Posted by Uncle Billy: Why should I presume that every person I see with a gun is well trained, mentally balanced, not easily riled, and just exercising his Second Amendment rights? Such presumptions, while just dandy for glossing over the questions and doubts of a large part of the population, are in themselves really dangerous and stupid.
One cannot argue with that, but there is a counter point: if I do see a man with gun carried openly in holster, I think I can at least assume with a very high level of high confidence that he is at least law-abiding; whether he is easily riled won't matter, because I'll sure avoid riling him. Actually, while he raises my eyebrows due to my own conditioning, I'm less concerned about the man with a gun openly carried than about some people I see who may or may have guns and if they do, they likely possess them unlawfully.
If someone is paranoid enough about violence to carry a gun all the time,...
I don't think it's appropriate to ascribe carrying a gun to paranoia. Someone asked me the other day why I carry a gun (I do not advertise that I do, but the person had found out from a mutual friend, who is among many really decent and stable citizens I know who are applying for their CCW endorsements) and I answered "for the same reason that I have a balanced investment portfolio." For me, it's a simple matter of risk management. I also have more than one fire extinguisher, and safety is paramount in my choice of an automobile.. One might reasonably choose to not carry in some environments, but where I live, there is a growing element of the population that is mobile, ruthless, amoral, and very violent indeed, and they are acting increasingly as if they have nothing to lose. The gun isn't the only mitigation strategy, by the way: we now avoid many neighborhoods here many of the good restaurants are located.
...isn't it inconsistent and illogical for them to expect that others wouldn't have the same fears, triggered by the presence of gun in plain sight?
Yes, I'm afraid it is. The reasons for those fears may not be logical, but I agree that they do exist.
Don't we need the support (or at least the indifference) of the majority of the people to maintain our rights?
Yes, we do indeed.
If enough of them get together and vote, they can amend the Constitution- why provide those who already want to do that with a recruiting issue?
Excellent point! I have never understood the point of view that exercising a right will necessarily protect it, when it can just as easily have the opposite effect. One may "educate"a few, but he is likely to alarm many more. People who have been conditioned to dislike guns and to fear them may change, but simply having them see more guns is unlikely to have the desired result, IMHO.
As I said, it depends heavily on where you are- in some states, where open carry has been going on a long time, folks are used to seeing guns and so it's no big deal. In other states, where open carry is a new idea and the history of the place is that civilians with guns were most likely up to no good because openly carrying a gun was illegal, the people are suspicious and afraid of armed civilians because they got used to the idea that armed civilians were already breaking the law, so they must have illegal violence in mind.
Local tradition does have a lot to do with it, but I would rather say that in places in which open carry has not been traditional many people will simply be uneasy than that they would assume criminal intent when they see someone carrying openly. What criminal in his right mind would strap on a gun in public?
If CC is an alternative, then the whole issue becomes a non-issue.
Yep!
...we don't need any more enemies.
No, we do not.