Webleymkv: said:
In one post you say that OCers are "untrained and inexperienced wannabe cowboys" and now you say that you assume nothing. So which is it?
I've discovered our problem! You can't read all that well! What I wrote was this: "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." I said you LOOK LIKE a bunch of wannabe cowboys and MOST of those that OC aren't trained, which hurts the image of gun people like me because you've asserted yourself, by OCing, as the identity of gun people for those who don't have any other reference. I assume nothing; there's a lot of people who assume some pretty negative and scary stuff when they see someone not in a police uniform with a gun.
Why should I give the OCer any more attention than the guy standing next to him who might also have a gun and might also have bad intentions.
Because there's a huge difference which you can't see between MIGHT have a gun, and DEFINITELY DOES have a gun.
I just can't buy that the population in general is that afraid of guns.
So the Brady Bunch and all those with the same thrust are really just a small minority? There is no organized, sizable effort to disarm us all? Then why should we bother donating to the NRA? What do we need a gun lobby for? Geez.
The point is that criminals are not hiding behind open carry and that a comparison of violent crime rates supports this.
No, the point is that the reasons and causes for violent crime go way beyond the local gun laws, and a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument is a fallacy.
Well, the majority of those who have posted their OC experiences here haven't reported negative reactions and the waning support for gun control over the past sixteen years doesn't support the idea that most people are inherently afraid of guns.
What simpleton mentality tells you that someone who is afraid of guns would start an argument about guns with someone who's carrying one? The waning support for gun control isn't clearly waning support for OC to be legal. Again, it isn't so simple as "I'm in favor of gun rights so everything ought to be okay" OR "I'm against gun rights so NOTHING is okay". There's a lot of people in the middle on this, and jamming gun rights in their face will turn them away, in my estimation.
"OC is bad because it scares people and turns them into antis", that has been pretty much your only argument throughout this thread, but you've yet to provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any proof that the majority of the American Public is as frightened of guns as you claim they are? I am beginning to wonder if OC scares most people, or if OC simply scares you.
I'm getting tired of writing stuff you don't read, or worse, you don't understand. Read all that I've written and see if you can find a quote that supports your suggestion that I'm afraid of OCers. I'm skeptical of them; I'm not at all ready to assume they're benevolent, peaceful, sane types because if they aren't I'm in deep do-do and so is everyone else nearby and there's no way of knowing for sure; I can handle that because I've got training and experience that backs up the accuracy of that training that tells me your approach, while comfortable, easy and supportive of gun people who OC, is really pretty uninformed, dangerous, risky, and is what someone who's more into the politics than the tactics of personal protection with a handgun would espouse, to his and our detriment. I'd bet the farm that about 90% of those who shout about the benefits of OC are similarly uninformed, vulnerable and damaging of those of us who get how one responds to guns in the hands of strangers nearby, which usually goes against the gun people when those who aren't otherwise convinced either way have to deal with OC- those that are awake enough and aware enough of the implications to engage with the presence of a gun nearby in places where guns have no purpose other than to shoot people. There's fewer of those in some places than others; there are a lot of them, actually and hypothetically (ask someone where OC is illegal what they think about OC) that are as I describe.
..Are you suggesting that anyone who carries a gun must be doing so because they intend to kill someone?
I'm stating firmly that by carrying a gun THEY've stated firmly that they will shoot to kill someone when they think that's the thing to do: They've equipped themselves to do so, that's what guns do as everyone pro or con understands. That clear statement by the OCer and the presence of the hardware he has that is capable of doing that scares the crap out of those who haven't had to deal with deadly force and the willingness to use it by "civilians" so close to them in places they don't expect it- WalMart, Starbucks, et al- and see no historical need for the presence of the guns in the hands of people willing to shoot at people, with unknown, unproven accuracy, justification, and mental discipline to legitimately apply deadly force. And even if all those criteria are met, they STILL don't want to stand around while a gun fight goes on- not at Starbucks, et al.
Give the guy who might be carrying concealed a glance. Just because he doesn't have a visible weapon and doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual at the moment you ignore him from then on? Are you sure it is my awareness skills that are misplaced?
Yes. There's nothing in the "situational awareness" training that I learned that tells me I ought to ignore ANYone. ALL are observed and assessed; those that present a visible threat (and the presence of a deadly weapon is considered a threat until it's proven otherwise) are given more scrutiny, but in the final analysis no one ought to be able to get very far with a harmful action no matter how the scrutiny assets are applied, if they are applied in some accurate hierarchy of threat analysis. We aren't playing tiddley-winks when loaded, deadly weapons are in the mix- talk to the combat vets of Iraq about threat analysis.
...You're taking one out of many possible reactions and assuming that it is the one everyone will have.
No, I'm talking about the reaction that people who haven't had a gun brought to them to deal with, in a place where guns aren't common and have no purpose but to kill people. What would be the purpose, to someone who isn't into arming themselves for protection, of a gun in an otherwise unthreatening place?
You don't think that someone who is frightened at the mere sight of a gun wouldn't also be frightened by the "insidious concealed weapons" that the antis and the media have wailed about?
Such people are frightened by ALL guns, ESPECIALLY those that are on the belts of the people around them in places where there's no need for being armed, so they think- they don't get the paranoia that has people arming themselves against violence in places where violence is very rare.
It's obvious that you don't like open carry, and because you don't like it, then it must not be the right thing to do.
I don't like it because it isn't the right thing to do. It isn't the right thing to do because it damages the image of gun rights and the people who engage in using them.
I see no point in further trying to contest such "a priori" beliefs as your mind is obviously already made up and nothing I can say will move you.
I can be dissuaded from a conclusion I have taken when a better argument is presented that indicates where mine was flawed, because my first dedication is to the tenets and process of critical thinking (look it up) and not to my conclusions. Said differently, if you present a supported argument that negates mine I am bound to accept yours over mine if I claim to aspire to the tenets that demand that the truth be paramount- that's an "oath" I've taken with myself. You have yet to supply any evidence or logic that negates my position that OC is too often done by those who aren't trained and experienced enough to do it sensibly and the non-gun public that's awake knows that; that many people that are otherwise uninvolved with gun rights find enough impetus when encountering someone OCing to join the efforts against us out of fear and reasonable fear that the OCer is incompetent and unjustified to have brought a deadly weapon into their proximity. Anything jammed in one's face will be rejected at first; my contention is that such rejection will often become a reaction more permanent.
I'm not the only one here whose mind is made up. I formed my conclusions from what I know and have experienced. I'm sticking with it because it's kept me alive and served me and my family well for 4 or more decades. You believe what makes you feel the best, I'll believe what my life has taught me, sometimes with a very costly tuition.
Have a nice day yourself, sir.
