide their guns.

[X_Digger]

306. Have fun with that..

I'd imagine your local animal control would be getting a few calls about aggressive dogs.

Who knows, you might get the shock of your life when you find out who's carrying and who isn't.

[Starboard Tack]

307. Actually, I think it's a great idea. Good for guard dogs.

They don't have to be aggressive, just appear to be aggressive. Sniff those guns out. Yeah! I like it.

[X_Digger]

308. Good for you :) Be sure to let us know how that works out. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

286. Actually, it's to hit.

Humans are difficult targets, and most humans are unprepared to kill. There are also aspects of this, such as courts finding people who fired at someone's leg to disable, by default, in fact did not fear for their lives, and were therefore not justified in using deadly force.

If your goal is to kill, honestly, you'd be practicing with moving targets the size of a silver dollar, and in an actual conflict, be aiming for the lower half of your target's head.


The torso is simply the largest available target, and compensates for the fact that the shooter's hand is unlikely to be steady (adrenaline, etc), and the target is likely to be in motion. Improves the odds of scoring a hit. Unfortunately, it doesn't ensure your safety, as you pretty much have to hit the spine to actually STOP your target. Still, a hit of any kind is better than no hit at all, and there is a chance you'll get a CNS hit, and flat-out halt your attacker.

[ileus]

39. You never carry to kill you carry to save.

a firearm is just another safety device. An easily portable PPE that's design is to save lives...

[Starboard Tack]

72. What a crock of shit. "You never carry to kill you carry to save."

Save your own maybe. Don't be doing it for my sake. I like my chances a lot better when nobody totes.
"designed to save lives" my ass. A handgun is designed specifically to take life and the toters' training handbook tells you exactly how to accomplish that.
Another self-appointed messiah - "I have come to save your lives with my little pistol." Give me a break!

[iverglas]

78. it goes like this in the extended version

You carry to shoot to kill.

As I recall it.

Double-tap to centre mass, followed by shot to the head, isn't that how it goes these days?

[AtheistCrusader]

91. The mozambique drill is not new.

Every trainer I have seen that takes the legal component of using a firearm into self defense, says something along the lines of 'you shoot until the threat goes away'. Some have commented that you do NOT 'shoot to wound' because this is prima facie evidence in some states that you were not justified in using deadly force.

I have never seen an instructor advocate the MD in this way. Possibly trainers like Thunder Ranch, and others that teach shot placement/marksmanship ONLY, and do not delve into the self defense/legal aspects of this issue.

[oneshooter]

309. The "Mozambique drill " was designed to defeat opponents wearing body armor.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill"

[iverglas]

368. this do in honour of dead mercenaries

History

Rhodesian Mike Rousseau was serving as a mercenary in the Mozambican War of Independence. While engaged in fighting at the airport of Lourenco Marques (modern-day Maputo), Rousseau was armed with only a Browning HP35 pistol. As he turned a corner, he bumped into a FRELIMO guerrilla armed with an AK-47. Rousseau immediately performed a "double tap" maneuver, a controlled shooting technique in which the shooter makes two quick shots at the target's torso. Rousseau hit the target on either side of the sternum, usually enough to incapacitate or kill a target outright. Seeing that the guerrilla was still advancing, Rosseau made a clumsy attempt at a head shot that hit the guerrilla through the base of his neck, severing the spinal cord.

Rousseau later related the story to an acquaintance, shootist <sic> Jeff Cooper. Cooper later incorporated the "triple tap" maneuver (two quick shots to the torso and one quick-aimed shot to the head) into his practical shooting technique. Rousseau was later killed in action in the Rhodesian War.

There is a consensus among scientists that Nazi "science" must not be used, for any purpose. What they did is so abhorrent that their data about the effects on a human being of prolonged exposure to cold water, for instance, must simply be consigned to the ash heap of history.

Wouldn't it be nice if the same were true about the atrocities committed by mercenaries in their efforts on behalf of the racist right wing's attempts to subjugate humanity?

Just say no.


Oh, look. It's such an ugly nest of vipers, it all is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_%28colonel%29

In the 1960s he coined the term hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons.

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Your 'belittling' aside, most of us view firearms as being for the purpose of preserving human life.

Hurf blurf all you like.

Department of Justice defensive gun use statistics support that viewpoint.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Wrong! Most of us don't. (Us being the people)

[AtheistCrusader]

88. [Citation Required]

Here's mine.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
(page 8)

Where's yours?

[Starboard Tack]

161. OK I read it. Didn't see anything about "preserving human life"

[AtheistCrusader]

179. The DoJ offers no such opinion.

One only need examine the number of lawful defensive gun uses (per the DoJ, not Kleck) against unlawful firearm uses, to see the purpose of firearms in action.

[Starboard Tack]

208. Obfuscation. You cited it to back up your argument tha guns are toted

for the purpose of "preserving human life". In fact, they are toted to potentially take human lives. To take the lives of those, toters consider, worth taking.
Most toters are not killers, but they are all potential killers.

[oneshooter]

209. As are you. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

221. Of course I am, but not to protect my property. Only my life or another's life.

[AtheistCrusader]

210. If you have hands and feet, you are similarly prepared to take human life.

Your usage of your tools at hand determine the nature of the outcome. I carry to preserve human life. Period. Most do. My life, or the life of another human I have elected to protect. (Possibly even a police officer, as we have a separate statute for justifiable homicide for a person aiding a police officer)

Since a firearm need not be fired in most cases, to have a protective effect, your 'potential' argument rings hollow. Again, I cited hard data in which the Department of Justice has recorded DGU's that do not even require the firearm to be discharged.

I may be put in a position where I have to take a human life to accomplish that goal of protecting human life (though to be honest, aggressive wildlife is a larger risk for me personally), but the goal remains the same.

[Starboard Tack]

222. OK, so am I correct in thinking you would not kill anyone to protect property?

[AtheistCrusader]

243. Correct.

I consider it immoral, let alone, illegal in this state, for the most part. Other states may vary on the legal aspect (Texas comes to mind).

Whether it is legal or not, I consider it immoral.

I would have to reach far indeed, to create a scenario in which I might feel a shooter justified in using deadly force to prevent a theft. Not so much so, for a robbery, as an implicit threat to the victim's safety is part of the deal.

[Starboard Tack]

246. "Not so much so, for a robbery, as an implicit threat to the victim's safety is part of the deal".

"Not so much so" is not very specific. If the robber says "Give me your wallet or I'll beat the shit out of you!" Will you shoot him? Or does the robber have to threaten you with a gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

262. I would immediately take appropriate counter-measures.

I would at least draw my weapon and press the point that I do not wish to be beaten. My attacker cannot know how much physical punishment I can take. Perhaps I have some medical condition? If the attacker backs down, I will not shoot. The demand for my property is unimportant, the threat against my safety is the only prime mover.

People get beaten to death all the time. Fists and feet rank #3 behind guns in cause of death, in the FBI unified crime statistics.

I have no reason to grant my attacker the benefit of the doubt that he or she is *only* going to 'kick my ass', and no one has a right to mortgage my safety, against passive surrender of my property.

[Starboard Tack]

269. OK. So you would have to feel an impending threat to your life.

So, a mumbling junkie waving a knife asking for money. How close would he have to be for you to draw and would you declare yourself to be armed before actually drawing?
If the same junkie had a gun which was already pointed at you, would you give him fifty bucks, or would you pretend to go for your wallet and draw your weapon instead, hoping to shoot him before he could shoot you?
I'm not trying to trap you here, I am genuinely curious as to when it would be moral, as you put it, to first draw and then shoot. Not everyone is on the same page as you, I fear, and that is a huge problem IMO.
I get the impression that some toters do not have the same moral standards that you claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

277. I am entirely motivated by risk to my safety.

So, a mumbling junkie waving a knife asking for money. How close would he have to be for you to draw and would you declare yourself to be armed before actually drawing?
I would immediately press to increase time and distance between myself and the threat. By waving, I expect you mean 'brandishing', which includes a threatening demeanor. (For instance, the fellow that was woodcarving near Westlake Center in Seattle, that was gunned down by a police officer, was not 'brandinshing' even though he had a knife in his hand) If I cannot increase time and distance between myself and the threat, I will have to escalate response, such as drawing my firearm. The Tueller drill applies. Once the firearm is locked on target, I have increased leeway to allow the threat to recognize that I am armed and will defend myself, and withdraw. If the threat remains regardless, or escalates, then my response must escalate as well.

If the same junkie had a gun which was already pointed at you, would you give him fifty bucks, or would you pretend to go for your wallet and draw your weapon instead, hoping to shoot him before he could shoot you?
There are multiple methods that can be employed in this situation. Seeking cover, firing through your own clothing, etc. The possible scenarios vary so much it is impossible for me to be too specific, but I would not, under any circumstances, trust my attacker or grant my attacker the benefit of the doubt, that if I merely surrender whatever is demanded, my safety is assured. I will act to protect myself as I see fit, based upon the threat presented.

I'm not trying to trap you here, I am genuinely curious as to when it would be moral, as you put it, to first draw and then shoot. Not everyone is on the same page as you, I fear, and that is a huge problem IMO.

I get the impression that some toters do not have the same moral standards that you claim.
I find a disconnect, at least between the other people I know that hold a CPL, and carry, versus people who anonymously post about it on message boards. I note the people on message boards can often be extremely bellicose about their plans/methods/morals. Everyone I actually know, that actually holds a CPL, is generally quite risk averse. Not only is there the moral component associated with taking another human's life, which can haunt/destroy good people even when they were 100% in the right to do so, but there is also the legal aspect, which can range from a loss of freedom if you badly articulate the threat you perceived, to tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

For the people that hurf blurf about killing in self defense, I tend to assume they don't actually possess a CPL.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

348. Really?

I get the impression that some toters do not have the same moral standards that you claim.
Why do you get that impression? Virtually all of us have told you point blank that the use of a firearm would be very situation dependent and that we do not go looking for opportunities to kill people. We have made it crystal clear to you that we are all very aware of the moral choices involved and that it always comes down to the use of a gun as the option of last resort.

In short, there is no legitimate, logical or rational reason to believe that people who carry a firearm have some lower degree of moral standards, yet you persist in believing we do.

[Starboard Tack]

350. Why do I get that impression?

Well, apparently, the whole state of Texas gives me that impression and those who embrace Texas laws regarding shooting people who are not a threat to your life, just your property. As your buddy Oneshooter kindly pointed out, he was quite lawful in pulling his gun and pointing it at some youths who were rolling his tools down the street, away from him. That behavior would have gotten him 3 years in CA.
That's just one example that comes to mind. There are others, but I'm not sure that they are participating in this thread.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

351. Yes, TX has no problem with using force...

...to stop a felony -or with not considering it a crime to recover your property via the use of deadly force.

So what?

As oneshooter pointed out, the thief was rolling his tools down the street. If oneshooter makes his living as a mechanic, those tools are his livelihood. I don't know if you've priced out what a professional mechanic has wrapped up in tools, but it is a LOT of money. I don't mean a couple thousand - its usually tens of thousands. They cannot work until they replace them either.

Even if he isn't a mechanic, it still represents a lot of money.

Last and most important, you apparently completely ignored that the thieves pulled knives on him. THAT, my friend, is assault with a deadly weapon and absolutely justifies lethal force everywhere in this country.

Sorry you don't like it, but really, I don't CARE. The tide has shifted and those like yourself are being left on the beach.

[Starboard Tack]

356. I'll take the beach over Texas any day. We know where your values are.

Boy, you guys who think junk trumps life are really coming out of the closet, aren't you.
How could they have been assaulting him with knives if they were rolling his shit down the street? Fact is, Texas law says "use your gun before your cellphone".
Now Texas wants to give us another President who doesn't believe in climate change and the drought can be solved by prayer.
Oh yes, I'll stay on the beach or beyond. Thank you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

358. We've got beaches here too...

..and no, TX law does not say that, but you feel free to believe your lie.

If a criminal bets that his life is worth less than my stuff, I'm more than happy to prove him right.

[Starboard Tack]

370. "If a criminal bets his life is worth less than my stuff, I'm more than happy to prove him right"

There you go. Nice one. Better stay in Texas with that mentality.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

372. I would not be so sure of that

Law enforcement in CA has been complaining of deep financial cuts and the cops may look at it as no harm no foul. A lot depends on where it happens. County/rural LEO are a lot less tight assed than many city cops.

[Starboard Tack]

373. I am not sure of anything regarding LE. It attracts a rather odd mix.

[PavePusher]

217. Sometimes, killing is a neccesary action. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

223. Correct, but only when defending the life of oneself or another. Not one's property.

[PavePusher]

237. I have large parts of my life invested in my property.

Including the blood, sweat, tears and indeed the very lives of many of my comrades. If a criminal attempts to steal my property, they are stealing parts of my life, and the lives of those aforementioned comrades. I will attempt to stop them with non-lethal force first, but they WILL be stopped or I will be dead.

And you get no say in the matter whatsoever.

[AtheistCrusader]

244. You have non-lethal alternatives.

Such as insurance, law enforcement, etc.

As long as non-lethal options remain, I consider that stance immoral. If you intervene, and attempt to stop the thief, and they turn on you and threaten physical force, by all means, protect yourself.

I would not go so far as to say you have to just sit and watch your stuff reced into the distance. You have more right to physically block the theft, than they do to commit the theft. If they escalate force, then deadly force becomes a moral option.

[Starboard Tack]

247. I have no say, you are correct. But you've made it quite clear where you stand.

Your personal property is worth more to you than a human life. Let's hope you are never put to the test. Apparently all toters are not the same and have quite different values regarding human life and property. Your kind are the ones who are causing people like me to want to eradicate the practice of toting, because you think your shit is worth killing for. It isn't about self defense at all for you. It's about "That's mine and you can't have it!"
You are not alone. I've met one or two others here with those kind of values.

[PavePusher]

276. You didn't read what I wrote. Here, I'll restate it for you...

"I will attempt to stop them with non-lethal force first..."

If they do not stop, or escalate their threat/attack, I will use increasingly strong methods to make them stop.

And apparently you didn't read the first part either. Why do you insist that I let criminals take parts of my life?

"Your kind..."? Excuse the fuck out of me....

"That's mine and you can't have it!" Damn right. If you need to borrow something, or need help with something all you have to do is ask and I will probably give you the shirt off my back during a blizzard.

I don't know why you value letting people steal, but it is very disturbing.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

347. I'm a potential killer

with or without a firearm. It is the person who kills, not the tool.

I carry a gun to give myself one more tool to use to solve problems. Nothing more. There are some problems which require the application of greater force than I can apply by muscle alone.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. Do you actually....

...have anything to support that assertion other than your own feelings?

Just because you want it to be true does not make it so.

[Starboard Tack]

162. No feelings involved. Just common sense.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

199. Common sense...

...frequently is neither.

What you're essentially saying is, you believe something and so you think everyone else should believe the same.

"Common sense" once held that the earth was flat.

[AtheistCrusader]

340. No it didn't.

People understood the earth was curved LONG before its diameter was calculated. Early observations, such as the visible portion of a mountain, against a snow or tree line, as you approached it, were a dead giveaway.

Religious ideology led people to pretend otherwise.

[oneshooter]

96. And how many have voted for you to speak for them? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. A handgun is not designed to take life

and I've never seen a "toters training handbook". Where can I get one?

Nobody said anything about saving YOUR life either.

What a handgun is specifically designed to do is give you the ability to defend yourself in an easily carried package. It gives up stopping power in favor of size.

Yes - I carry to save my OWN life. Couldn't give a rat's ass about yours. I make no apologies for that either. You don't want to carry one? Fine - don't. Don't tell others they cannot make that choice for themselves.

[Starboard Tack]

226. What absolute drivel. Handguns are designed specifically to kill. Period.

You seem to attach way too much importance to your own life. I have had the good fortune and opportunity to save many lives and never needed a handgun, or any gun to do it. But you kinda put the toter's POV in a nutshell, didn't you? It's all about you and screw everyone else.
We thank you for your honesty. That said, if I saw you in trouble, I would do my best to save your life, regardless of personal danger. Stay safe.

[X_Digger]

232. "You seem to attach way too much importance to your own life." -- lol

Feel free to place less value on your own life. Don't expect others to agree with you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

346. If they're designed to kill

they do a remarkably crappy job of it.

Handguns are by nature low powered, inaccurate compared to a rifle, of limited utility, and due to their smaller caliber and lower power rely heavily on shot placement to stop, let alone kill, a target - be it human or animal.

What they are designed to do is give the user something a bit stronger than his muscles to repel an attack without having to carry a bulky, heavy item like a rifle or shotgun. At that task they excel.

[Starboard Tack]

349. That's what tasers do and mace and pepper spray

This is the "crappy job" that handguns do.

On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.

From 1990 to 1997, handguns were used in a majority (55.6 percent) of all homicides; that is, they were used in murder more than all other weapons combined.


From 1990 to 1997 in the United States there were more than 89,000 handgun homicides.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

352. So what?

Just because a criminal chose to use a small, effective tool does not mean I cannot use the same tool for legal purposes.

Oooh - here's a great statistic, from 1990 to 1997, 100% of all criminals in the United States wore blue jeans at some point in their lives.

Hey! Wonderful idea, using your school of logic, lets ban blue jeans!

See how stupid that is?

BTW - 89k over 8 years is a little over 11K per year, and in a nation of 300+M, that's not enough to matter. Really. It doesn't count. Far more died in car accidents.

[Starboard Tack]

355. You definitely have a problem

You compare gun deaths to blue jeans?
You compare gun deaths to car accidents?
You believe 11,000 lives a year "DON'T MATTER".

BTW - 89k over 8 years is a little over 11K per year, and in a nation of 300+M, that's not enough to matter. Really. It doesn't count. Far more died in car accidents.

Three times as many Americans killed in the US IN ONE YEAR as killed in Iraq IN EIGHT YEARS. You saY "IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER."

You get the prize for the most inane post I have ever seen. Congratulations!

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

357. Yes i did...

in terms of how stupid your claim was. You're basically saying "criminals used guns in X amount of crimes so lets ban them". I'm pointing out the absurdity of that view by saying "Criminals wore blue jeans, so lets ban them". Do you really not understand this?

Car accidents were not "compared" to murder, i merely pointed out that there are more deaths by car accident.

No - 11K deaths in a nation of 300+ million is rather small statistically. It is utterly insignificant to anyone not directly affected. It is 0.0004 of 1% of the population. Really. It isn't important enough to restrict a right.

[Starboard Tack]

363. And I take my coffee with cream and one sugar.

11,000 deaths is 3 times the casualties of 9/11 and we invaded 2 countries over that.

Tell the families of the 11,000 their losses are unimportant, as long as you and a bunch of other freaks get to carry guns around.

Do you think I'm advocating only banning toting for law abiding citizens? That would be very silly. I'm advocating banning toting for all, including would be robbers, cops, everyone. Call me crazy, but it works in the UK.

[oneshooter]

94. " toters' training handbook " ? Where can I get one of these? n/t

[SteveM]

114. You can download it from Dick Tracy's wrist T.V. nt

[oneshooter]

140. You mean my NRA decoder ring/bottle opener won't work!!! Damn!!!! n/t

[SteveM]

149. The two-tube Cub Scout radio diagram shows where an app would fit! nt

[Starboard Tack]

227. Amazon.com

[SteveM]

112. Well, keep the heat low in your kitchen when you cook it...

"Save your own maybe."

Yeah, I think that is certainly on his mind. Possibly his family. Either case, these are "lives."

"Don't be doing it for my sake. I like my chances a lot better when nobody totes."

I don't think anyone's going to ask you to fill out a form when a thug decides to get some juice, but in any case the time "when nobody totes" is over; in fact, it never was their, despite more restrictive laws in my adult lifetime. You know who opened up those laws, don't you? The gun-controller/banner. The NRA would never have had the support and power to liberalize restrictive laws had the prohibitionist not brought it to everyone's attention.

No messiahs here. Just people concerned about self-defense. You do support self-defense, don't you?

[Starboard Tack]

228. And the pendulum swings

And what do you mean by "when a thug decides to get some juice"?

[SteveM]

359. The thug establishes cred within his criminal culture by killing. nt

[ileus]

254. My SD handguns were designed to save the lives of my loved ones if needed.

Some guns are designed for Hunting
Some guns are designed for target shooting
Some guns are designed to save lives

Guns have never been designed to kill humans...

[AtheistCrusader]

90. 'Most'?

Can you even cite that? The Mozambique Drill is not commonly practiced.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. I used to date the Spox of a county PD

Because his face was the one on the teevee, if he was in a convenience store/bank/whatever during a robbery, he would be the first one shot, so had to carry (concealed) at all times, even though he was never in a uniform identifying him as PD.

He told me once that him open carrying was more dangerous to his safety than his face being recognized.

Have fun with it. I hope you stay safe.

[RSillsbee]

31. Spox? NT

[Ruby the Liberal]

81. Spokesperson.

The one who does the pressers when something happens. In his case, he was suit/tie, not uniformed. Many are uniformed now (I think it is because it gives a more official image)

[RSillsbee]

132. Ah So Ka Thank you NT

[PavePusher]

41. Of course, there is no actual data to back that up.... n/t

[iverglas]

52. spokesperson

And yes, there are some people who are vulnerable as targets because of who they are.

A publicly identifiable police spokesperson might really be one of those people.

As might a politician who is hated by all the wrong people ...

[Speck Tater]

5. To many the sight of a loaded firearm is intimidating and frightening.

I would just as soon not live in a community were some members of that community insist on intimidating me and making me feel threatened and unsafe. You will, of course say "don't be ridiculous, nobody is threatening you." This because you, personally, don't feel threatened by seeing someone else walking around carrying the means to end your life in the blink of an eye. Frankly, it makes me very uneasy.

I don't mind firearms. I've owned them myself. But what is the point of parading down a city street in a civilized society with a weapon designed solely for killing other human beings hanging from you side? Do you really feel that unsafe among your fellow citizens? If you do, maybe you are living in the wrong community. But because your fellow citizens frighten you doesn't mean you should respond by trying to frighten and intimidate your fellow community members.

Wearing a gun on your hip send one and only one message: "I have the ability to kill you at the drop of a hat. Be afraid of me. Be very afraid of me." Well, I don't want to live in a community where I have to be afraid of my neighbors.

[rrneck]

14. Wjy should anyone be compelled

to alter their appearance to mollify the subjective feelings of another?

[spin]

57. Because it might cause people who dislike firearms to go to the polls ...

and vote against a sensible law supported by gun owners.

If they noticed a number of people walking around openly displaying handguns, they might become concerned and paranoid. When the media focused negative attention on the pro-gun bill, they might remember the guy in the grocery store who had a .45 auto on his hip cocked and locked. Since they have no knowledge of firearms, they would not realize that his method of carry was safe. All they would remember is that the gun was COCKED!!!!!!!

Of course, much depends on where you live. In the northern area of Florida where I live, I often carry a hunting knife on my belt. No one notices or cares as such knives are fairly common and are accepted. If I did the same in Tampa Florida, I might attract some negative attention.

I only remember one time an individual actually did seen to notice the knife and I suspect he was wondering who had manufactured it. I usually carry knives from Bark River Knife and Tool who makes semi-custom knives that often have attractive handles.

If I remember I was carrying a BRKT Classic Lite Hunter with Midnite Tiger scales.

[kestrel91316]

20. Exactly, IMHO the intent is virtually always to intimidate and threaten.

I consider people with visible weaponry to be slightly unhinged until proven otherwise.

[RC]

24. +1000

[RSillsbee]

32. Are you able to prove intent? NT

[Union Scribe]

35. So every time you see a cop you become a puddle of yourself?

[SteveM]

119. "...a puddle of yourself?" LOL! nt

[PavePusher]

43. Projection, much? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

45. I do not think that is a fair statement

In places like Los Angeles, OC is the only effective option for civilians.

[Speck Tater]

79. Why would you want to live in a place where that was the ONLY option? nt

[PavePusher]

113. You going to help finance people moving?

I doubt it...

[SteveM]

121. Goodness, the method of carry would trump where you would live?

My greater concern is whether or not I had sufficient means to defend myself, not style or psychological misgivings. Frankly, if L.A. (or California as a whole) had fair "shall issue" laws governing CONCEALED-carry, there probably wouldn't be an issue over OPEN-carry.

[RSillsbee]

138. I wouldn't that's why I live in Colorado NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

155. It is not for me, but for most in CA, open carry is the only option

[We_Have_A_Problem]

92. As you said...

...it is your OPINION. You can consider them whatever you like.

However, your opinion does not trump facts and your consideration does not magically make them unhinged.

Why the person chooses to carry is his decision. If you are intimidated and threatened by non-threatening actions and the mere presence of a gun, then that is your problem and yours alone. The person carrying the firearm is under no obligation to give a damn about your irrational fears.

[SteveM]

118. Your guilty-until-proven-otherwise outlook is no surprise. nt

[Starboard Tack]

28. +1. Nice post. Right on the nail

[oneshooter]

37. To many the sight of a any firearm is intimidating and frightening.

There, a little closer to the truth.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

229. Something you are obviously thinking when you scare those muscled tool oglers away

Made them run away, didn't it? Damn thugs.

[oneshooter]

230. You mean the ones that were rolling my toolbox down the street?

The ones that pulled knives when confronted? The ones that decided to leave their knives behind when faced with a loaded 45? Tell the story straight, your lies are boring and unneeded.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

248. Your story keeps changing. Now they were rolling your tools down the street

when you pulled a gun on them. You've got to be kidding. You pulled a gun on guys who were not threatening your life at all. They were already off down the street. Fucking brilliant. That can't be legal, even in Texas. A clear case of brandishing and assault with a deadly weapon.
And you got some knives out of the deal. Wow!

[oneshooter]

250. Legal in Texas. You need to learn to remember what you read

And not just pull info out of your ass. When I confronted them my firearm was in the holster, only when they pulled knives was it drawn. Following Texas law I would have been legal to pull the trigger on both. I did not. You wern't there and you tend to change facts to fit your own pro crime agenda. In other words, you lie your ass off.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livinin Texas

[Starboard Tack]

259. Why don't you just tell us all the whole story from the beginning

Because, if it is legal in Texas to pull a gun on someone as they are rolling your shit down the street away from you, then Texas has some strange fucking laws. Of course I wasn't there, if it ever even happened. What lie did I tell. I'm just quoting what you said and your story keeps changing for the worse.
Point is, your new version clearly states they posed no threat to your life, but obviously you posed a threat to theirs.
You'd be a hoot on the witness stand.

[MicaelS]

273. Texas Penal Code Title 2 Chapter 9 Subchapter D Protection of Property

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Here's the Self Defense Laws

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.


Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[Starboard Tack]

289. Thanks. Texas is pretty fucked up. They should probably become a separate country.

Again!
Though I do like Austin. The rest of it you can keep.

[iverglas]

301. "Though I do like Austin. The rest of it you can keep."

My sentiments were similar. ;)

[iverglas]

278. "then Texas has some strange fucking laws"

And as MicaelS's post demonstrates, it does indeed.

It is legal to kill someone (as the law so delicately puts it, "use deadly force") if they are trying to get away with your stuff from your property.

Not what one's first guess would be, given things like the US Constitution and all, but true.

[Starboard Tack]

290. Right. What's self defense in Texas is murder just about anyplace else.

[oneshooter]

310. Feel free to stay out, you won't be missed. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

311. No, as long as Austin is still in Texas, I'll be visiting. Love that town.

[SteveM]

360. Me too, Lived here 41 yrs. Plenty of firearms owned by libs. nt

[Starboard Tack]

362. I never met a toter in Austin. Gun owner does not equal toter.

I did a survey of friends there this spring. One had no problem with toting, but he doesn't even own a gun. All others I asked thought toting was beyond stupid. Maybe we hang in different circles.

[oneshooter]

364. Texas is a concealed carry only state. You probably saw them, just not the CC firearms. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

371. Yeah right. All my friends are secret toters and lie to me.

Surprise. Not everyone in Texas is a gun toting paranoid freak.

[SteveM]

365. Hanging in different circles, probably...

Keep in mind that even in Texas, less than 5% of folks "tote" guns. I don't worry about your survey results, and neither should you. You imply correctly, however: There are a lot of folks in Austin who have guns.

[PavePusher]

42. Just because you feel intimidated and frightened and threatened and unsafe...

(wait I thought that was supposed to be the carriers...?), doesn't mean that is the intent.

Crime happens, it is legal, moral and Constitutional for people to chose to be able to protect themselves in the manner of their choosing.

Your assumptions are more projection than anything.

[iverglas]

53. to many, a person displaying a firearm in public

is an asshole, bent on eroding the social fabric of a community and society by putting on an exhbition of their strength and their ability to do what they want and fuck the rest of you.

Kind of like somebody wearing a Tshirt proclaiming their hatred of a vulnerable minority group.

"I can do it if I want and there's nothing you can do about it so you'd better get used to it, sucker."

[RSillsbee]

142. Kinda like

"We're here We're queer get over it"?

[iverglas]

174. yeah, you got it

Kinda like "god hates fags and we have a right to say it at your funeral".

[SteveM]

117. I don't think there is much for you to be concerned about. In fact...

if tomorrow open-carry was legalized everywhere, there would be folks who would carry for a time, then I believe the practice would drop off. If there is a feeling that crime is not a problem where people OC, then those folks would probably not carry. And if the OC feels folks around him don't want him/her to, that would have an impact as well.

Most folks who carry guns (open or concealed) don't "feel unsafe." They carry because of a potential threat to themselves and their families. And most folks desire to live where they are, or they wouldn't be there in the first place. If things become more unsafe, or even if living conditions become worse, most people work to change those conditions before they uproot, go somewhere else, get a job, and start another life. So, don't expect a mass exodus.

I don't try to get into your mind, so respectfully, don't try to get into mine or others bearing arms. This business of "trying to frighten and intimidate," "kill you at a drop of a hat. Be very afraid of me," is evidently what YOU perceive. Respectfully, I turn it around: "...don't want to live in a community where I have to be afraid of my neighbors?" Perhaps you should move, though I think it is completely unnecessary.

Please note that I prefer concealed-carry.

[RSillsbee]

137. I promise you I'm going to carry whether YOU see it or not

so how are you less safe because you can see it?

I would just as soon not live in a community were some members of that community insist on intimidating me and making me feel threatened and unsafe

If you choose to feel that it's not my fault

[We_Have_A_Problem]

353. Tough shit for you.

If it bothers you and makes you uneasy to see someone carrying the means to end your life, how in the world do you leave your house?

I can end your life with a variety of tools - or even without them.

[provis99]

6. I prefer people who open carry to those who concealed carry.

for one thing, it's more honest. Secondly, I am better able to assess their threat level.

Frankly, if people are going to carry guns around, I would ban concealed carry and require open carry.

[rrneck]

13. You may be confusing

daily life with a support group. Nobody is obliged to alter their appearance for your benefit.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

17. I agree.

Why hide it?

[SteveM]

131. Well, look up thread. Some folks DON'T want to see a gun...

This seems so style-oriented, or at a minimum a means to find character fault (common in debates over prohibition). There are some who choose to bear arms who would rather not advertise a firearm if there is a threat of group/gang attack. Not an unreasonable concern. Frankly, I would choose concealed for that reason, and further, not to upset those who don't like open-carry in this thread. If I were living in a dangerous area, and chose to bear an arm, and the only option left to me was open-carry, then I would choose to open carry. No big deal.

[Starboard Tack]

29. I totally agree. If you're stupid enough to carry a gun, at least be honest about it.

[spin]

49. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my carrying a concealed firearm ...

I have absolutely no intention of using my weapon to injure or kill an innocent person.

Should a person who has extensive training in the martial arts be required to wear a patch, badge or sign that indicates he has the ability to kill with his hands? Is he dishonest if he doesn't walk around wearing a gi and his black belt?



edited for typo

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I do have one shirt...

Ju-Jitsu
--------
Grab Anywhere to Start Demonstration

[Starboard Tack]

73. "I have absolutely no intention of using my weapon to injure or kill an innocent person"

Who made you judge and jury?

[spin]

74. Do you believe that a person who attacks another with the intent to severely injure ...

or kill is innocent?

I guess you would prefer if all people just allowed the attacker to have his way and you would hope that the attacker would be eventually be arrested and sit in front of a judge and a jury.

If I were a victim of such an attack, I would like to increase the odds of my not being injured or killed. I guess in your opinion that makes me a bad person. I will admit that I am not a pacifist when it comes to legitimately defending my life or the life of someone I love.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Why would I believe that?

I am not a pacifist either in terms of self defense. Does it make you a bad person to defend yourself with a gun? No. People are not defined by their choices, but by who they are.
Lots of good people tote guns. Lots of bad people don't tote guns.
I just think a rational mind can come up with better options.

[spin]

99. Let's assume that you have a rational mind ...

what would you suggest that another rational person like yourself do when attacked by an individual armed with a gun or a knife and who intends to inflict serious injury or kill?

Remember that in Florida where I live:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[Starboard Tack]

166. If I felt I were a target for rape, robbery or kidnapping I would examine my lifestyle

and seriously look into why I might being targeted and take appropriate steps to avoid being a target. If I were targeted because of my work, then I might consider arming myself. I assume that is the case with you. Otherwise, you're talking burglary/home invasion. If I thought that were a possibility, I would probably have a 12 gauge handy.
What other fanatasy scenarios do you have in mind?

Do you think the law would protect you if you brandished a weapon at some young guys with big muscles who eyed your tools? I've heard that one here.

[spin]

171. You may have absolutely no reason to consider yourself a target ...

and still end up as a victim of a predator.

I lived in a somewhat dangerous neighborhood. We had home break ins during the day, one drive by shooting two houses down, gang activity, rapes and a couple of store robberies that ended up with dead clerks. Several times I witnessed cops with guns drawn chasing bad guys on foot on my street or within walking distance of my home. Muggings were not uncommon.

When I originally bought my home the neighborhood was considered a safe quiet area but over the 36 years I owned my home, the area went downhill. I could have sold my house but to move to a better neighborhood would have meant that I had to take on a much larger mortgage. I planned to move when I retired and I did to a much smaller town 150 miles north.

I did take appropriate steps to avoid being a target. Some steps were as simple as practicing situational awareness on the street, which simply means being observant and not walking on the sidewalk with a cell phone glued to your ear. I also attended a class on jujitsu which was primarily oriented to learning how to survive a street fight or to disarm an individual who was attacking with a club, knife or gun. Eventually I obtained a concealed carry permit and after a few years, I started carrying on a regular basis.

You accuse me of creating fantasy scenarios. That's fine. Your opinion of what I post is just your personal judgement. I just truthfully state my experiences and you can believe them or not. It's your choice. My feelings will not be hurt and I will not be insulted by anything you chose to say. Why should I be?

Why do you think that I would ever brandish a weapon "at some young guys with big muscles who eyed your tools." I would never brandish a weapon. If absolutely necessary to defend my heath or life, I might draw my handgun from concealment. If I did, I would have the intention of firing it. Threatening people with a firearm is foolish and can get you in a world of trouble with law enforcement.

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

***snip***

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

***snip***

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I wonder if you are not spending far too much time fantasizing about what people who legally carry firearms fantasize about.

[Starboard Tack]

220. You have my full sympathy for what you went through in your old neighborhood.

You also have my respect. I wish others who carry and post here shared your apparent common sense in terms of where to draw the lines. I do not get that impression from many of the posters. I cannot quote them unless they participate in this thread, but some have stated that they have scared "thugs" away by pointing their guns at people who were not armed with a gun. One had a knife and asked for money, another saw guys with big muscles eyeing his precious tools. Others have declared their intent to shoot anyone who throws a brick through their window. These are not my fantasies. I don't have gun fantasies of any kind.

You sound like a very sane person who has resorted to arming yourself because of traumatic experiences in your old neighborhood. Reminds me of my first place in NYC, lovely apartment in a really shitty neighborhood. The day we moved in, my wife and I went out to dinner to celebrate. Arriving home around 11pm we saw the lights flashing outside our new home and a trail of blood from the corner to our stoop, where the paramedics were removing the body of the guy who'd just died there. The chalk marks took a few days to go away. There was a shooting gallery (junkie hangout) next door. For the first 5 years we were there, I don't remember a week without hearing gunshots. NYPD rarely came into our part of town and when they did, they rarely left the comfort of their patrol cars. Then, after much public outrage, Operation Pressure Point was activated and we had a cop on every street corner. Completely changed the neighborhood. Arming oneself with a gun was not an option, thankfully.

[PavePusher]

242. So, you had to bring in armed people because...

the people could not be armed.

Irony, it must be nutritious, so many people seem to subsist on it...

[Starboard Tack]

245. Why would the people be armed? Are you serious?

Most of the people in the neighborhood had been hiding in their homes for years. These were poor working people trying to survive in a fucking war zone. You think they wanted to introduce more guns? Do you live in some old Charles Bronson movie or something? The mayor (Koch) and the NYPD finally got the message and did what was necessary. The last place on earth anyone wants to see guns is NYC.
I don't live there anymore, but I must say it is the safest place I've ever lived and having recently spent some time there, I can tell you it has become even safer.

[iverglas]

251. you missed the cute

You had to bring in armed people .......... the police.

People with the authority to arrest and lay charges, people whose presence alone causes problematic people to reconsider their actions and activities, yup, people with firearms to use if necessary in the course of performing their public duties and to enable them to perform those duties effectively ... all subject to public oversight (both formal and informal).

Yup, you had to bring in the state to protect the interests of the public.

Dog knows why everybody didn't just get a gun. That would have cleared out the drug dealers and addicts and put an end to the violent crime and property crime they bring with them!

You forget. Never try to prevent a problem when you can shoot somebody instead.

Shall we reconvene in five years to see what a fine job stuffing the homes of, oh, Chicago and DC with guns has done to make communities safe and enable them to flourish?

Obviously, that is all it takes to accomplish that, and obviously doing that will accomplish it.

Oh, maybe that's not the case being made, eh? Maybe the security and development of the community aren't actually what it's all about ...

[PavePusher]

275. The People, those great, unwashed, huddled masses....

have all the authority they need to defend themselves and make citizens arrests if accosted by criminals.

But it aids the effort greatly if you are armed.

YMMV.

[iverglas]

107. you know, you not infrequently exhibit good sense and decency

Then you say something like this:

I guess you would prefer if all people just allowed the attacker to have his way and you would hope that the attacker would be eventually be arrested and sit in front of a judge and a jury.

If that's the only interpretation you can come up with for what was said, you have a problem.

[spin]

169. That was a reply to a poster's question, "Who made you judge and jury?" ...

after I had commented "There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my carrying a concealed firearm ...I have absolutely no intention of using my weapon to injure or kill an innocent person."

I also pointed out in a followup post that the only time I have a legal right to use my weapon for self defense is when I am trying to protect myself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; or trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
That was in response to his comment, "I just think a rational mind can come up with better options." Obviously using a hand gun to attempt to stop a dangerous attacker is only appropriate when there is no other choice.

In passing, thanks for the compliment.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Self-defense is not a component/function of justice.

So no judge or jury is required.

That cleared up, the answer to what you MEANT to ask is; the aggressor. The person that gave the victim justification under the following statute.



RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Or, however your state defines it.

[iverglas]

110. oddly enough

that justification must be proved in court, or to the satisfaction of the authorities responsible for determining whether to prosecute.

So your JUSTIFICATION there really is a function of law.

It is defined by law, and its existence determined in accordance with the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Not so.

Well, sort of. It is an affirmative defense to a murder/manslaughter charge. If no such charge is raised, 9A.16.050 (Justifiable) and 9A.16.030 (Excusable) homicide, never enter into play, as no judge or jury is involved. (DA declines to press charges)

Edit: Whoops, I disregarded "or to the satisfaction of the authorities responsible for determining whether to prosecute."

You are correct.

[SteveM]

135. Mighty leap, there. He merely stated his intention based on self-defense concerns.nt

[X_Digger]

172. Judge and Juries are concepts of the state.

I don't owe you due process when you attack me.

[iverglas]

175. indeed they are

They are precisely what the state is required to provide in order to comply with that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process" business.

And allowing you to kill somebody on a whim is a violation of that duty.

Allowing you to kill somebody without requiring that you provide justification for doing so that amounts to necessity in order to avert serious injury or death to yourself is a violation of that constitutional right. And then you're is entitled to due process on a charge of homicide for, like, killing somebody.

But then I realized long ago that the only people who count are gun militants, and the only bit of your Bill of Rights that counts is that second amendment, read as bizarrely as gun militants can get right-wing hacks in the courts to agree to.

The right not to be deprived of life without due process, fuck that noise.

[X_Digger]

187. It's a framework that doesn't apply..

Just as the first amendment doesn't apply to non-state interactions*. If Skinner were to say that bible thumpers were not allowed at DU, that wouldn't be a violation of those people's first amendment right to freedom of religion or association.

Similarly, I'm not required to ensure due process has been met before using deadly force.

Allowing you to kill somebody without requiring that you provide justification for doing so that amounts to necessity in order to avert serious injury or death to yourself is a violation of that constitutional right.

Yes, that is a duty to the person I shot, owed by the state, not by me.



* Both CA & NJ have held that some private properties like the common area of malls are analogous to the 'public spaces' of the past.

[iverglas]

207. it is a framework that applies

If you decide to kill somebody, you are covered by the framework that requires that you have justification for that action, or suffer the consequences.

Pretty fookin simple.

Of course, you can give it a try and see what happens sometime, if you don't believe me.

[X_Digger]

213. I am under no obligation to provide due process.

That is an obligation of the state- both to me (should I be charged), and to the person I shoot. It has no bearing between two individuals separate from the state's response.

The subthread OP's 'Who made you judge and jury' query assumes that I am taking on a role that I have no obligation to fulfill.

It's bumper sticker sloganeering based on sloppy fudging of the roles taken and rights owed by individuals and the state.

[Starboard Tack]

225. And the state is a concept of the people

And if you are tried for anything you will be answering to the people.
You have stated that you pointed your gun at the chest of a guy who had a knife. You felt threatened by him, but you did not say that he attacked you with the knife, just that he had one. Apparently, according to our friend Spin, that would get you 3 years in the slammer where he lives.

[X_Digger]

231. Read the subthread, and get back to me when you catch up.

Regarding the incident I relayed, I called DPS, who showed up 45 minutes later, took a report, and left.

A person threatening greivous bodily harm or death, regardless of the weapon in hand-- if a reasonable person would believe they're serious- is justified in using deadly force.

Please point me to Spin's post, so I can correct you on your erroneous interpretation of his post.

[SteveM]

133. Yeah, they should be concerned about my hidden Case folder! nt

[gravity556]

168. And if you're foolish enough to go without a gun,

at least be honest about it. Don't rely on the herd immunity provided by the CCW laws. Have a few t-shirts made up with a picture of a gun with a circle-slash through it and 3 inch letters stating I am UNARMED on one side and I OPPOSE VIOLENCE IN SELF DEFENSE on the other. And on one you could do "Please don't rob me-I'm unarmed but I understand your plight!"

Because otherwise, you're taking advantage of those folks who put in the work to carry concealed, got the background check, invested in the firearm and training to use it. And by your not advertising that you're one of those people, you directly benefit from CC laws. The bad guys are a little more hesitant to rob people if they live in a state with a high concentration of CCW carriers.

So man up and be honest about your unarmed status. Otherwise, maybe insinuating that carriers are stupid should find more limited use in your repertoire.

[iverglas]

176. uh uh, what's this I see?

Don't rely on the herd immunity provided by the CCW laws.

An assertion that people toting guns around will reduce crime and protect the public???

Shirley Not.

[gravity556]

224. Pretty sure I was posting in response to someone else.

Of course it wouldn't make sense for a Canadian to wear a shirt saying "I'm UNARMED!" and "NO GUN HERE!", what with your silly laws and square tires. Also, since you don't live in the US, this would have been a good time to just observe, being a foreigner.

[iverglas]

252. "this would have been a good time to just observe, being a foreigner"

You folks just don't seem to appreciate the almost unbearably delicious irony of anyone in the US saying this to anyone else anywhere ever.

Anyhow, I'm not seeing anything responsive in your post. Just some more of that fine you-aren't-the-boss-of-me stuff that passes for political philosophy in some quarters.

[gravity556]

323. Sorry, I threw the foreigner line in there, but there was a reason for it

Your views come from the outside-you stand certain that open carry is instant death for anyone in the area, but you whinge that concealed carry makes it so you don't know who's carrying. Pick one and stick with it. Ever lived in a free state (as an FYI, us gun folk refer to a free state as one with the least restrictive gun laws. AZ, AK, VT and I think Idaho are all constitutional carry states. That means we don't need a permit to carry openly or concealed-even a rifle is OK as long as you keep it slung.

The first thing you'll notice is the lack of gunfire all day and night-unless your host is kind enought to take you to a range. Then you might actually learn that for all that noise and fury when the trigger gets pulled, it's just a tiny hole in the target. If you can get your host to take you to SGC (scottsdale gun club), you can rent some trigger time on a real, no shit, machine gun. Not the semi-autos that get portrayed as "semi-automatic machine guns. I promise, if you don't wet yourself the first time the gun goes "BANG", you'll want to run a mag through the gun full auto. Keep in mind that while the gun may fire at 650 rounds per minute, you only have a 30 round magazine. This means you get about 20 seconds of full auto before the gun is dry.

You should also put up pics of your targets, writing on them what caliber, what gun, what range and how many total rounds fired. That way you can demonstrate how just ANYBODY can pick up a gun and shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand at 60 feet.

I took a super anti-gun friend with me to the range in Vegas where you can rent MGs. She was shaking like a leaf, right up until she pulled the trigger on her Uzi. Sadly, these were the days before cell phone cameras, and ranges tend to frown on flash photography, but I can tell you that after that first burst, she was ear to ear grin, and when she found out I had gotten her mags for two more MG's she looked like a kid in a candy store. She shot the UZI, a Thompson Sub-machine gun and a folding stock AK47. She now owns several pistols and an AR15 and shoots in a ladies shooting when she gets the chance.

If you make it down to AZ, drop me a line and we can hit the range if you want. Honest invite.

I now resturn to your previously scheduled snide remarks and snarky comments.

[Name removed]

336. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

343. Wyoming, not Idaho.

And more in work...

:toast:

[iverglas]

367. I wonder what I said

that didn't break any rule that time ...

How about ...


I took a super anti-gun friend with me to the range in Vegas where you can rent MGs.

I am not "anti-gun". I don't invest emotionally in objects, unless an object happens to have belonged to my grandparent or something.


She was shaking like a leaf

I don't shake like a leaf. Ever. I am not afraid of firearms. Do you have that straight now?


Then you might actually learn that for all that noise and fury when the trigger gets pulled, it's just a tiny hole in the target.

"Might actually learn"? Or maybe I'm really really stupid and this would be something I could not grasp at all. If I haven't grasped it yet, one might think so, eh? Surely I'm too stupid to be expected to learn this or anything else. Or so I can only infer you think, from your silly attempt at patronizing me.

Nothing I have ever said at this discussion board has ANYTHING to do with sports/target shooting. Nothing. I have approved of the sport simply as being something people do that they enjoy and acquire skill at that is entirely neutral in terms of anyone else's welfare. Like playing checkers. As long as it's not being done where the noise is a nuisance to someone, as long as children aren't being exposed to airborne lead, etc. I've said that I have investigated shooting at a huge non-profit recreational sportsplex near where I live, and have no doubt I would be quite proficient at it, but don't have the time for a hobby like that at the moment and maybe when I retire or get better at time management. And I could become obsessed with the sport and STILL I would NEVER have a firearm in my home, and I would NEVER tolerate my society allowing people to wander the streets with firearms; and I would still advocate that possession of handguns off the premises of such facilities be prohibited.

I also already have a standing invitation to Arizona to go shoot guns in the desert. We decided to go ride giant roller coasters in Montreal instead, the time the opportunity arose a while back, but who knows, maybe someday.

Why do you feel compelled to lecture me about what sports shooting is reeeaaally all about? If you've mistaken me for a fool, please note your error.


Your views come from the outside-you stand certain that open carry is instant death for anyone in the area

Your statement is false. Your statement is not based on one word I have ever written in this forum. Your statement cannot be inferred from anything I have ever written. Your statement is not true. So why would you make it? You are addressing me so you must have some clue of what I HAVE said, and what I have said bears no remote resemblance to what you say I am "certain" of. Why did you say it?


How amusing that my response to a statement as false as the next one was seen fit to delete:

but you whinge that concealed carry makes it so you don't know who's carrying.

Your post is a reply to my post. You are speaking to me.

I have never said any such thing.

Someone else has. Not me.

You have offered an insulting characterization of me based on something I have never said. Why on earth would I heed a word you have said?


And whoever wants to click that alert link -- if you'd care to let me know what rationale you offer, I'd be grateful, because then I'd know how to get whatever speech I happened not to like around here suppressed too.

[spin]

48. I differ ...

In Florida, open carry in public is prohibited. Perhaps if I lived in a different state where it was legal and common, I would have a different opinion.

I have no interest in intimidating or scaring people and since open carry would be unusual at first even if legalized in Florida, I will continue to carry concealed.

Statistics prove that honest licensed citizens do not endanger innocent people. For example, Florida has had concealed carry since 1987 and only 168 permit holders have had their licenses revoked because of a crime involving a firearm committed after the license was issued. Considering that Florida has issued 2,031,106 concealed weapons permits in that period of time and currently 843,463 are valid, this should prove to you that you have nothing to worry about. I should also point out that in many cases the licenses were revoked because the permit holder accidentally carried a firearm into a prohibit area. source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

In Florida, you have a significantly higher chance of getting killed by lightning than by being shot by an individual with a carry permit. That assumes, of course, that you do not attack a permit holder with the intention of inflicting serious injury or killing him.

[SteveM]

126. While I disagree with your desire for a ban on concealed-carry, you

do seem to recognize that a right to bear arms must recognize, at a minimum, one or the other. That is at least a reasonable stance.

I have to confess I am at a loss about reaction to concealed carry-ers. You mean if you became a trusted friend with someone who later revealed he carried concealed, you would now judge him/her as dishonest?

[RandySF]

7. Open carry is insane.

What is the point of openly carrying an unloaded weapon when it only freaks people out at best an incites violent reactions at worst. I'll get flamed for saying it, but conceal and carry makes more sense.

[geckosfeet]

9. I agree. Open carry could cause unpredicatble behavior. Good concealed carry

is much less stressful for everyone concerned.

[NewMoonTherian]

22. I think most open carry laws...

allow open carry of loaded weapons. The California law is kind of anomalous.

Anyway, I certainly won't flame you, because I think concealed might very well make more tactical sense in most cases. I'm simply against banning OC without just cause. In those states where it's legal, OC hasn't caused problems on a level severe enough to warrant a ban.

[YllwFvr]

25. Why would you oc an unloaded gun?

Other than california im unaware of any state that requires unloaded open carry.

[slackmaster]

58. RandySF lives in California

HTH

[RSillsbee]

33. In most of the country you are allowed to carry the weapon LOADED

the whole world isn't as dumb as California

[PavePusher]

44. Please cite to where Open Carry has "incite(d) violent reactions"...

We'll wait....

[SteveM]

139. If I may suggest, those who openly carry (as in Cali) unloaded guns...

are demonstrating that this is the alternative to NO RIGHT to carry concealed. If you want to get rid of this "insanity," then support concealed-carry. This is telling:

"... only freaks people out at best an incites violent reactions at worst."

Who would be incited to "violent reactions?" The unarmed citizenry nearby? The thugs you never knew were around? Has it happened?

[geckosfeet]

8. People get the hee bee gee bees when they see a gun. Or when they

know you are carrying a gun. How hard is it to understand that? I am not saying it is rational or proper. It's just the way it is. Some states have laws against brandishing and open carry.

IMO. the general guideline is when you carry concealed, it is best not to discuss it or tell anyone. When you open carry, you expose the firearm to as few people as possible. It's just not something that I want everyone in the area to know.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. I've got no objection

to open carry. But I don't like concealed carry.

I think I should be able to know who around me is packing a gun.

[RandySF]

11. Are we talking about Open Carry in CA?

Because under state law, you're not allowed to openly carry a loaded weapon (although you can bring a clip).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

164. That is part of the problem

In places like LA and SF in San Francisco it is damn near impossible to get a CCW. Open carry is the only way to carry legally. If California went to shall issue, vice the capricious may issue system we have today, open carry would just about disappear.

[madrchsod]

12. i have no idea why anyone would object to open

if they believe in concealed.

[Hoyt]

15. It's "tacky." More importantly, society needs to progress beyond such implements in public.

Do what one want at home with the dang things -- most don't care (unless one is doing a bunch of those "private" sales, or something).

[rrneck]

16. Would you

enforce your sense of environmental aesthetics with force of law?

[NewMoonTherian]

23. I disagree.

Society needs to embrace this practice, especially in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. If California law was less tacky, California residents would have other options

LA County is as bad as Chicago when it comes to getting concealed carry permits. Open carry is all the residents of Pasadena etc have.

[Hoyt]

59. Nope -- they can also choose NOT to carry, like over 90% of population.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. That ignores the real issues, including the problems with "may issue" laws in California

[We_Have_A_Problem]

116. Just to be clear...

...you consider it a proper choice to not exercise your rights because you think its "tacky"?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.

[Hoyt]

129. "Tacky" means people are uncomfortable. Right or wrong -- they are, just like if I carried a machete

or something that looked like a bomb down the street.

I know most gunners don't care because their need to have a gun or two close by in a restaurant, park, church, etc., is more important than society.

Just because something is lawful, doesn't mean you -- or anyone else -- should do it.

Hope that will help you understand "correctly." I doubt that will help you make the correct choice, though.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

156. If it makes people feel uncomfortable, it should not be done even if it is legal?

what about:

Groups of young black men
Interracial couples
Same sex couples
.
.
.
There is a long list of things that make people uncomfortable...should they all not be done? Would that be the "correct" thing? Come clean and admit your prejudice for what it is.

[Hoyt]

158. There you go again, guns in public not the same. But nice try to protect your beloved guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

163. How so?

Open carry in public is as choice. Same sex couple kissing in public is a choice as well.

Its a right or its not. That it upsets some is not relevant. There were many demonstrations that upset the public in the past, some were called Freedom Rides.

[Hoyt]

185. "Guns" are not the same as those who gave their lives as Freedom Riders. Your poor "gun plight"

pales in comparison and laughable.

If you can't see/understand the difference, I suggest you are not likely to assess a situation properly before drawing your gun(s) and blasting away.

BTW -- most of the Freedom Riders and other human rights advocates didn't carry guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

188. There are no classes of rights any more than there are classes of people

Clearly open carry upsets some people. So did blacks, gays etc. Some are still bigots over race and sexual orientation. However, being anti gun is still socially acceptable. Enjoy it while you can.

Resistance to racism was hampered by the classist and racist gun laws in effect at the time.

[Hoyt]

193. You can't seem to get off this "my gun plight" is equal to civil rights. Guns are nowhere close.

Your guns are not that dang important, except to the small percentage who can't walk out of their house without one or two to bolster their self-esteem, or whatever.

Actually, racism was "enforced" by white racists carrying guns openly to intimidate. When I see some dumbass with a gun on his belt, that is what I think of where I live. And, I'm usually right too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

235. Open carry in SoCal? How many times have you actually seen it

It is an open invitation for police harrassment. The good news is that several stings have been done and the departments are going to pay dearly for it.

It is not a gun plight, it is about gun rights, and the repressive limitation due to the capricious nature of may issue as done in California. In the urban counties you can not get a CCW unless you are very well connected or otherwise special. In the rural ones, it is not all that hard. Kern has always been much easier than most.

So quickly you forget that loaded open carry was banned in California out of fear of black males carrying openly. Historically racial minorities have always had a harder time getting guns to defend themselves.

Your usual technique of stating falsehoods as truths if it suits your purpose is wearing thing, but you might have made a good politician.

[SteveM]

143. Sorry, but there is no choice. No one's BOR is dependent on %s.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

122. Lets apply your reasoning to other civil rights shall we?

Its "tacky" for a gay couple to walk down the street holding hands. They should keep that at home.

Its "tacky" for a black man to sit in the front of the bus. He should behave properly lest others vote to force him to stay off the bus.

Its "tacky" for a mixed-race couple to be out in public, especially with their children. They should be mindful of others and remain out of sight.

Its "tacky" to wear religious clothing in public and let people know that you may be a {Muslim, Sikh, Hassidic Jew, etc). That should remain private.

Its "tacky" to voice one's political opinions in public. One should remain silent for fear of offending those who disagree.

Want me to go on? Its the same mentality - and it is just as wrong.

[Hoyt]

136. No let's don't. Those civil/human rights are not the same as carrying a gun. You demean

such civil rights -- and the long struggles that led to those rights -- by comparing them to carrying a friggin gun in public. You should be ashamed.

But, to get back to the comparisons you used -- you have the friggin "right" to carry a confederate flag down the street, but I hope you don't exercise it.

[oneshooter]

146. How about the Bonny Blue flag, or is that tacky also. n/t

[Hoyt]

150. If you use it as a symbol of racism/bigotry -- it's despicable too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

241. Why do you not feel the same way about gun control laws which are historically rooted in racism and

classism?

[Hoyt]

256. Solution is simple -- ban guns in public for EVERYONE. Further:

Yes guns were a symbol of racism -- the racists where I lived wore the friggin things on their hip as they treated minorities like crud. The vast majority of open gunners today -- with some exceptions exhibited here -- are right wing conservatives (including TBaggers) who likely harbor similar hatred.

I don't see continuing that tradition by allowing people to carry guns in public. You apparently think it is OK.

[oneshooter]

260. "ban guns in public for EVERYONE" Including LEO's? n/t

[Hoyt]

261. Let's be obtuse. Geeez. Do you pack a gun or two to protect you from LEO?

That really more irrational than carrying a gun or two to protect you from things that hide behind trees.

[oneshooter]

268. Just reading your words, as written by you. n/t

[Hoyt]

270. Well, Oneshooter, I'd suggest stop reading one word at a time, and try to read in chunks so that

you get the gist/meaning of the post and don't get hung up with the pointy-fingered, one word at a time comprehension issue.

For future reference, when I refer to banning gun toting in public for EVERYONE -- I mean private citizens carrying a gun or two into public parks, restaurants, churches, etc.,(including those gun obsessed who consider themselves a member of one or more private militias).

[oneshooter]

304. I would suggest that YOU learn to write what you mean. EVERYBODY means EVERYBODY

with no exceptions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

319. Ahhh more of "its not a lie if I am making a point"

Got it...

[gejohnston]

283. Where are you from?

I'll be sure not to move there. Not where I am.
On the other hand, where I'm from all humans are the minority and the deer and antelope are the majority.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

338. If other posts are correct, I would avoid Pasadena

Even if they are not, I would still avoid Pasadena

[gravity556]

342. You know, Hoyt

Not everyone who carries-fuck, not even CLOSE to everyone who carries openly does so out of hate. Just because they won't conform to your wishes and play the game by your rules and your rules alone doesn't make them racists or violent. I see open carry of firearms as a continuation of a national tradition. More to the point, new shooters are always made to feel welcome (what's mine is yours-help yourself) and always get to shoot something exotic-a machine gun or a suppressed sub-machine gun, or a full auto Glock or a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle. Must admit that the Barrett was always my favorite.

So how about you stop stereotyping folks in a negative light? You don't know me personally, nor do you know every shooter

[ProgressiveProfessor]

240. You continue to make that claim and offer nothing to back it up but your screeds

[Hoyt]

257. Are you saying you don't believe guns were used to oppress minorities. That's foolish.

Or are you saying that your supposed "gun plight" is more important than the true Civil Rights Movement. If you are, you are clearly wrong.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

317. I am pointing out that gun control laws historically have been targeted at minorities to prevent

them from defending themselves. That continues today.

[iverglas]

180. sad and ...

Its the same mentality - and it is just as wrong.

That anyone believes their gun is equivalent to their skin colour or sexual orientation or even their religion or political opinion -- that truly is sad. It is; just sad.

It isn't equivalent, and their belief doesn't make it so, but it's sad to think they think it is.

Not that I think they do, of course.

I guess it's the "same mentality" if I don't care to watch people poop in public, eh?

Or maybe have racist hate messages played over loudspeakers in the street ... or violent pornography shown on big screens outside the supermarket ... or church services held on the sidewalk outside my home ...

Now there, I think we have some equivalents. People just a-exercisin' their rights ... and there's me, being a rotten bigot about it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

331. That is a good description of your posts

"and there's me, being a rotten bigot about it."

[SteveM]

141. Well, at least "progressed beyond" threats & intimidation to the real issue:

"tackiness."

[kestrel91316]

18. Because it's not Montana in 1870 anymore.

[gejohnston]

19. and your point is what

exactly?

[SteveM]

144. Hell, no. Have you seen the land prices there lately? nt

[99th_Monkey]

21. Think "COWBOY" and you'll be in the ball park. ~nt

[SteveM]

145. How 'bout vaquero or cowcatcher? Do they qualify?

[gejohnston]

167. Don't forget drovers, they should.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Most people probably assume you are a cop. I would.

As you say, you are a middle aged white guy. That's like a uniform. I wonder how many 25 year old black guys OC.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Open Carry is practically a request to get stopped and harrassed by the cops

Its even worse if you are a minority.

[PavePusher]

60. Depends on where you live.

In Arizona, they'll mostly want to ask what model you have.

I did get critiqued on the aesthetics of my Hi-Point once. He was right, damn thing is ugly. But it works.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. I should have been clear and said that was in CA

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Clearly the solution is to stop open carry.

Rather than address racial inequality/stomping of civil liberties.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. That is clearly the view points of the anti civil rights crowd

[Starboard Tack]

71. I guess it all depends where you live.

OC in LA or NYC and you'd better be a cop. And then it would only be OC when removing your jacket.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. Several CA departments have taken very agressive anti open carry stances

In the course of their repressive and illegal tactics several stings have been run and litigation is pending. It would seem an easy way to make a few bucks.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

38. It's not OC it's the right for civilians to own guns period.

Once they can shut down OC, the CC would be their next target, then transport or the ability to buy ammo....finally the ultimate goal would be a total ban.

OC is just easy to pick on because so many people are paranoid of people owning firearms. Most people that are scared of OC don't know a 1911 from a G36 all they see is a scary gun strapped to someone they don't trust.

[iverglas]

54. and any minute now

your fellow citizens will be busing you off to the internment camps ...

:eyes:


Most people that are scared of OC don't know a 1911 from a G36 all they see is a scary gun strapped to someone they don't trust.

No, really, you need to get it straight.

What they see is an asshole.

[spin]

55. A high percentage of people agree with your statement that ...

they view a person who is open carrying a handgun as an asshole.

That's why I prefer to carry concealed and would continue to do so even if open carry was ever legalized in Florida. That way, people who are unfamiliar with or dislike firearms do not instantly peg me as an asshole, they merely see a polite old guy with a limp.

[iverglas]

56. I understand and appreciate your sentiments, but

That way, people who are unfamiliar with or dislike firearms do not instantly peg me as an asshole

again, that is not the issue.

The issue is an individual walking around in public displaying a firearm (for no purpose or reason in any way related to the public interest and purely for whatever private reason they might have, which seldom comes down to anything other than "because I can and fuck you").

A person who does that is an asshole.

The person, not the thing, y'know?

[PavePusher]

61. Projection, much? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. That could be said about anything that makes the public uncomfortable or feel intimidated

A group of black males in a suburban shopping mall, same sex coupled holding hands in said mall, or near a church or school, minorities voting, the list goes on..

Exercise of rights does not an asshole make nor does it constitute terrorism.

[iverglas]

127. cripes this is a sad and ugly game

No, people who display firearms on their person in public are not "like" people of colour, are not "like" gay and lesbian couples, are not "like" wearers of religious symbols, are not LIKE anyone else at all who is the victim of a stereotype because of their individual or group characteristics.

People who display firearms on their person in public are like what they are: assholes demonstrating their disregard for the public interest and rubbing everybody's face in their power to do whatever they and the entire right wing happen to feel like doing -- and all the others, the people of colour, the GLBT community, the cultural and religious minorities, can stay home or shut up.


Exercise of rights does not an asshole make nor does it constitute terrorism.

Your game-playing is pathetic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

154. You insistence that somehow some rights are inherently different that others is indeed quite ugly

This comes down to your prejudices and nothing more. Just admit it and move on.

No, people who display firearms on their person in public are not "like" people of colour, are not "like" gay and lesbian couples, are not "like" wearers of religious symbols, are not LIKE anyone else at all who is the victim of a stereotype because of their individual or group characteristics.

People who display firearms on their person in public are like what they are: assholes demonstrating their disregard for the public interest and rubbing everybody's face in their power to do whatever they and the entire right wing happen to feel like doing

You sure seem locked into your blanket stereotype. Given that it is doubtful you actually know anyone who does open carry, I have to wonder what justification you have for that characterization, since it clearly is not rational.

[iverglas]

177. bwahahaha

You insistence that somehow some rights are inherently different that others is indeed quite ugly

Yeah, rights are all the same.

Phew, you hang around the internet long enough and you'll end up seeing every weird and wonderful salad of words you could imagine, or even couldn't imagine.

The right to life and the right to free speech, they're exactly the same, just f'r instance.

If I wander into your church and breathe, you will be entitled to put a pillow over my face and suffocate me.

What, you won't be entitled to kill me? You can't stop me breathing in your church just because you don't like me??

And yet if I wander into your church and stand up to make a speech praising Satan ... him, you will be entitled to remove me. Stifle my speech. Just because you don't like me.

Odd, that. One might even think that the right to life and the right to free speech are kinda, somehow, like, not the same.

As for made-up rights like the "right" to tote a gun ... yeesh.

I just love the idea of that one being, you know, inherent. Born with a silver derringer in their fist, these gun militants obviously are.

[gravity556]

85. Of course, my OWB holster is

much more comfortable in the AZ summer heat than my CC rigs. And since even in the Phoenix area, open carry doesn't result in cops freaking out and holding you at gunpoint. And in addition to that, 99% of people don't even recognize a gun on your belt. They're too wrapped up in twittering and facebooking and playing "Angry Birds" to notice one more bit of black in a case on your hip.

I also make sure to do all the things that I was raised to do-hold the door open for women and the elderly, letting folks with less shit than I have go in front of me in line, blah bla blah. That way, *IF* they notice the gun, they recall that it was on the polite young man. ;)

[spin]

101. It is surprising how little people notice about other people ...

Simply being alert to your surroundings can make you far less of a target for a predator.

[iverglas]

128. hahahahaha

I also make sure to do all the things that I was raised to do-hold the door open for women and the elderly

Yup, just the model of the everything that is good about patriarchy, you are.

:rofl:

[gravity556]

165. Actually, they're called manners.

And while you were apparently raised without any, I was not. I pull the chair out for my wife on a date, open and door and let her go through first, open the car door on her side first. I've even been known on occasion to say "thank you" or "your welcome" and refer to people as "sir" and "ma'am".

Why is taking half a second and giving someone a hand a bad thing? Let me guess, you're probably the type of woman who gives the poor bastard who held the door for you or gave up his seat for you a dirty look. Which, in and of itself is freaking rude.

Patriarchy? Holy shit, what kind of fucked up society do you live in where common courtesy is an insult?

[iverglas]

178. no, they're called patriarchy

I don't really give a crap how you were raised, or what sort of rude manoeuvres you subject the women whose paths you cross to, you know?


I've even been known on occasion to say "thank you" or "your welcome"

Well only to women, surely.


Why is taking half a second and giving someone a hand a bad thing?

I give up, why don't you ask someone who said it was?


Let me guess, you're probably the type of woman who gives the poor bastard who held the door for you or gave up his seat for you a dirty look. Which, in and of itself is freaking rude.

I give a lot more than that, my pet. First, of course, a polite "no thank you". But this is not always met with polite concurrence. Sometimes there is insistence that I allow myself to be herded through a door, of acquiesce in whatever other submissive, subordinate role I am being assigned. Then comes the more.


Which, in and of itself is freaking rude.

Oh, I know. My refusal to be treated like a farm animal who can't make my way through a door without guidance, or a dunce who can't figure out how to work a door handle for myself or sit on a chair in a restaurant without missing it, or make my own way into the proper side of the car (I'm the driver, by the way, so surely it's my job to open the doors) ... yes, that's just me being rude. I never actually noticed how all those little bits of "help" were just kinda concurrent with me getting the low-paying summer jobs or the law school class ahead of me being 6% women or me being the victim of a violent hate crime. No, it's all just a big coincidence. Women deserve all that help ... except when we just, you know, somehow, don't.

I'm waiting for the first man competing with a woman for a job who says "ladies first".

:rofl:

Holy shit, what kind of fucked up society do you live in where common courtesy is an insult?

Hey, I don't! But I'd sure love to live in a society that would stop pretending that an insult is common courtesy.

[PavePusher]

344. I offer those courtesies to women and men in equal proportion.

As, I suspect, most people here do.

I suppose that makes me a double-plus-ungood pig, eh?

[ZombieHorde]

62. Where some people live, gunshots mean gang violence.

If you total childhood gun experience consisted of gang wars and innocent people being killed, you may not want to see guns either.

[spin]

76. You should add ...

and you grew up in an area where legal firearm ownership was unusual.

You can grow up in a bad neighborhood but learn that guns are not always evil. You could have responsible parents who taught you gun safety and took you shooting.

In such a case, you might learn that is not the weapon but the person who uses it that determines if the weapon is used for good or evil.

[ZombieHorde]

80. "and you grew up in an area where legal firearm ownership was unusual."

I thought that was obvious, since gang violence is usually only really wide spread in the cities.

You can grow up in a bad neighborhood but learn that guns are not always evil. You could have responsible parents who taught you gun safety and took you shooting.

You can, but those who grow up in cities don't usually have that experience. I grew up in Montana, and I have had formal gun education as a child, so my experiences with firearms have been very different than most of those who grew up in LA or NYC. I support people's right to own firearms, but I understand why so many people have an emotional reaction against guns in general.

[spin]

93. My daughter grew up in Tampa Florida ...

and the area of Tampa where we lived had its share of gangs and crime.

Two houses down, a neighbor's son ran one of the local gangs. Once someone tried a drive by shooting at his home but only managed to hit a tree and the porch steps. This gang leader ended up in prison for several years after he decided to kill his girl friend by shooting her in the head with a .38 snub nosed revolver. He claimed it was an accident and the witnesses were too frightened to testify against him in court.

There were always firearms in our home and my daughter was trained in how to use them. In fact she used a large caliber S&W revolver to stop an intruder breaking into our home when she was seventeen or eighteen. Fortunately, she didn't have to shoot the intruder. She pointed the big revolver at him and he ran.

Legal firearm ownership was fairly common in our neighborhood. The neighbor across the street had an extensive gun collection.

Once during the afternoon my wife noticed that five guys in their late teens and early twenties were breaking into his home and were carrying his gun collection over a chain link fence to the carport of the next door neighbor.

My wife woke me up. I was working the graveyard shift and slept during the day. I told her to call the police and did something fairly stupid as I was still half asleep. I left my house and ran across the street yelling at the top of my voice (which I call my Geronimo tactic). I left my firearm behind.

I made so much noise that a neighbor four houses down the street looked out her window to find out what was happening and saw two guys running down the street.

I made it as far as the carport when I slipped on an oil slick left on the concrete by the neighbor's old Volkswagen. I ended up on my ass and realized that it was a good place to stay as a bunch of rifles, handguns and an archery set were setting there and my chances of catching one of the robbers was slim.

One of my neighbor's guns was stolen, but it was a very cheap nickel plated .22 caliber revolver. His priced .45 auto was lying in the carport with a round stove piped in the chamber. It is possible that when I started to run across the street, one of the robbers attempted to chamber a round in the .45 and failed. Had he succeed, I might have been shot.

Like I said, it was a stupid thing to do but it worked.

It turned out that gun owner's next door neighbor had a daughter who told her boyfriend about the gun collection. She was close friends with the gun owner and his family until the incident.

Interestingly enough, my neighbor had two big Doberman Pinscher dogs in his yard. Before the break in he would often brag about how they were "trained watch dogs." However, the neighbor's daughter, who knew the dogs well, had been able to keep them calm when her boyfriend's crew was busting into the home by breaking a side window.

I found it humorous that the two dogs would not let the police enter the yard when they arrived.

The police immediately knew who was involved in the heist and I remember a parent pulling up and talking to the cops trying to convince them that his son could not have been involved. The cop told me, "They always say that."

I got a great steak dinner out of the deal which was my gun owning neighbor's method of thanking me.

He invested in a gun safe after the incident.

[ZombieHorde]

95. That story could have had a much sadder ending.

I wonder if gun owners should be legally obligated to own a safe.

[spin]

100. All I can say is that owning a gun safe is a good idea ...

However even the most expensive safes will not keep a professional criminal out assuming he has time.

It will make it far more difficult for a bunch of young thugs to steal your weapons.

[SteveM]

148. Don't think requiring safes is a good idea...

Most gun owners are pretty good about locking up their guns. The requirement to own a safe, while sounding good, will in my opinion, become a wedge whereby controller/banners will jack up technical requirements and costs in order to restrict gun-ownership by subterfuge, similar to "make-specific" laws used in Jim Crow Southern states which required ownership of only very expensive arms, thereby restricting access to blacks. Unfortunately for apartheid legislators, this also restricted access by poor whites. The laws were not popular and seemed to have been ignored or repealed.

[spin]

170. For example Chicago might require a $5000 safe to secure an inexpensive handgun.

That would insure that only the rich and the criminals could afford to own a handgun for self defense in the Windy City. The criminals would, of course, not bother to buy the safe.

[iverglas]

130. "He invested in a gun safe after the incident."

Well that was a fun story.

I know what it told me.

[Katya Mullethov]

75. It's abhorrent , rude , appalling shock theater

Not unlike when big hairy men kiss in public .I am pretty ambivalent about 'em both,but a select few will shit and fall back in it on sight of either . Partly why I prefer both my weapons and proclivities concealed . Your business is exactly that and none of mine .

[iverglas]

98. amazingly

Not unlike when big hairy men kiss in public .

it actually isn't like at all. As you of course know full well, and chose to say otherwise anyhow.

Few big hairy men kissing in public are demonstrating the power and intention of the right wing to control the public spaces of their communities and society.

See the big hairy difference?

I knew you did.

[petronius]

102. Actually, it is like that. Your claim that it's different rests entirely on your own

self-serving assumptions about the motivations of people who open carry. Without those flawed assumptions, your logic falls apart.

Some people probably do OC with the intent to frighten - that makes them assholes, as individuals. Those who choose to do it without that intent are just 'big hairy men' minding their own business. Your tunnel vision on the first group is why your argument fails...

[iverglas]

104. actually, the onus to prove the claim

rests on those who make the claim.

Feel free to give it a shot.

I'm not fond of watching people poop in public. Am I equivalent to people who are distressed by homosexual (but not heterosexual) displays of affection in public?


Those who choose to do it without that intent are just 'big hairy men' minding their own business.

So are people pooping in a bucket in the park.

Or walking around with swastikas on their Tshirts.

Just minding their own business.

[petronius]

109. You're the one making the claim, remember?

I.e., about the motives of people who choose to open carry. So any onus here is on you.

Really, the only anti-OC arguments in this thread break down into a) it's wrong because some people get squicked out by it, and b) it's wrong because the people who do it are assholes doing it for asshole reasons. The first is an obviously ludicrous objection, and the second relies on your unsupported assumptions (and is still an unacceptable basis for policy in this context)...

[iverglas]

120. follow the dotted lines with your finger

The claim under discussion in this little subthread is this:

It's abhorrent , rude , appalling shock theater
Not unlike when big hairy men kiss in public .

If someone chooses to say an apple is like a baseball, I expect them to back that up with something.

Or they can expect to be ignored for saying dumb things.

Even dumb things find willing ears, of course, so making a claim and declining to back it up is just ... you guessed it ... not part of civil discourse. And especially not part of democratic discourse.

But then, our friend who made the claim isn't famous for either.

[petronius]

125. Either you're demonstrating a complete failure to understand what you're reading,

or else that was just another sadly transparent attempt to be offensive. Either way, you've added nothing intelligent to the thread with that reply...

[PavePusher]

153. Sigh... It's the Jay-eee-ell-ell-OH.... n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

157. They can not concede that point or their entire house of prejudice collapases

To some, if you open carry you are an asshole and in some ways a terrorist is an unquestionable article of faith. Those of us who question that are heretics not interested in civil discourse and have no respect for the public.

[iverglas]

181. why are you people blithering about "terrorist"?

Is there an imaginary conversation going on here that one could join?

I mean, I know there's the imaginary one about "prejudice" and the other variations on that dishonest theme, but "terrorist"?

:shrug:

[Katya Mullethov]

186. yes

[ProgressiveProfessor]

191. Your prior comments used the "t" word if nothing else

And it is a common false meme

[iverglas]

196. ah yes

Intimidating the public for a political purposes.

Shoes, fit, etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

233. How progressive of you to support the position of the southerners during the civil rights movement

Back then the public was intimidated by groups of black men in public and that minorities were being allowed to vote.

That shoe does indeed fit you.

[iverglas]

253. let me try to help unmuddle you

'Cause gosh, you are one muddled puppy.

I didn't say "the public is intimidated".

I said "intimidating the public".

You may correctly infer that I was speaking of intent.

Does that help?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

312. You inference was not at all clear and changes nothing at the bottom line

Furthermore, if you focus was intent, use the word explicitly. It leads to more effective communicaition.

This is just another ill fated word dance on your part. Whether they are intending to intimidate the public or not, then or now, there is nothing wrong with groups of black men in public and minorities voting.

[iverglas]

321. if you valued civil discourse

you would not try to pretend that the active verb TO INTIMIDATE is equivalent to the passive verb TO BE INTIMIDATED.


Whether they are intending to intimidate the public or not, then or now, there is nothing wrong with groups of black men in public and minorities voting.

I guess it's lucky you decided to say that, although I don't know why you did -- but if you hadn't, someone might have thought you believed otherwise, I suppose.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

325. More word dancing with nothing of substance

Is that what they taught you in typing school?

[RSillsbee]

147. What about when the person open carrying is a progressive? NT

[iverglas]

152. what about when the flying thing is a pig?

Eh?

[RSillsbee]

219. Are you saying that no true progressive would open carry?

I'm going to put some sugar on my porridge and wait for you to answer

[iverglas]

255. hee hee, this is such fun

I am saying that people who walk around in public displaying firearms are assholes.

Now, I couldn't say that I've never met a progressive individual who was an asshole ... but there are many ways of being an asshole, aren't there?

No one who walks around in public, as an ordinary member of the public, displaying a firearm is acting consistently with progressive values.

I'm sure that there are progressive individuals who occasionally act contrary to progressive values. I'm sure I do sometimes. There are blurry lines. I'm not seeing any blur in this particular instance.

So that's the prima facie case.

Walking around in public displaying a firearm is not consistent with progressive values, uppermost among which is the opportunity for all members of society to participate fully in the benefits of membership.

That value implies equal access to the public spaces of the society, be those spaces physical or economic or social or political, without discrimination or intimidation. The displaying of firearms in a society's physical public spaces is fundamentally inimical to that value, just as hate speech in its political spaces, exclusion from its social spaces and unequal opportunity in its economic spaces are.

If there's a rebuttal, I haven't seen it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

313. Assertion assumes facts not in evidence

The rest of your screed is fruit of that poison tree

[ileus]

103. It's not people that are afraid of hearing about open carriers make it a big deal.

How many OCer's has anyone really seen in person?

3? 1? None? ....and what harm come from any of these encounters? Can anyone cite the last attack by an open carrier?

[iverglas]

105. "How many OCer's has anyone really seen in person?"

I've never seen anyone other than a cop displaying a firearm in public.

I am very pleased about this. I expect things to stay that way for the rest of my life, and long after.

I'm just fortunate that I live in a place where nobody feels compelled to pollute my public spaces with displays of their self-interest and disdain for the public interest in that way.

Up here in Canada, they're limited to yelping their right-wing frustration on the internet and such.

and what harm come from any of these encounters? Can anyone cite the last attack by an open carrier?

Is anyone claiming to be concerned about such an "attack"?

Or are you just spreading straw around with the manure?

[ileus]

108. So I'm right....

Of course I already knew that...

[iverglas]

123. you already knew you were "right"?

......... No, my tongue may hurt from the biting, you can't make me say it.

:rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

159. So you have ZERO experience with those who open carry

From where did your blind prejudices on the matter come and why do you continue to spread such irrational fears?

[iverglas]

182. damn right - no personal experience

From where did your blind prejudices on the matter come and why do you continue to spread such irrational fears?

From where did your lack of candour in every matter come from, and why do you continue to spread such falsehoods and filth?

edit ... oh, damn, I see I didn't follow your model after all. My question didn't contain any false premises at all!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

190. Nice to see you have enough integrity to confirm no experience about which you screed

[iverglas]

197. is "screed" a verb?

Didn't think so. Still don't.

Perhaps you're another one whose first language / mother tongue isn't English. In that case, I'd apologise if I offend, but I don't think that will be necessary.

COBOL doesn't count, btw.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

234. It is urban, probably never heard of it in you village eh?

COBOL indeed does not count, it computes

[iverglas]

266. "COBOL indeed does not count, it computes"

Okay, that was funny.

Still don't know the language in which "screed" is a verb.

"Urban"? ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screed

... not ...

[X_Digger]

173. You've seen none, yet you feel confident in saying..

"to many, a person displaying a firearm in public is an asshole, bent on eroding the social fabric of a community and society by putting on an exhbition of their strength and their ability to do what they want and fuck the rest of you."

Are you one of the 'many'?

If so, what brings you to this conclusion, never having seen one?

[iverglas]

183. I am one of the "many"

If so, what brings you to this conclusion, never having seen one?

You think we don't have that tellyvision thing up here?





and you know I could go on.

I have to admit this is one of my favourites, just off the topic:



I wonder what we're compensating for there ...

[X_Digger]

192. Do you frequently draw conclusions about people based on what you see on the tv / news?

If a person didn't actually look into it, they'd be forgiven for thinking that only cute, white girls were abducted.

I guess the thousands of people who open carry and *don't* make the news just don't exist for you.

[iverglas]

195. oh, sigh

I just haven't lived all these years on earth without figuring out what kinds of people do what things. And no amount of fretting and fussing and foot-stamping is going to overcome that, please just believe me.

People in Canada don't carry guns around. People in the UK and the rest of Europe don't carry guns around. People in liberal democracies and social democracies anywhere else on earth don't carry guns around. People in those other places also have extensive social benefits (like universal health care) and wide-ranging and deep-rooted equality rights (such as, even if not actual same-sex marriage rights this year in some places, completely equal public and private sector rights for GLBT people and same-sex partners) and a whole lot more actual equality. See how it works?

I'm sure you do, so you really just don't have to answer. Really.

[X_Digger]

202. Oh I see how it works just fine..

You're more than happy to draw conclusions about people you've never seen, much less met, based on what you see in the media. I'm sure confirmation bias keeps those preconceptions firmly planted.

Just don't expect those of us who have a wider experience to give any credence to your ill-informed opinion.

[iverglas]

204. oh, now, you know

You're more than happy to draw conclusions about people you've never seen, much less met, based on what you see in the media.

... it isn't really just what I see in the media, you know. Do you forget that it's been 10 years since I first read this forum?

:rofl:

I'm sure confirmation bias keeps those preconceptions firmly planted.

Ah, I just love a good "preconception".

I've never met somebody who publishes hate literature, but I have this odd "preconception" that they might be an asshole if I did meet them.

I have met people who think GLBT people should not have equal rights, and guess what ... they're assholes. Mind you, I'm quite sure the men among them hold chairs for ladies.

Some things are just kinda "by definition", you see. Yes you do, I know you do.

And of course one can just define some things as one pleases, eh? Some people define a man who holds chairs for ladies as "a gentleman". I'm not in that crowd. I'm also not in the crowd that defines people who prance around in public with firearms attached to their bodies as "nice".

In these matters, your personal definition does not prevail. Nor does mine. Just opinions, eh? Mine, at least, while indeed based on wide experience of the world, are also, um, sincerely held and expressed.

[X_Digger]

205. "based on wide experience of the world" -- Really?

Argument from authority.. wait, your only 'authority' is watching tv and reading websites?

We'll all give your authority on this matter as much credence as it deserves. A chuckle and a shake of the head.

[iverglas]

206. wait -- based on argument from misrepresentation

Argument from authority.. wait, your only 'authority' is watching tv and reading websites?

Oh dear, there's just no expecting civil discourse from you at all, is there?

Did you want me to mention my extensive travels all over the US (I'd line my state and city total up against just about anybody's here) and my contacts with various subcultures there during those times?

The grindingly racist white folk in Texas I had the misfortune of having for out-laws? (Parents, siblings and friends of the person I lived with for several years in Canada -- daddy was a reloader.) The underclass I spent time in, in the Tri-City area of Illinois/Iowa? The right-wing Republican NRA ball cap wearers my dad lived among in Florida? The neighbourhood of cops and similarly situated white people I used to visit in, just upstream from Detroit? I know exactly who is strutting around with six-guns on their hips. I have seen the the whites of their eyes.

The assumption you are probably going on here is that people outside your borders are as ignorant of the big wide world as people you know on the inside. 'Tain't so, my friend, 'tain't so. Not wise to judge foreigners' knowledge and experience by your own limited standards.

[X_Digger]

214. Yet you've never seen someone (non-cop) carrying a gun, much less spoken with them?

You're assuming that the kind of people you met (who didn't open carry) are the same ones who do so now?

I know exactly who is strutting around with six-guns on their hips.

Funny, since you've never actually met one..

*snort*

[ileus]

215. Sounds like some people need to pick better what parts of America they visit/live.

And here I thought I'd seen it all. reloaders, racist whites, costume wearing OCer's, wild eyed 6 shooter toters.....gosh-O I never realized how bad America is. Glad I stay armed when out and about.

[iverglas]

265. I've never met Sarah Palin, either

I will be careful to say nothing to characterize her.

Hey, I've never actually met a murderer. Or a Nazi. Or a circus clown.

What a sheltered life I lead. I don't know anything about anything.

Do you have any family in Canada? I have quite a few family members in the US. First cousins, first cousins once removed ...

Oh, and there was that clan in Plano that I cohabited into. I've mentioned daddy the reloader. No health insurance, but lots o' guns. And beer. Beer at the wedding, beer at the funeral, beer behind the wheel of the pickup truck and a rifle in the rear window -- yup, I actually lived among them. And the racism, phew, stinko, that racism -- and that was the university-educated one forgetting to mind his manners, in that case.

Nope, I don't know nuttin' 'bout 'nuttin, me.

[X_Digger]

274. If you made similar characterizations about Alaskan women, based on Palin..

You'd be just as wrong as you are about people who open carry.

[iverglas]

279. snork

How about if I characterized a woman running as a Republican candidate for vice-president based on my observations of Sarah Palin?

:rofl:

Might I be correct to say that said woman is a right-wing asshole?

Right-wing asshole is as right-wing asshole DOES.

"Being an Alaskan woman" doesn't quite qualify.

Look, it's really so simple.

Going to children's soccer games, loitering in groups at family restaurants, wandering the aisles of stores at the mall, showing up at political rallies, etc. etc., with firearms displayed on one's person, are right-wing asshole things to do. It's definitional.

[X_Digger]

285. A bald assertion, stated differently (or repeatedly) is still just an assertion.

How about if I characterized a woman running as a Republican candidate for vice-president based on my observations of Sarah Palin?

:rofl:

Might I be correct to say that said woman is a right-wing asshole?

Ooh, look, a tautology. Republican = right-wing-- yes we know, dear. That really is simple.

Going to children's soccer games, loitering in groups at family restaurants, wandering the aisles of stores at the mall, showing up at political rallies, etc. etc., with firearms displayed on one's person, are right-wing asshole things to do. It's definitional.

What a lovely 'begging the question'! Brava!

[PavePusher]

345. "It's definitional."

Cite...?

[gravity556]

216. So, how many sightings of cops openly carrying firearms required a change of pants

Someone openly carrying a firearm isn't going to just gun you down in cold blood. Nor are they going to rob you. I would, however, refrain from lecturing them about what you think are the dangers of OC. Unless you're cool with being laughed out of the room by your betters. ;)

[iverglas]

303. how about if I tell someone "OC"ing at the mall that I think they're an asshole?

Or is it wise not to do this?

I would, however, refrain from lecturing them about what you think are the dangers of OC. Unless you're cool with being laughed out of the room by your betters. ;)

How about if they run their shopping cart into me? Should I apologise like a good Canadian, just to be on the safe side? Say "excuse me" loudly and sarcastically? That's my usual choice. How do I decide what approach to take?

How about if I accidentally bump their fender when parking and they get out of their car and walk toward me with that sixgun on their hip? Should I get out to chat? That's what I'd do in normal circumstances. Or should I roll up the window and dial 911, or just hand over some cash? How do I decide what approach to take?

How about if I'm at my kid's soccer game and some kid deliberately trips mine? Should I suggest that the parent sitting next to me teach their kid about being a good sport? Seems reasonable. How about if the parent has a Glock sticking out of their pocket?

How about if somebody walking by my house tosses their fast food garbage in my garden? Do I follow them and press the trash into their hand? You bet I do. But if I see they have a gun strapped around their middle?

How about: how fucking likely am I to do any of those things if the person in question has a fucking gun on display? How do I know what they might like to do with it? What's my best course of action? Sit down and shut up, I think.

"An armed society is a polite society" -- yup, everybody's going to be polite to you if they see a gun on your person. I guess it could be a way to get the, uh, respect one might not get otherwise.

Who the fuck walks around displaying a gun and does NOT expect people to be intimidated?

Nobody, that's who.



edit: by the way, I would have no hesitation whatsoever doing or saying any of those things if the person with the gun was a cop. None. I've told more than one cop they were a fucking idiot in my day.

[TheCowsCameHome]

106. Hmmm. Dunno.

Some folks think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Ask them.

[iverglas]

124. exactly so

Who are the ones making the big deal of it anyhow?

The ones doing it and demanding that they be permitted to do it and demanding that nobody interfere with their doing it by so much as asking them to show that they are doing it legally ... pretty obviously.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

160. You do seem awefully worked up about it and other US based gun issues

Yet admit is has never been in issue in your village

[iverglas]

184. the rise of the right wing in the house next door

is a matter of great concern to any rational person, dear.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

189. Private firearms is not a right wing issue, it is a progressive value

[iverglas]

198. "private firearms" aren't a value, they are objects

I hope that helps.

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

282. if you want to claim that post 281 contains "insults"

then you will be wanting to tell the administration about it.

You may want to provide some substantiation for your claim.

Here's the post in question for you:

iverglas
Tue Aug-23-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #189
198. "private firearms" aren't a value, they are objects
I hope that helps.

If I thought you knew what "obfuscation" meant, I might be worried about you throwing it at me, not that it would hit any target anyway.

So listen.

I'm really just fed to the teeth with your ignorant, pointless, stupid, devoid-of-any-discussion personal commentary.

It's disruptive. Consider what that might mean.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

314. Did I make such a claim?

You are not the only one who can play word games...

[ileus]

194. So you're worried about an armed invasion from American OC civilians?

Exactly what would be to gain by an invasion from the south?

I really think you're probably safe from an invasion of Open Carriers from the USA....hell I don't even think the CC'ers have enough numbers to overthrow your government, much less the 10's of 100's of open carriers there are in America.

[iverglas]

201. hardly

You do remember last time the yanks tried that trick, right?

I'm sure you're not wanting to have to rebuild that White House again.

:rofl:

No, we're worried about losing our health care system, our fresh water, things like that, made off with by the the right wing's corporate armies, for whom it provides the unregulated capitalism they demand and whom it supports in the imperialism they require.

I'm no more worried about people in camo pants toting popguns than are the right wing and its corporate armies. They're already in the right wing's pocket, so it's hardly worried about them, and what would the right wing want with them when it has the full force of its economic power to wield and actually get what it wants?

And once it did, once my society had degenerated into a place where health care and education and safety were the privilege of the rich and decent jobs and housing were nowhere to be found for the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, the guns on the streets and other attacks on the fundamental values of a civilized society and vulnerable members of it would just follow naturally, as the right wing looked for diversions to keep people from seeing who the bad guys really were and doing something about it.

You know how that all goes, of course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

238. What to your fantasies have to do with open carry in the US?

[ileus]

258. 41 years here and I've seen maybe 10 OCer's

[iverglas]

281. okay, you beat our "ProgressiveProfessor" for the prize

You did indeed post the most bizarrely irrelevant static in this little subconversation.

[iverglas]

280. uh, what does this static have to do with the subject matter?

I was asked a dumb question:

So you're worried about an armed invasion from American OC civilians?

I could have just said "no".

Probably better to stick to single syllables around here, I guess.

[Name removed]

315. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

332. It was a reasonable response given your prior posts

He responds with honesty and integrity and we are still waiting to see that in your posts

[ileus]

200. We have a couple of those around here....I suppose they're concerned

for our safety....or something.

people whining about OC that have never saw anyone Open Carry I find kinda odd....I'd bet most don't know the difference between a Serpa, Galco, or Fobus holster. They wouldn't know the difference between a Kimber in a 100 Galco holster and a Hipoint in a fobus holster. They don't understand how open carry, or conceal, or ownership period can be allowed. How uncivilized America must be to allow such freedom...

[iverglas]

203. ah, the holy words

I'd bet most don't know the difference between a Serpa, Galco, or Fobus holster. They wouldn't know the difference between a Kimber in a 100 Galco holster and a Hipoint in a fobus holster.

Yeah, but some of us have pretty finely tuned asshole detectors, and the logos on their accessories really don't come into it.

Do you judge people by brand names???

:eyes:


They don't understand how open carry, or conceal, or ownership period can be allowed. How uncivilized America must be to allow such freedom...

Here, let me make that a true statement for you.

We understand perfectly why "open carry, or conceal", and possession of handguns is allowed. And how uncivilized a place that allows these things is.

[AtheistCrusader]

211. Yep, those uncivilized swiss assholes.

[ileus]

212. folding stock, pistol grip and all....and it's black.

scary black guns....run for the hills....no wait that's where the survivalist are....run for the cities...no that's where the thugs are....run for the suburbs...no wait that's where the OC and CCer's are. Where is a gun hater to run?

[PavePusher]

218. Into a brick wall...? n/t

[iverglas]

288. just in case you miss it

It was also militia-issue, heavily regulated, and being carried around only because the individual in question was en route to or from militia duty.

[ileus]

291. but..it was still tacky, mean, black, scary, and OC'd how hideous.

[iverglas]

292. no, it was carried by a member of an organized militia

in connection with his military duty, after it was issued to him by his government for that purpose, subject to rules with which he must comply.

You know: PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

Glad to help.

[ileus]

293. It's still a scary gun...in public....I almost wept just seeing it in a picture.

[Glassunion]

294. Don't be frightened.

Militia Duty automatically renders the individual safe. Sort of like when the cop puts on a badge it prevents them from ever doing any civil wrong.

[iverglas]

295. I don't know when you folks will get the picture

Here's a clue:

Guns aren't scary.

With me so far?

Some people are scary.

How are we doing now?

Some people are assholes and try to intimidate the public by displaying their guns.

Phew. That's a hard one, I know. You might not be able to grasp it or remember it.

So maybe you could just try starting with the easy one:

Guns aren't scary.


A member of the Swiss militia carrying a firearm in connection with military duties isn't an asshole trying to intimidate the public.


I know, that one's just over the top for some people to grasp and remember. But we'll just put it here so you can practise on it.

[ileus]

299. but guns kill people...

and that scares me...I don't want to get dead or anything.

[iverglas]

300. you keep saying it

and maybe somebody will believe somebody actually thinks it and said it.

Having a lot of success around here, are you?

[iverglas]

263. maybe you can tell us the story in the picture

Is that individual acting in his capacity as a member of the public, or as a member of the militia?

Did he just take his gun out for a walk, or did he take it out for militia duty?

Oh -- I'm assuming that weapon was issued to him by the state. What can you tell us?


Funny how things work. Women could not vote federally in Switzerland until 1971; the proposal was first made and voted down in 1959. It took one canton until 1991. Now that's a model of the kind of testosterone-driven society I want to live in!

And ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834

13 February 2011
Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls

Twenty of the 26 cantons and 56.3% of voters rejected the plan, meaning the current system allowing army-issue weapons to be kept at home will remain.

... Supporters of the tighter curbs wanted to have weapons kept in armouries and were demanding stricter checks on gun owners.

... Geneva and Basel both bucked the trend by approving it, according to the Swissinfo website. But German- and Italian-speaking cantons outvoted the plan's supporters in the French-speaking west.

The right wing Swiss People's Party, which opposed the move, described the result as "the Swiss people's affirmation of their proud shooting tradition", AFP news agency reported.

"A disarmed army is a weakened army. The Swiss people have recognised this. With today's 'no' on the weapons initiative, they have clearly rejected those army abolitionists," it said in a statement.

Hahahaha. The song may change (imagine somebody in the US talking about "army abolitionists" when they defend that old rkba) -- but the singer remains the same!

Anyhow, you see, Switzerland has gun control. Not much less than places like Canada have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Changes due to the Schengen treaty

The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

* Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.

* Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.

* Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.

* Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.

* Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit: Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns, including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the late 19th/early 20th century.

* Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.

* While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.

That ain't quite Maine, is it?

All these famous military weapons and ammunition are issued to individuals by the military. Do you think they are issuing them to gang members and Mafiosi and Hells Angels? The individuals to whom they are issued are accountable for the weapons and ammunition.

Carrying guns

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.

And what is this I see at that very wiki page??????

A militiaman with his service weapon slung over his shoulder.

Maybe I need to change my subject line, and ask why you chose not to tell us what the story in the picture was.

[AtheistCrusader]

284. I made a mistake.

(first off, the image came up in a bing image search, I never saw the caption)

I incorrectly identified the weapon. I thought it was a G3, which would imply he was just be-bopping around with whatever he owneed, as it is not a militia service-issue weapon for the swiss. However, looking at the largest detailed shot on the wikipedia page, I see it is a Sig 550, which indeed is the service-issue rifle for militia duty. Mea culpa, no intent to deceive.

Still, I wonder, how would anyone know that he was actually going in for qualification/training, and not simply preparing to ventilate the store?

Stepping back a moment, most people in the US see a police officer, and understand the person is not generally a threat, even with a gun on his or her hip. The implication here is that the Swiss have no anxiety either, about people in plain clothes walking about with an actual Assault Rifle. Would similar mandatory service/qualification help with anxiety about open carry, among whatever percentage of the population has such anxiety? Perhaps. I'd be ok with requiring it anyway.

I'd also be quite happy with much of the gun control implements the swiss use.

[iverglas]

287. well, it's a good question

If I didn't ask it, I meant to:

Still, I wonder, how would anyone know that he was actually going in for qualification/training, and not simply preparing to ventilate the store?

It might have been a neighbourhood business where he was known. It might be a store right by a training facility. People might just be inured to seeing people wandering around with military weapons. Who wants to live in Israel? hands up.

People have their little defining cultural quirks. Canadians are getting fed up with hockey fights; as Canadian as a hockey fight is really kind of dumb and the injuries and deaths that hockey fights produce kind of outweigh the simple charm of them. The Swiss may get fed up with defining their society by militarism, by whatever name they call it. The whole militia thing is really just about as silly as hockey fights. Keep the militia, and keep the militia weapons out of homes -- where they are sometimes used for very non-militia purposes. Nearly half the population agreed this year. It shouldn't be long now.

Meanwhile, as we agree, Switzerland has some pretty good rules about possession of non-militia firearms.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

239. As compared to a civilized nations that protects the clubbing of baby seals eh?

[iverglas]

264. I assume you're making a statement

Do you want to tell us what it is?

How's the clubbing of cows going in the US these days? I'm pretty sure some of them are "babies".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

316. Just reminding you of some of the "civilized" behaviors going on in your neighborhood

Cows are not normally clubbed to death in their infancy here or up north.

[iverglas]

320. no, you were engaging in ethnocentric xenophobic insult

I am quite sure that you don't know the first thing about either seals or the seal hunt. In fact, you've made that quite plain in the space of these few short sentences. You were simply doing what I have said you were doing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

330. Snork

You stated in #203
We understand perfectly why "open carry, or conceal", and possession of handguns is allowed. And how uncivilized a place that allows these things is.

I asked in #239
As compared to a civilized nations that protects the clubbing of baby seals eh?

You feel free to call the USA or at least parts of it uncivilized due to our liberal and progressive gun laws and get all upset when I ask about how civilized is the Canadian government sanctioned seal hunt is where the Canadian government stops even photographs from being taken? What about the questionable seizure of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel.


Now you invoke that citing the seal hunt is ethnocentric xenophobic? That doesn't pass the smell test or the seal test.

[iverglas]

334. like I said

You demonstrate your ignorance of your subject matter with every keystroke. And a quick google for back-up didn't help you.

"Baby seals". "Infancy". Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Won't you post a picture of these infants for us?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

335. Snork**2

Where is the insult? How it is a civilized practice supported by a civilized nation?

By what means to you determine that the the progressive fire arms laws in the US with few deaths directly attributable to it less civilized that the mass slaughter of seals? In 2008 more SEAL HUNTERS died than people killed doing condition one Open Carry in California.

[WAFS]

249. Guns scare some people.

I think it's that simple. Some people have been conditioned by TV and movies to believe that guns have a will of their own and gun owners are one traffic incident away from a machine gun rampage through a daycare center. The fact that such events so rarely happen is irrelevant. The fear is all consuming and reason cannot overcome it.

[iverglas]

267. truth scares some people

It's the only conclusion I've been able to reach, from the available evidence of some people's aversion to it.

It's the only reason I can think of why somenoe would say something like:

Guns scare some people.
Posted by WAFS
... Some people have been conditioned by TV and movies to believe that guns have a will of their own and gun owners are one traffic incident away from a machine gun rampage through a daycare center. ... The fear is all consuming and reason cannot overcome it.

Because that can only be characterized as one of those "broad-brush smears" alleging a mental disorder or two on the part of a group of unnamed people.

Why do people say things they know are not true?

Are they afraid of the truth?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

318. To find the truth adverse look in the mirror

You start with assertions that are not established fact and then build a house of card on top of them.

[Name removed]

322. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

326. As I have stated before, I rarely if ever imbibe

nor do I grown increasingly shrill as the evening goes on.

Try and build something up from facts and not your base opinion, 'k?

[WAFS]

327. Guns scare some people.

Fact: Guns are inanimate objects.
Fact: The mere sight of a firearm scares some people. I happen to know some people who feel like this, therefore, I can say with certainty that some people are scared by the sight of guns.
Fact: SOME people are scared by the sight of a particular inanimate object.
Fact: Guns, being inanimate objects are, in and of themselves, utterly incapable of doing anything, either good or bad.
Fact: A gun requires human intervention 100% of the time for it to do anything.

Can you refute any of these points?

[Name removed]

329. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

337. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

339. so I'm sick to death of this

The bizarrely incivil behaviour of somebody appointing themself to tell me that guns are "inanimate objects" etc. etc. blah blah blah and asking me whether I can "refute" that "point", after describing the "fear" that some imaginary people have of firearms as "irrational" ... yes, that's exactly the kind of discourse that fosters sincere discussion.

:puke:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

341. Yet you continue to particpate...

FWIW, you make the same statement yourself in response to perceived grammar lapses.

There are indeed those with an irrational fear of firearms. In can be overcome if they want to.

[iverglas]

354. if you don't know what I'm sick to death of

don't be placing any bets on your wild guess, whatever it was.


There are indeed those with an irrational fear of firearms. In can be overcome if they want to.

Blah di blah di blah di blah. I'll bet you get paid to impart your wisdom and knowledge in that regard.

:rofl:


There are those with an exaggerated sense of self-worth and no concern for the public and the public interest.

Sometimes that can be overcome, but for the hard core right wing, or the true psychopath, probably not.

I

am

just

saying.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

361. Your emotional state is not our concern

hoplophobic or not

I feel I am reasonably compensated for my teaching efforts, both at the University and the range. Thank you for asking.

[iverglas]

375. ah, memory lane

Check the chain starting at post 249 if you're still not clear on the concept here.

I was replying to the author of that post with what were, in my submission, reasonable questions.

Oh dear.

Username: WAFS


Just ahead of my time again, I was.

[WAFS]

324. Interesting post.

I happen to disagree with you, but that's what makes America great.

[iverglas]

328. "I happen to disagree with you, but that's what makes America great."

I suppose something has to. Your claiming to disagree with me, a claim I reserve the right not to believe, wouldn't be my idea of what to rest my case on, but there you are.

[Name removed]

333. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

366. If only the excitables amongst us were able to trust their fellow man.

A person with a open carried firearm isn't an issue for anyone...it's only in the mind of the person that doesn't trust his fellow law abiding citizens that gets upset at the sight of legally carried firearm.

[iverglas]

374. ... then nobody would be needing to haul guns around in public!!!

:eyes:

I'd point out the inappropriate use of language here, but I think "man" probably was à propos in this instance ...

[Logical]

369. I hate open carry. No need for it is CC is available. Just showing off for some people.

[MyrnaLoy]

376. because

only non-Leo dumbasses do it

[We_Have_A_Problem]

377. People also open carry...

...because they have no other choice. Some states *cough**cough**california**cough**cough* don't issue CCW unless you're very well connected.

[PavePusher]

378. You mean "those" nasty people actually have the effrontery to use their so-called....

Civil Rights in open view and defiance of their betters?

Why, I do declare, someone should call the Sheriff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I