Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
In what reality is someone obviously carrying a gun certain to be the good guy
And in what reality are they certain to be a bad guy?
They aren't certain to be any sort of guy, but they have a gun and without knowing what sort they are, prudence dictates keeping a wary eye on them. Does someone OCing immediately get accorded sainthood? Only by those whose reasoning and gun disciplines have been suspended, and you'll never sell that to those who don't like guns too close to them.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
...and the criminals are the ones who conceal their weapons?
Because OC shows everyone that you have a weapon. A criminal is unlikely to want extra attention because that will make it more difficult for him to carry out his nefarious acts.
In one argument, it's claimed that OCing ought to draw no attention because the world has to learn that OCers are law-abiding citizens. Now your argument is that someone who has a gun does draw attention- scrutiny, even- which is why a criminal won't OC. So which is it? Are we to assume that everyone OCing is a good guy like the OC movement hopes to "teach" the public, or are we to be skeptical of anyone OCing because he might be an armed criminal?
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
Unless the cops stop everyone with a gun to check them out, how would anyone know whether the guy with a gun is breaking the law, or whether he is dangerous or not?
Unless the cops stop and check everyone, how do we know that someone isn't carrying a concealed weapon illegally?
We don't, and we don't know if anyone is CCing legally either. But if someone has a OC gun on, we know he has a gun. Next question that ought to immediately follow: What are his intentions? That's my point.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
Why would someone with criminal intent hide his gun if it was legit for him to OC it?
Why do we not see a rash of crimes committed by people openly carrying guns in places where it is legal?
Is your point that no one OCing is ever up to criminal activity with a gun, and never will be? Simple reason shows the fallacy of that assumption.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
Guns are deadly weapons that deserve respect, a wary, attentive attitude, and ought to be taken seriously and not ignored- when OCing requires that those truths be ignored or suspended, it becomes a bad thing.
OC does not require that we not respect deadly weapons. It only requires us to observe the person who chooses to openly carry. A gun hanging precariously out of someone's pocket will make me nervous, a gun in a holster on their belt, not so much.
That's your criteria, which expects people to act according to stereotypes which they don't always, especially if they want to hide their real intentions. So you don't go along then with the OC mission to teach non-gun and anti-gun people that there's no reason to regard OCers with any more scrutiny than anyone else?
Webleymkv said:
By your logic, should we automatically assume that anyone driving a sports car is a wreckless driver?
That's not my "logic"; read it again. My contention is that sensible people will alert on someone with a gun nearby since a gun is a deadly weapon, and if the skills, discipline, integrity and sanity of the person carrying it are unknown, prudent self-preservation will cause some sort of reaction in the observer. If the observer is a non-gun or anti-gun person, the fear of gun violence becomes paramount, and reducing the presence of guns that close to them becomes an appealing mission.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
At the range, with others with loaded guns around, do you just assume they've opened the actions, stood behind the ready line and aren't handling their guns before you walk down to the targets? Do you just blithely step over the firing line and walk out in front of them, or do you take a close look at what the others are doing, every one of them, and stay behind the line until you're certain none of them are doing anything risky? At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?
When at the range, do you demand that anyone who has a holstered handgun remove it from the holster, unload it, lock the action open, and set it on the bench before you go downrange? There is a difference between someone who is actively engaged in firing a gun and someone who has one in a holster on their belt.
No, there isn't, in my version of what's prudent- both have a gun at hand, and I don't trust them to know what they are doing with it or what they might be up to if I don't know them. Read this sentence again: "At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
Just because someone is OCing doesn't alter the prudent actions one takes when loaded guns are around in the hands of others, your unreasoned passion for OC notwithstanding.
Rather than just assume that someone who is OCing is unsafe, I take a moment to observe them. If they don't act in an unsafe way, then I don't worry about it. I look at the person rather than the gun.
Do it any way you wish- if the purpose of OCing is to "educate" the public, the "lesson" most of them will learn most clearly, if they aren't gun people to start with, is that guns are too available and too present close to them against their wishes, and so ought to be less available and less present in everyday public life. That's exactly the opposite of what the misguided missionaries of OC expect will happen.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
What sort of blind faith and unreasoned trust leads you to assume the guy with a gun is always a good guy?
The question as to why anyone who has something to fear from the law would choose to bring attention to himself in such a way.
If the mission of OC is to educate the public that only good, honest, law-abiding people open carry guns, why wouldn't the missionaries for OC see that if they succeed in selling that idea (they won't), a bad guy who wants to look like a good guy would benefit from OC? There's that delirious logic again- the good guys will OC the guns, the bad guys won't. So if a bad guy wants to look like a good guy, and the OC mission succeeds, then of course he'd OC. Be suspicious of anyone without a gun, but trust someone with one to be a stand-up good guy. I'll say this a new way: If someone is a stranger, then we don't know what sort of person he is, what his intentions are, what his character is, what his mental state is. If he obviously has a gun, then all that mystery takes on a new significance, since a gun is a deadly weapon that can kill people. Add those two together and some things result: those who fear guns and don't like guns will be uneasy with that sum, some will seek to prevent unknown people to have guns so close to them in public places. It's very simple.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
Why should anyone assume you're a good guy when you bring deadly weapons into their presence, which is a tacit statement that you're ready to shoot when it suits you to do so- that alone is enough for some people to consider you a bad guy, someone from whom they need protection.
Why should they assume that you're a bad guy? Why should they not be more worried about the gun that they can't see rather than the one they know is there? Perhaps they would be better served by carefully observing everyone around them rather than just the person who chooses not to hide his weapon.
People who fear guns, who want no association with guns, will regard anyone who brings one near them in any way to be bringing the risk of gun violence to them against their wishes, and that makes the OCer a bad guy since you can see his gun when he's close to you. The result: His access to guns is too easy. You need to stop thinking like a pro-gun person and start thinking like an anti-gun person or one who hasn't any opinion yet. Stirring them up with a lot of guns around them in places where in their estimation there isn't any need for them just makes them afraid and mad at gun rights. Why the hell can't any OC missionaries see that truth?
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
You'll gain a lot of recruits for the anti organizations when your rights impinge on their passionate need and desire to be free of fear.
Unless of course you can demonstrate that it's the criminals rather than the guns that they should fear.
Okay, YOU try to convince them that there's no need to fear guns in anyone's hands, it's the criminals that make guns dangerous; in the hands of OCers they are no danger.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
I think it's absolute equine excrement to assume that most non-gun or anti-gun people will see a lot of guns around and react in favor of a lot of guns being around.
I think it depends upon who they see with the guns and how those people choose to present themselves.
Try again- if one hates guns and is afraid of them, who is carrying them has no impact at all. Any reasonably smart person will see a gun in the hands of a "civilian" and get nervous about its presence. In what conceivable way would a fear of guns too close be moderated by the wardrobe of who is carrying it?
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
It's the mere presence of guns that they react to, how one is dressed or how he speaks makes little difference- it's the gun they are afraid of.
No, it's not the mere presence of guns that sets them off. They see guns in the holsters of cops every day and they aren't afraid. They do not fear guns in the hands of the police because the police are viewed as trustworthy and safe. The whole point of the OC movement is to demonstrate that law-abiding citizens are also trustworthy and safe and therefore guns in their hands don't need to be feared either. Even here in my home state of Indiana, where OC is legal but not particularly common, OCers aren't viewed with suscpicion or fear unless they present themselves in a negative light. Hard core antis oppose carry of any sort be it concealed or open. They are just as shrill about the insidious hidden weapons as they are about the intimidating visible ones. It's not the hard-core antis that are the target of the OC movement as their minds are already made up. It is instead the fence sitters who don't really have an opinion one way or the other. The whole point is that through responsible OC we can demonstrate that the antis arguments don't hold true in the real world.
You hope! Any reasonable person will react to a gun in the hands of a "civilian" nearby; in my opinion those who are "on the fence" are more likely to become negative about guns near them, in places where they don't see the need. I don't think you can "brute force" people to give up their doubts or fears by creating the doubts or fears- by OCing you make it mandatory for those "on the fence" to tolerate the presence of guns in the hands of those who could be untrained, inexperienced amateur gun nuts. If they give it any thought, they wouldn't like being forced to accept that.
Webleymkv said:
Uncle Billy said:
As I said, there's no sense in discussing OC with anyone who's obsessed with the idea and is prepared to bent realities, invert and ignore truths and make up a lot of baloney to justify it. Go ahead, do your thing- I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am. But it's your right to present yourself that way if you want. I'll protect your right to firearms, but I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. Flame away!
Now you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. First of all, I've never OC'd in my life. I choose to carry concealed because that is what best fits my lifestyle. However, I am not so arrogant as to assume that what is the best choice for me is necessarily the best choice for everyone. Also, why would you assume that everyone who OC's is untrained and inexperienced? In many places, the legal requirements for OC are exactly the same as those for CC. Why is the person who chooses to CC assumed to be a trained, experienced, responsible citizen while the person who chooses to OC is some sort or wild, irresponsible cowboy? Honestly, I find this whole "I'm trustworthy but you're not" attitude to be rather elitist.
Well, I know I can trust myself, and I don't know if I can trust you, and if I see you have a gun that lack of trust takes on reasonable significance. But if you don't trust yourself any better than you trust someone you don't know, then you better not have any guns at all. It's not black or white, it isn't a binary equation- add a gun to unknown mentalities and any sensible person will get wary and alert, and maybe resent that they had to.
In a lot of places OC doesn't have any legal requirements attached except to be qualified to own a gun, and the antis know that. That's why there's a lot of objection to guns in everyday places on the belts of untrained, undisciplined amateurs. I'll say this again: I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. There are a multitude of people on both sides of the gun rights debate who agree.