ZeSpectre: said:
... To easily dismiss a demonstrably higher risk (someone operating an automobile) yet cling to fear over an open carried firearm seems a little...phobic.
To compare the deaths due to cars, which are meant to be transportation, not weapons, that people must have and use whether they care about driving well or not and most don't, which require a license test be passed before it's legal to drive, where mechanical condition bears heavily on the possibility of injury when they are in use and which one is exposed to at a rate how many thousand times more often than guns being used- comparing those numbers with guns, which aren't anywhere nearly as commonly used (not carried but used) as cars are used and which have no other purpose than to kill people (in an OC situation) seems a little...stupid.
Old Grump: said:
Can't say that about police, firemen, soldiers, teachers, doctors. Most of them are good guys too, yet the crime rate while not high among them is higher than that of the average carrier who isn't a criminal.
Comparing teachers and firemen with OCers is comparing apples and oranges and any kid who passed 5th grade could tell you that. See, teachers and firemen could ALSO be OCers; if they do something bad, is it because they are a teacher, fireman, etc, or because they are OCers? OCing isn't a profession, the others are. Geez.
NavyLt: If the Brady Bunch says "guns are dangerous" do you disagree? If military training says "Pay attention to anyone with a gun" and the Bradys say that as well, is the military against gun rights? If I give extra attention to someone with a gun that I don't know, and you don't think that's necessary, am I against your gun rights?
NavyLT: said:
1. In the situation of feeling uncomfortable, or yellow alert, because a person is visibly carrying a gun, and when that feeling would not be there if that exact same person were not visibly carrying a gun - that uneasiness is obviously centered around the presence of the gun itself and has nothing to do with the person carrying it.
Wrong- the gun isn't all there is to it, neither is the gun toter. It's the combination of both that has significance and that combination is uncomfortable for some people, and sets me on "alert". IF you leave half, either half, of that equation out when they are together, then you are wrong. This issue has 2 components; nearly nothing has only one component, one separate fact to deal with. Ignoring factors directly involved in an issue is oversimplification and leads to wrong conclusions, sometimes to the opposite of what's correct. You do that a lot.
2. In the situation of the person that comes on here and says open carriers are trying to compensate for something, or trying to be a hero, or have some sort of attitude problem that they express by open carrying. To me, they are just as much an "enemy" as the anti. Like the anti, they are labeling a person based on their chosen method of defending themselves.
Once again I admonish you to read what I wrote in more detail than you have so far, if you are able to. Here's what I wrote I think you're referencing, emphasis added:
"
If one's whole reason for OCing is "look at me, I'm armed and so deal with things at a life-or-death level all the time so I'm significant, I'm a SOMEbody!", and that fills missing things in one's self-image- it's a mating display meant to attract potential "mates" with a display of power under one's control which meets a missing sense of macho or power or virility or maturity- in short, it'a all about advertising and nothing else, then that's a huge and irresponsible use of our gun rights. When someone wearing a gun only as jewellery gets into a situation where what the gun really is- a device for killing- gets brought into play, the check written by using the gun only as an article of clothing gets cashed, and God help anyone within range."
Again, you haven't enough reasoning skills to see this, or any other issue we've debated here, in any other way but in 1 of 2 absolutes, and that inability to see the nuances, the details, makes you unable to see what things really are. I wrote that IF that's the reason why someone OC's, then they've made irresponsible and dangerous use of our gun rights. I didn't say EVERYone OCs for that reason, but that SOME do. But that's not what you read, you took it that I meant EVERYone who OC's is a poseur, and your response is NONE are, that NO ONE ever OCs to show off or create an image for themselves. So you got both sides of this wrong- what you attributed to me wasn't what I wrote, and your inference that no one OCs for lightweight or silly reasons is also clearly wrong. 0-for-2.
crashm1: said:
Tom I called out Uncle Billy and at this point only him because he uses the same arguments about open carriers as the Brady and VPC folk over on Huff Po.
... I don't really tend towards absolutism nor did I think I was doing the us versus them thing.
Well, you were. Those of you who think everything the Brady Bunch says is wrong just because they say it is a variation of a simple fallacy called "argumentum ad hominem"- judging the truth of what's said by who says it instead of what they said. It requires critical thinking skills to avoid this fallacy; that process isn't universally present here.
For the record: I've had a CCW permit in NY for about 37 years and CC whenever I sense the necessity; I'm certified by the NRA and the Boy Scouts of America as a "shooting sports instructor" in rifles, shotguns and muzzle loaders, and archery. I believe that teaching kids about guns when they are young gives them a more balanced understanding of them than they might get otherwise and might introduce them to something they can enjoy all their lives; I'm a strong supporter of our 2A rights as an individual's right to protect themselves and enjoy the uses and pleasures of shooting.
I think the Bradys and their ilk will take anything we give them to use against us and recruit with, and OC has that potential in a lot of places where guns were never a part of everyone's everyday experiences. I think it's a misjudgment that all the public who are unfamiliar with guns or are afraid of them will join us in support of gun rights when they have guns brought near them against their preferences. Not all of those forced to deal with armed strangers in situations where they don't see the need for guns will be okay with that. Not all, but some.
If OC isn't the only way to arm one's self, then OCing adds unnecessarily to those against us, those who would have remained silent otherwise.