The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough...this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.
3. Once the open carry guy has been shot, he is in a gunfight where someone is using lethal force against him, yet he never attempts to draw his gun and is slow to realize he has been shot and seek cover
Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.People who are inclined to create conflict should not be armed. Period.
Double Naught Spy said:Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.
How do you pick a good guy here? One guy creates an unnecessary confrontation over a perceived snub while open carrying, and the other guy shoots with no overt threat. I have little use for either type of belligerence. Sounds like bully vs bully.
Ringolevio said:But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse.
peetzakilla said:He should NOT carry a gun. Neither should the dude in the video. That situation was one totally of his own creation. People who tend to create violence should not have tools of violence.
Bartholomew Roberts said:I think that is probably a fair assessment of Jimmy Rodgers. At the same time, I think an occasional Jimmy Rodgers is a smaller overall problem than the previous practice of eliminating the right to self-defense through burdensome regulation. I am also not in favor of solutions that seek to preemptively limit rights based on what you might do instead of what you have actually done.
But I think that most of us here recognize that the excercise of that right also carries some responsibilities. I have a right to arm myself, in order to defend against an attack. If I choose to exercise that right, I have a responsibility to take (at least) reasonable measures to avoid exposing the innocent or unwary to the very real risks associated with firearms.Double Naught Spy said:Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringolevio
"But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse."
The problem with such a screening process is that it has historically been abused. Instead of being used to screen out people who shouldn't have a gun, it has been used to generate campaign funds (only those who donate cash to the official in charge of approval turn out to be psychologically stable enough) and deny people who did have a genuine need; but couldn't navigate the byzantine network of laws.
This is one of the major reasons shall-issue concealed carry has been so popular. All of the criteria are objective. If you meet them, you get the license.
Personally, I am of the opinion that as long as there are consequences for bad behavior, lack of regulation is easily the lesser evil of the two.
It's a bit of a Catch-22, in that a little personal insight would tell someone that their temper should preclude their carrying a gun, yet the same general mindset that leads to the anger management issues will generally also preclude any real personal insight.
This, too. There's nothing "courteous" about an act that's performed with the expectation of a return; at best, it's a business transaction, and at worst, it's a form of extortion.gearhounds said:Gun or no gun, waiting outside to confront someone that didn't thank you for an act of goodwill is not only a bad decision, it defeats the purpose of doing a good deed for the sake of doing it. We've all had it happen at some point or another, and what do a majority of us do? We walk away thinking "jerk", but walk away nonetheless.
Vanya said:So, even for us gun folks, his displaying a holstered gun changes the equation to one in which the man who shot him may have acted in reasonable self-defense.... interesting: although many of us support, in principle, the idea that OC shouldn't be perceived as threatening, we're quick to recognize that when push comes to shove, it reasonably may be.
If we could legislate against people we just thought were immature, stupid, or Walter Mitty types owning guns (or driving cars, or flying planes, etc), who would make the determination? I'm sure there are people out there who think I'm an idiot, and most people can probably say the same about others' perceptions of themselves.