Shooting Involving Open Carry Proponent

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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily follow that running away indicates guilt. The guy might have had paper on him, been a formerly convicted felon, etc and didn't want to get caught with a gun. But that does not change the fact he shot in self defense, assuming he did.
 
OC doesn't allow for psychological screening

The very last phase of getting my current CHL was an "interview" with a sheriff's deputy. I got the distinct feeling that it was an informal psychological screening, and that had I exhibited any instability, bad temper, hotdog/vigilante tendencies, or any other indication that I had the wrong motivation for wanting to carry, my application would have been denied.

Similarly, I'll bet that there are those who, while in the CC class, reveal themselves to be psychologically unfit for the heavy responsibility of being armed.

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.
 
After seeing the video, I have to think that the shootee is an idiot. Demanding compensation (thanks) for a volunteered job not requested is moronic. I have to wonder if he would have done the same thing had he not had the gun on his hip.

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
Click to expand...

I believe the shootee was in a "shooting" and not in a "gunfight" given that a gunfight involves participants on both sides shooting.

People who are inclined to create conflict should not be armed. Period.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

All rights have limits. There are a lot of people who shouldn't carry guns. This guy just found out why. I know a guy who seems civil enough until you disagree with him. He can't have a conversation with anyone on a subject on which they disagree without blowing his top, no matter how polite and calm the other person remains or how insignificant the issue. He has come to blows with folks several times in his life over PERCEIVED slights... "DID YOU JUST ROLL YOUR EYES AT ME?!"

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree if you are armed you should do every thing you can to avoid a conflict... not start one.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Personally, I think concealed carry demands a higher level of self-discipline and awareness than unarmed carry. I think that open carry demands an even higher level of discipline and awareness than concealed carry. But if the prospect of imminent death or serious injury isn't enough to get people to take that seriously, I don't think additional regulation will solve the problem.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Absent a criminal record, there's nothing saying he CAN'T carry a gun, he just SHOULDN'T carry a gun. 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.

It's the same thing in many areas of life.... the people who are most dangerous to themselves on a motorcycle are the same people who lack the insight to realize that they are dangerous to themselves, so they ride anyway.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

What I find interesting is that there is a solid consensus that the OCer was out of line in the course of action he took. The whole deal could have been avoided if Jimmy Rodgers had simply climbed into his car and gone about his business.

Someone commented on road rage a few posts back. When I first read the OP and watched the video, I was also reminded of road rage incidents where someone was cut off, slighted, what have you. One of my pet peeves is when I let someone in front of me in traffic, but don't get so much as a wave. Would I follow them home to tell them they should have waved? Absolutely not.
 
I agree completely. Think about how voting used to be restricted in the past and sometimes still is. Efforts were made, legally or otherwise, to keep certain people from voting. Same with guns and I suspect those kinds of things started after the Civil War in some states.

It is something of a dilemma. How do you keep people from carrying (or even having) a gun (or voting) who you think are irresponsible, rash, prone to violence, etc., etc., without restricting other people's rights? I don't know and it can be a slippery slope. It isn't a new problem either. Gaylord mentioned it in his book fifty years ago. We sort of go through the same thing with driving with not much to show for it. By the time a teenager is old enough to get their license, they have been sitting beside one of their parents picking up their habits and attitudes for 15 years already. Driver's Ed is hopeless at that point.

Sometimes it is mentioned how difficult it is to get a permit to own a firearm in, say, Germany. Well, it is and moreover, it is very difficult to get a driver's license there, too. But you can start drinking earlier.
 
Touché!

Bartholomew Roberts:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for that perspective. While I wish there were a way to filter out the psychologically unfit, you are correct that it would invite abuse and more regulation. While I fancy myself a Libertarian, I sounded like anything but.
 
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.
 
Further reflection on this even has caused me to conclude the shootee is probably a sociopath, and the shooter is a psychopath. And the twain did meet, with consequences.
 
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.
Click to expand...


And there it is right there. Whats the solution?

With every right comes responsibility. The answer, constitutionally permitted, lies between the screeching of the fringes.

WildimapermitbelieverAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
The solution would be Darwinian, sans the outside interference in the process. ;)

I'm a believer in permitting too but I don't think it's stops this guy or most like him. Even in "repressive" NY, I know plenty of bar-fighting, road raging, tool throwing types who have permits to carry.
 
I haven't been able to watch the video -- can't get the link to work -- but I've Googled this story, and none of the print stories I've found has mentioned the fact that Mr. Rodgers (his name seems to be Jay, by the way, not "Jimmy") was openly carrying a gun. Without that piece of information, the whole thing plays very differently, and he is clearly seen as a victim, albeit one who behaved very stupidly. (If anyone has a link to a print story in which his carrying a gun is mentioned, I'd be curious to see it.)

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.

I do agree with those who've said that leaving the scene and failing to contact police pretty well negates this. But, how 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.

Putting on my (tastefully autographed) Miss Manners hat for a moment: Miss M. is always pointing out that it's exceedingly bad form to correct the manners of an adult. I doubt that this is the sort of outcome she had in mind, but she's quite right...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
On a personal level, I don't think Rogers should carry, because I think he's an idiot.

But I agree with Bartholomew Roberts. Government restrictions can easily be abused and become onerous. I'm in favor of constitutional carry, but I am also in favor of penalties for stupid behavior.

Mr. Rogers, should he continue this kind of thing, will likely end up facing assault, disturbance of the peace, communicating terroristic threats, etc as future charges. Most of those could impact his continued right to carry, and that's really the way the system should work.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's all in the context, says I. A man with a holstered gun is no more a threat to me than a man with a shovel is to my lawn....until he starts screaming about digging a hole...
 
As PK said, as have others: OC requires a calm demeanor, and avoidance of conflict. I don't worry about the guy I see with a holstered weapon; I do worry about the guy with the holstered weapon who is ranting or acting like a lunatic.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well arent there indicia of anger problems?

Like...like...hey I know.... DV convictions?:D

WildorotherassualtivebehaviorAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top