indykappa said:
Geez louise Uncle Billy, are we really going to sit here and play the "what if" game?! That's the ploy of anti's and I know you aren't one of them (by virtue of you being on this forum and the quality of some of your other posts in other sections).
Please, dear God, please can anyone show me a link to a news account where the OK Corral shootout occurred between LEGAL OC'ers and OC'ing criminals. Cmon man!
Okay: "The proximate cause of the conflict that led up to the fight was the arrest by Virgil Earp, acting in his capacity as deputy federal marshal, of two rural "cowboys" for a stagecoach robbery. Drunken threats made by another cowboy against the Earps set them on guard, and when family and friends of the drunken man arrived in town on horseback the next day fully-armed, there was a misunderstanding about how and where they should disarm according to city law. Within hours, both new arrivals were dead, as also was a cowboy standing with them, who had illegally failed to surrender his pistol the previous day." ... Wikipedia, among others
OC was illegal in Tombstone; when the authorities who were legally OCing showed up to disarm armed criminals, a gunfight ensued- bad guys and good guys got into a shootout.
I meant to present that as my estimation of what the non-gun public's thoughts are, the people we wish to at least leave our gun rights alone, which they'll do if we don't rile them unnecessarily. That's a truth, like it or not.
If your concern is with regard to the level of training, then how is it that you can even trust local law enforcement? It wouldn't take long to find a number of incidents where officers had had negligent discharges, or used their weapons inappropriately. Their training and proficiency is questioned on a regular basis on this very forum.
The cops are untrained or poorly trained so it's okay that everybody is untrained?? Really? The classes and training sessions the NRA provides for civilians who wish to carry guns aren't of any use? No one is better off- the gun owner and anyone nearby- if the gun owner has some training?
Tell me sir, what is the proper amount of training?
Any competent training is better than no training, and the population that opposes armed civilians would have some of the wind taken out of their arguments if everyone had to have some competent training before going out with a gun, like the CC people have to have, at least here in NY.
old marksman: said:
I cannot imagine a "bad guy" carrying openly. It simply makes no sense to me. Why would anyone in his right mind who was planning a hold-up draw attention to himself by wearing a gun openly? Stealth would be paramount, wouldn't it?
Why wouldn't a bad guy open carry if it was legal to do so and others were besides him? When people get used to seeing civilians with guns on their hips, why WOULDN'T a bad guy take advantage of that and all he would have to do is draw his 1911 or Glock or S&W .44 Magnum, having walked into the place with it on his hip like all the law-abiding OCers do? Why would he conceal a gun where OC is legal and CC wasn't?
indykappa said:
and you do realize that most states do NOT require any level of formalized training to obtain a driver's license? all anyone has to do is get a few things right on a driving course and VOILA you're licensed to operate a 2 ton V8 rolling death machine!
You don't have to get ANYTHING right to OC in many states, just put on the gun. And if you bought it in a private sale or at a gun show, you could be any sort of creep, openly walking around with a firearm right next to your hand- that's what makes otherwise uninterested people nervous, and rightly so.
ummm, when exactly has LESS education ever benefited the populace?? maybe if we hide our guns from our children, they won't wonder what's in that closet...??
Frightening someone as a means of teaching them is a poor way to accomplish learning. Forcing someone to live with their fears is sure to beget a resistance to the source of the fears- the easiest way to not be afraid is to banish that which you're afraid of. Do we really want to promote such a scenario, when CC is available to those who aren't disqualified and so being legally armed for one's self-protection is legal?
racial minorities/gay people are not an immediate purposeful/accidental risk of harm or death to anyone...yes, we know this now, but what about 50 years ago?
the funny thing is, if you took out the word "gun" from your previous statement and injected the word "negro" or "gay" into it, it would look/sound like alot of the fear-mongering that people spewed back in the pre-civil rights days.
So you're saying that once people get used to guns, like they did of blacks and gays (and I'd be willing to bet the farm there's a lot of posters on here who aren't the least bit "used to" those particular minorities), guns aren't efficient killers any more? Guns are only dangerous until you get used to seeing people with them, and then they aren't dangerous any longer? No one will ever take a shot at you after you've seen people with guns for a while? When you got used to handling your gun, did you ease up on treating it like a dangerous weapon capable of killing because you were used to it? Why in any remote reality would anyone assume that those who fear guns and don't trust people with them, will quit those ideas and welcome strangers with guns when their fears and doubts- which are legit, given the circumstances of rule-free and unregulated OC- are activated when the number of guns they see in public places increases?
By the way, I have had a CC permit in NY for 38 years, and I carry a Walther or a Beretta whenever I sense the need and it's legal.
