Thanks, Idiots

19-Sep-13 – 14:22 by ToddG

oc-idiots-at-starbucks

To all of the in-your-face tough guy Open Carry zealots who held Starbucks rallies such as the one pictured here, thanks.

Thanks for forcing a major, high profile international corporation into choosing between its image and yours.

Thanks for making such complete idiots of yourselves with your “Look Ma, I’ve got a gun and a coffee at the same time!” antics that what had been a nice political win for our side is now a huge media circus about how Starbucks finally said stop bringing guns into our stores.

You can croon about how you’re educating the public all you want, but it’s bullcrap. And here’s a perfect example. Did you convert the average American? No. But you scared enough soccer moms, kids, and coffee jockeys that Starbucks was forced to take action.

It was you that turned Starbucks into a political battleground. It was you that couldn’t just take the victory of Starbucks saying it would abide by local laws rather than ban guns. It was you who had to push the limits and do things utterly unacceptable among almost any normal community in the United States just so you could brag to your equally moronic Facetwit buddies. You did this. You gave the entire Second Amendment movement a huge black eye. You just educated America, all right, you educated them into believing that gun owners are a bunch of retarded monkeys who’ll throw feces the first chance they get if it’s legalized.

Do you know what would happen if you walked into the NRA Headquarter Range carrying a gun like the guys pictured above? You’d be refused entrance because they don’t allow people to walk around like that. Know what would happen if you, a stranger, walked up to my front door carrying a shotgun like this guy:

shotgunatstarbucks

At a bare minimum you’d have a gun pointed at your face and police sirens closing in at top speed. Worst case scenario, you’d get shot dead. You know why? Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.

Go tattoo your forehead or get your eyeballs pierced if you want to be cool & different & edgy. Stop carrying guns or talking about guns or even thinking about guns. Because you’re idiots, and you’re not helping.

(for a less angry, more in-depth intelligent read on the subject, try Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned)

Train hard & be smart for once in your God-forsaken life! ToddG

original rifles in front of Starbucks photo from NBC affiliate KXAN 

shotgun photo from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com (edited to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, buddy, but thanks for giving me a photo to riff off of)

  1. 481 Responses to “Thanks, Idiots”

  2. Amen.

    By SteveJ on Sep 19, 2013

  3. What’s that old saying? With friends like these…

    By DGP on Sep 19, 2013

  4. It’s time for normal people to stand up to the in your face and ignorant open carry crowd. They are accomplishing nothing; they are making things worse. It used to be in CA you could OC an unloaded gun on your belt…. So all these internet Constitutional scholars started traipsing around and videoing confrontation with cops..trying ot educate them and the public. Guess what; in CA you can’t carry an unloaded gun on your belt anymore.

    By Matt on Sep 19, 2013

  5. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    By Ian on Sep 19, 2013

  6. Word.

    By JD on Sep 19, 2013

  7. Betcha neither one of those yahoos put any rounds downrange in training or practice.

    By SteveK on Sep 19, 2013

  8. As it turns out, the guy with the shotgun claims his picture was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005 so you might want to put that thing back in your purse. ;)

    But, yeah, I see nothing to disagree with in this post.

    By Tam on Sep 19, 2013

  9. Todd;
    If you have an opinion on the subject,don’t beat around the bush…just come out and sat it!!!!!!!!!

    P.S. I agree with you totally.

    By The Fish on Sep 19, 2013

  10. Tam — Thanks.

    Fish — Oh I’ll sat it all right! I’ll sat it loud and clear! 8-)

    By ToddG on Sep 19, 2013

  11. I hope I got points for referencing the best Archer episode ever, is all.

    By Tam on Sep 19, 2013

  12. Amen, brother!

    By Steve on Sep 19, 2013

  13. These morons can’t have friends. Who associates with fecal flinging primates who don’t have the common sense or courtesy to not be a flaming douche bag of fail?

    Can and Should are mutually exclusive sometimes.

    Asshats!

    By Joe on Sep 19, 2013

  14. If I walked into a store and saw someone carrying a shotgun like that guy, I would think he was in the midst of commiting a crime.

    You show me yours, I’ll show you mine isn’t for guns in public.

    By Franky2Shoes on Sep 19, 2013

  15. Showing your gun in public is like walking around in your underwear.It may be legal,but don’t he surprised if everyone around you thinks you’re crazy.

    By ST on Sep 19, 2013

  16. Work of art right here Todd!

    By JHC on Sep 19, 2013

  17. It s to bad that some firearms owners are our worst enemy. I also think we should tone down things that’s on gun channel. Do we really need to use words like tactical or showing what takes place during a carbine class.
    Don’t get me wrong I’m all for it . I m just worried it can or could be used against us someday.

    By Rich on Sep 19, 2013

  18. There are gun nuts and then there are idiots with guns.

    Very well put together Todd. Thanks!

    By Ben on Sep 19, 2013

  19. yep, very well stated……

    By LCSO264 on Sep 19, 2013

  20. May I share this and link this for the world to see? It is like a beacon of hope saving the lost from crashing upon the rocks.

    By TElmer2 on Sep 19, 2013

  21. All of the above, and some peoples’ mamas never should have let them out if the house…

    By walkin' trails on Sep 19, 2013

  22. Just because it is legal, doesn’t make it the smart or right thing to do. No common sense. There is a time and place for everything, that’s where common sense comes into play.

    By DavCar45 on Sep 19, 2013

  23. I’m not involved with the open carry movement, and really my philosophy is along the lines of the guy Greg quoted who said he supports the right, but not the practice. Since i am not in the open carry movement and in fact I generally ignore it, I don’t know what really happened that led them to piss off the Starbucks people enough for the rules to be changed by Starbucks corporate. Like many of you, I wonder how the open carry people could have been so bone-headed. But you know what? Maybe they (i.e., the open carry people) were not the ones that pushed this to the point of people showing up with rifles to their local Starbucks store. Maybe the movement got co-opted by outsiders who were intentionally “joining in” specifically to drive away the support of the gun establishment (trainers, gun writers, the concealed carry folks like many of us, etc).

    Professional, paid agitators can take over a movement and radicalize the direction of the movement. This pushes the movement out of the mainstream and reduces its support amongst the populace and particularly amongst natural (former) allies. This is how (many of us believe) that the authorities finally put an end to the anti-globalization movement that was doing all the picketing, dressing up as trees, protesting, and making it generally difficult and expensive to hold international business meetings and government conferences. The movement was (many of us believe) infiltrated on purpose by professional agitators who then proceeded to radicalize the movement, pushing for violence and property destruction, etc. the more violent that those demonstrations became, the less likely it was that casual protestors or people who were dedicated but peaceful would even bother to show up. Eventually, the whole movement fell apart as the mainstream anti-globalization folks (if I can use that descriptive phrase) abandoned their own movement so as not to be associated with the radicals. Now, go back to what I just described and replace “anti-globalization” with “open carry” and you will get the idea. I don’t have any specific knowledge to back up my theory, but let me just put it this way: If I was Mike Bloombucks, I would be a fool NOT to hire people to do exactly what I just described to throw the whole gun carrying movement onto its butt.
    – See more at: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/friends-dont-let-friends-open-carry#comments

    By Ursa Ele on Sep 19, 2013

  24. So let me get this straight you guys just want to wait around for our rights to come back?? Texas hasn’t had open carry since the 1800’s I think the waiting around method is proven to not work. Either your for the second amendment or your not! Free men don’t ask for permission to carry and I don’t believe in giving up some of my rights so that I can conceal carry! Those of you that don’t support everyone’s right to carry however they want to might as well be kissing Obama’s ass! Either stand up or sit down and shut up while real men fight for our rights!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  25. If you people were smart enough you would know it has way less to do with what open carriers did and more about what groups like moms demand action did! They are the ones organizing boycotts of Starbucks and constantly bullying the corporation to ban guns in their stores even concealed carry! Who are you guys going to blame when conceal carry becomes illegal because of the far lefts relentless pursuit to get guns banned? I’m amazed at how easy you guys cower to the left and government.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  26. I never understood the OC movement. In CA, you could OC with no bullets in the gun….it didn’t make since to me, carry an unloaded gun???? Even to make a statement??? I was told from a young age, if you are going to carry a gun, carry it loaded and make user you are ready to use it if you draw your gun on someone. Not carry an empty gun and bet them with it lol The OC group forced CA to change the laws because the would film the contacts with police and acted like retards, then post them. They are not the brights bunch. You said it best Todd.

    By Dave S. on Sep 20, 2013

  27. I’m sorry but California residents are asleep at the wheel and if anyone shouldn’t be able to even speak about guns it’s you folks! You guys let politicians rape you year after year after year! Wake the F up! I say this not to attack people but damn! when are you guys going to stand your ground! How the F does Dianne Feinstein keep getting reelected!!!!!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  28. Well said Todd, once again.

    By Chuck Haggard on Sep 20, 2013

  29. It was the constant and relentless pressure of the “moms demand” group of nut-jobs fueled with emotional fiction that caused this….. not the open carry guys…

    know thy enemy ….. its not the people that open carry………….

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  30. Ugh!
    A gun on the hip or over the shoulder is a show of force. Just like sending aircraft carrier groups into a specific ocean is also a show of force, whether or not jets bomb or not. Military and cops show guns to let everyone know the have the means and willingness to use them if necessary.
    I’m all for an armed citizenry. And when necessary, a display of that armament.
    But let’s not play BS games. Concealed carry doesn’t make you any LESS armed than open carry. And I have yet to see any reason for the average citizen to display a weapon in full public view without a clear and present danger. I believe the first and second rule of “Fight Club” should be applied to carried firearms. For obvious reasons!
    So cut the crap. Be intelligent and reasonable. And practice some of the “Golden Rule”. If you don’t anyone brandishing weapons at your place, don’t do it at theirs.

    By Mike W. on Sep 20, 2013

  31. Jason — “Know they enemy.”

    I do, thank you. My enemy is anyone who screws up my rights. The liberal anti-gunner who wants to destroy my rights is my enemy. So is the radicalized open carry extremist who is more interested in “making a statement” by showing off his AK47 at Starbucks than powering up one brain cell to consider what the real world impact of his actions might be.

    It was the OC people who planted a flag and declared Starbucks their territory. That an anti-gun group formed and protested shouldn’t surprise anyone. My wife made the point tonight that if she — as a gun owner and shooter — walked into a Starbucks and saw a bunch of strangers carrying rifles, *she* would turn around and leave.

    You can tell yourselves whatever you want. In my view, you’re doing nothing but giving the entire RKBA movement a bad image.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  32. Mike…. in the middle of summer when you have your LCP hidden in your pocket and I have my G23 on my side………. explain how CC don’t make you any LESS armed…….next

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  33. Only person to blame for you losing your rights is yourself by sitting back and begging for them! Free men don’t ask permission! Grow a back bone!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  34. Jason — Perhaps you should read at least a few things here before jumping to conclusions. While you were wearing your G23 on your side, I was carrying an HK45 or G17 or M&P9 of full size 1911 concealed, all year round, all around the country, in all kinds of weather.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree if you think the average reader here EDCs a pocket pistol.

    Justin — I don’t know if you’re a very excitable 17 year old or a troll, but either way, you’re not impressing anyone with your silliness.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  35. I thought I was coming to a 2a page but it did not take long to figure out I was mistaken. Wow! Im amazed more and more how weak supposed 2a people are. Being told what they can and cant do and worried about hurting the libs (many claim to be 2a) feelings. This group here knows nothing about liberty and freedom. Since win to free men ask permission? If you do not want to open carry that is your business. But as for me and my house… we will. And you have no right to tell me I cannot. I could care less what Starbucks does. They are a private business and can do what they want. That is the beauty of freedom and liberty. I suggest you take your whining to msnbc because that is where you belong. As for true patriots and those that will not relinquish their liberty… Carry on!

    By Open Carry Preacher on Sep 20, 2013

  36. Well your certainly didn’t have much of a response so you must agree that you cowering down waiting for your master to grant you your rights isn’t working.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  37. Amen open carry preacher!!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  38. Todd who planted a flag?…. the MDA group started boycotting Starbucks and in response the “gun” crowd (nationally) came to fill in the blanks……… your emotional fiction RANT shows your ignorance of the truth of the matter.

    BTW… the pic with the guy packing the .58cal black powder… that was in Austin TX at a pro-gun rally @ the capital. Last Friday. They went down to SB and had 1-2 pissy ass comments about it and about 30 in support from the people there… (fyi)

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  39. Jason, I am at about 1.7 sec from concealment on 3×5 card at 21 feet with HK P30, all record-hot summer long, and without putting myself on every criminal’s shoot me first list. Next.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  40. AND it don’t matter what you CC….. the OC of a AK or AR trumps them all in effectiveness…. How in the heck could someone that is all about “effectiveness” forget the basic rule…. “a handgun is just a means to get to your rifle”

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  41. Your logic is stupid in a society where everyone is armed YK!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  42. most of our group also cc’s to …. for backup

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  43. Jason — It’s not a chicken & egg problem. Let’s agree that Starbucks is unhappy with BOTH the OC groups and Moms groups for turning their stores into a political battleground. The difference is that the Moms weren’t scaring people away, and the national media isn’t reporting that the Moms were told to stop coming to the store… No, Starbucks’ response was to tell ALL of us to stop bringing guns onto their property.

    Rather than assume that we’re all just cowards who don’t really believe in the Second Amendment, perhaps the more radical OC crowd needs to shut up and listen for a second. There are a lot of us who work hard, put our money where our mouths are, and vote religiously on the RKBA issue. And *WE* are saying the in-your-face OC actions are bad. When both the pro- and anti-gun folks all agree you’re a problem, how hard is it to re-examine your stance and consider that maybe, just maybe, you’re not having the positive effect you want to have?

    The fact that folks are coming on here and attacking me & the regular readers as being wimps, liberals, etc. is just proof of how fractured you are from the mainstream RKBA movement.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  44. Mr. YK makes the same ol’ blah blah blah… it makes you a target if you OC bunch of cow dung non-factual, emotionally weak, non-factual statement. Ummm… yeah…there are only like 7 states or so that don’t have OC. HUH? And the OCers are still alive? Oh wait… who cares about facts

    By Open Carry Preacher on Sep 20, 2013

  45. for the record… all the pic’s that you “acquire” from the internet of guys posing for a photograph…. are just that… posing…. no one walks around OC in “the ready” position…. no one in our group anyways. I hope that your emotionally fiction filled cup is not to full for me to add some truth and fact into it….

    We ( the OC supporters) are NOT the gun rights enemy’s… Freedom gives YOU the right to choose to CC and US the right to OC (or CC if we please)

    how would you feel if I said you can take the first amendment protected right that allows you to rant on and make a post like this original one…. and conceal it cause I don’t want to hear it………..

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  46. moms was holding protests outside telling folks not to enter because someone with a CC gun may be in there…fact

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  47. ToddG you guys aren’t a movement you are stagnant that is the reason we have lost so many rights already! We are not going to sit back and wait for our rights to be granted to US when we believe we were born with them! Your way of doing things has only gone in the direction that we don’t want to go we have history to show the proof of that! We believe in educating the public and in showing people that we are nothing to be afraid of! We are not ashamed to be gun owners and we refuse to act like we are!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  48. How in the heck is exercising a right a “in your face” statement?

    again… emotional fiction

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  49. Jason — If you’re not one of the idiots who was posing for cameras and bringing long guns to Starbucks, then my original post isn’t directed at you to begin with, is it?

    Nowhere did I say OC should be outlawed. Nowhere in this discussion have I said people shouldn’t OC. What I’ve said, and what I maintain, is that when the manner in which alleged “gun rights activists” present themselves to the general public raises more alarm than awareness, they’ve hurt the RKBA movement.

    How you carry your gun doesn’t matter one whit to me.

    Justin — If your contention was true, gun laws would be on the rise. Instead in the past few years we’ve had Heller and McDonald, plus the utter failure of new gun control measures to make it even to the floor of Congress for a vote. Concealed carry continues to grow to more states. I’d say that’s progress.

    As usual, it’s the ones who think they’re the only “True Believers” who tend to be the radical extremists who screw things up for the rest of us.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  50. As usual, it’s the ones who think they’re the only “True Believers” who tend to be the radical extremists who screw things up for the rest of us.

    If hat statement is true give me omen example ToddG!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  51. Justin — One example? How about… Starbucks, September 2013.

    Thank you for playing.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  52. Wow we went from a nation that was born on guns to finally being able to CC in some states with daddy’s permission. That’s your idea of progress? You do understand that gun owners make up more than half the population don’t you? If we could stop having these stupid arguments about how one should carry we could easily get all of our rights back!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  53. Todd as a founding member and VP of Open Carry Texas don’t worry… I have plenty of pics of me floating around…

    Do you not understand rights or freedoms???? You think you are a freeman hiding your gun with a state mandated “license” that “allows” you to be sneaky???? While I can OC my AR without any such restrictions??

    listen to the whine ass comments about “US” claiming to starting a stir?… You mean standing up for our rights? We do not create problems… someone else dose and we deal with it and stand up for ourselves instead of sneaking around like a common criminal….

    my real name is here along with my real email… if you choose to shoot me a email about this fell free to…

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  54. *feel

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  55. I don’t recall any OC group calling for boycotts and harassing customers about buying their coffee there because they allow gun owners inside! No you can thank MDA for that.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  56. ToddG, can I ask? How are you supporting 2A rights? I mean what are you doing different that goes against the continued crackdown on guns? Do you cc? Those are rights you should have without the govt granting them to you. You allow the govt to tell you what is and what isn’t allowed. I thought our forefathers said, shall not be infringed

    By dan on Sep 20, 2013

  57. Id prefer we discuss how to deal with the real enemy of our born rights…. instead of bitching about your or my opinion on how to exercise em

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  58. You’re alive ’cause nobody gives a damn about you. You’re free source of a gun to any determined criminal if he decided to take it away from you. Have some integrity and admit it has happened.

    Jason, I am not well versed in OC: you guys carry your long guns in ready position, stock shouldered, ready to roll, or slung on your back? ’cause I am pretty sure that in latter case you won’t have enough time to get to your AK if you’re reacting to an attack. Or you gonna draw your 23, then transition to AK, and then to Ma-Deuce?

    Justin, would you write something else that has word “logic” in it?

    Seriously, OC dudes, since you fight for our rights, I would appreciate if you took your fight to your enemy, so to speak, and did some OC at enemy strongholds like NYC or Chicago. That would solve my problems quick.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  59. YK I pac mine on a single point sling…sometimes I switch around some…. usually we are at “events” with 10-50 other OC folks around… so the feared “attack” is … well slim

    I keep a sig938 at about 4:30-5 oclock just in case

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  60. Once again YK your logic doesn’t make sense when everyone is armed. Are you going to rob a place that everyone inside is armed in? I think not and If you don’t see the logic in this than I can’t help you.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  61. Time #312: No one is saying OC should be illegal. Further whining about that will be ignored. Find another website to tilt at windmills and straw men, gentlemen.

    YVK: Seriously, OC dudes, since you fight for our rights, I would appreciate if you took your fight to your enemy, so to speak, and did some OC at enemy strongholds like NYC or Chicago.

    I expressed mirth audibly.

    It is sort of funny that all these guys claiming to be fighting the fight, proud of their rights, not needing the government to approve what they do… only OC where it’s legal to do so. 8-)

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  62. YK….no one has even came close to taking a weapon from any of our guys…. but hey with 3500 members statewide and 3-4 events every weekend we really do not have too much exposure

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  63. Jason, you make a bold , and inaccurate assumption about what I carry and when I carry it. And while I may live in Oklahoma (where the summer heat is brutal), you’re not doing your side any favors by reducing this discussion to a caliber war. It misses the point. Which is people respond accordingly to that which they are presented.
    In short, that means if you’re going to act like a dick, people are going to treat you like one and you don’t get to complain about it. Because you started it.

    By Mike W. on Sep 20, 2013

  64. Well just sit back and wait for your rights to come back let me know how that works out for you guys. We’ll do what we think is right and you do what you think is right.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  65. Dan, with rights come responsibilities. “Can do” is not the same as “should do”.
    You’re not defending a stronghold of a freedom if you’re displaying a firearm for a sole purpose of displaying one in a place where firearm doesn’t have a use.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  66. Todd, you condoning illegally carrying weapons?

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  67. Jason… the sheep have drank the kool-aid to long brother… no sense in trying to speak to truths and facts. They operate under permission we operate under liberty. That is their choice to make and ours to make as well. Time will show us to be right. History proves us over and over… but again… who cares about facts.

    By Open Carry Preacher on Sep 20, 2013

  68. Typical liberal response YK! Joe Biden couldn’t of said it better himself!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  69. where are you all from anyways? California? YK?… Todd??

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  70. They sound like Piers Morgan.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  71. Justin, where is that place where everyone is armed?

    My rights will slip away only after each and every independent voter who is ignorant of guns will vote blue. So when you OC guys go armed to coffee houses or malls, ask yourselves which way you’re pushing or pulling those voters.

    Jason, I wasn’t talking the group parades, I was talking about when you are all by yourself.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  72. I can assure you YK whether or not my weapon is visible it functions and serves purpose.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  73. Jason — I think each of us needs to make decisions about how, where, and when to carry. Legality is one factor.

    But when some folks trumpet their moral RKBA purity, I think it’s legitimate to ask just how legal open carry is “liberty” but legal concealed carry is “permission,” to borrow OpenCarryPreacher’s words. It’s not. It’s just a bunch of guys who want to pretend they’re edgy when they’re hiding behind the same laws they criticize the CC folks for using.

    If someone wants to prove he believes his natural right to carry transcends law, he needs to demonstrate it somewhere that he isn’t protected by state law. Simple as that. Otherwise, it’s all just back patting holier than thou silliness.

    That brings us right back to the broader public perception and impact. If a legal CCW’er draws no attention to himself while the legal OC’er draws negative attention that results in things like what Starbucks just did, only an idiot would pretend the OC guys are the ones who are pushing the goal posts forward in the RKBA movement.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  74. So hiding your guns and being secretive is some how keeping that from happening?? You guys have no clue how fast this is growing in Texas and the amount of support we get from people.

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  75. Let me ask you guys, when is it that you say, enough is enough? When DHS had you at gunpoint?

    By dan on Sep 20, 2013

  76. YK …if I OC solo usually I am in less populated areas… we preach not to do solo walks in populated areas because of the chance of a attack. … but when solo I carry it in many configurations depending on platform and surroundings. usually on a single point in front or side.

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  77. Dan I have been
    at gunpoint by DHS

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  78. Idiots, add the author stated. The idiot is the one that the govt tramples all your rights while you say back and watched it happen

    By dan on Sep 20, 2013

  79. some of our guys were also the other day…..http://www.infowars.com/dhs-detains-oathkeepers-heading-to-gun-rally/

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  80. Dan I was at gunpoint because DHS was illegally detaining me and demanding I ID to them….. that’s a fight you would never understand because you would of shivered down and complied to your master..

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  81. Best way to educate public and remove negative stigma from guns is to introduce them to guns! I have had zero issues while open carrying and I have answered lots of questions to people who just didn’t know what the laws are. Some of our members have gone to jail so to say we aren’t taking a risk is not true because not all cops know that we are well within our rights! No one is scared of us when we carry only curious and our group only grows every event! So we have lots of evidence to support what we are doing is making people less scared of law abiding citizens with guns! As far as MDA they hate us I can’t help that and guess what they hate you too. We will continue to educate people about the laws and making people less afraid!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  82. u say Idiot … I say patriot

    I say sheep… you say law abiding citizen

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  83. Justin — Best way to educate public and remove negative stigma from guns is to introduce them to guns!

    That’s as stupid as the gay rights movement saying the best way to introduce the public to homosexuality is to have gay sex in public, or NAMBLA saying they should have a big public child molestation parade.

    You don’t get to decide how other people respond to what you do, and the Starbucks incident is a pretty clear example that the net effect is negative.

    Jason — I say sheep… you say law abiding citizen

    So if I don’t go beyond what’s legal and that makes me a sheep, what illegal actions do you advocate? Which ones have you personally engaged in? If you really are a patriot who isn’t bound by illegal restrictions on the RKBA, go to NYC or Chicago and open carry there for a few days. If you’re not willing to do that, you’ll have to admit that you’re no more willing to stand up for yourself than I am.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  84. Todd it is legal for us to OC our rifles in TX.

    If it makes you feel better……we were told by San Antonio Chief that We would not be allowed to open carry in SA…….so we got this event coming …

    https://www.facebook.com/events/159181827620253/

    talk some more chit…..

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  85. Jason — Under Texas law, are you allowed to open carry your rifles in San Antonio?

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  86. People have a choice ToddG when people see that we are just ordinary Joe’s just like them they come up and ask question’s no one force’s them to. Is you hiding in your room polishing your guns doing anything at all to remove the stigma?

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  87. a little more history about “US” fighting for rights:

    http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/mccallen-texas-call-to-action/

    http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/ft-worth-pd-willing-to-violate-your-right-to-carry/

    http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/the-elephant-in-the-room/

    http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/statement-on-starbucks-ceo-comments-regarding-guns/

    that should get you started understanding….

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  88. Justin — Is you hiding in your room polishing your guns…

    You are so talking to the wrong guy.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  89. Yes we are Todd… but the chief of police and the City Council don’t think Texas law applies in SA…

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  90. Justin — Best way to educate public and remove negative stigma from guns is to introduce them to guns!

    That’s as stupid as the gay rights movement saying the best way to introduce the public to homosexuality is to have gay sex in public, or NAMBLA saying they should have a big public child molestation parade

    Am I???

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  91. Todd the Chief of Police in Ft. worth thought the TX law didn’t apply there either….we got that fixed real quick already

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  92. Jason — Then basically what you’re doing in your big show of patriotism and non-sheepishness is… relying on state law to grant you permission to do what you want to do. So sorry, no, that’s not any different than what I do when I carry concealed on my permit.

    Again: unless you do something illegal, you’re obeying the law just like the rest of us and you’re no more patriotic for it.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  93. We are gaining support to change the laws! ToddG it takes more than one tough guy writing a BS article while hiding in his room polishing his gun to change laws! We are gaining speed and numbers and we will change the laws in Texas so that we can carry however we please without paying a tax and asking permission to do so!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  94. And remember we aren’t the ones who started attacking people on the right side of this you were!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  95. the state law dose not grant us any permission to OC long guns…… they are unregulated unlike handgun and unlike licensed ccw handguns…..

    still you have emotional fiction… your a tough one to break

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  96. We have members running for several political positions and we apply lots of pressure to our representatives we currently have! We understand how this works and we are organized!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  97. Our LGs are un-regulated in TX… we are riding on our born rights protected under the 2A bro

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  98. Give up Todd. You’re arguing with the very same feces-throwing monkeys that caused this mess to begin with. They’re never going to see your point. They’ll just keep pissing all over everything and mucking it up for the rest of us.

    Starbucks wanted to be left out of the agenda pushing jackassery. They were happy to leave people alone until OC activist assholes refused to leave them alone. They took a libertarian approach of live and let live. But the OC activists made them an unwilling soapbox. Pro-gunners did this. Fact.

    By T. on Sep 20, 2013

  99. Jason — If there is no law against it, then there is no law against it. Pretending that amounts to “fighting the power” is the real emotional fiction here.

    It’s 3am for me and I’m going to sleep. You guys talk amongst yourselves.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  100. Justin, read what Todd wrote carefully, and hold your desire to type a response for a few minutes.

    The best way to introduce anything to anybody and remove stigma is to induce a curious and positive response. You have to be very accurate in assessing your impact. Last year an OC went into local mall carrying AR. I never engaged anybody into discussion, only listened what people said – gym, work, stores. 100% negative, in a state that’s I believe is considered more gun friendly than Texas.
    So next time you do your rally, count not the people who come and ask, but those who briskly walk away.

    Jason, I find it illuminating that you preach against solo OC because of chance of attack, in your words.Seems like an admission that OC is not that great idea from “tactical” standpoint?

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  101. YK don’t put words in my mouth…… not every member holds training needed to deal with a attack. so as a disclaimer we suggest everybody go in groups…. durrr

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  102. BTW, Justin,all that political impact you’re planning to impart…
    I’ve heard projections of Texas turning blue in 10 years. Maybe you want to take a look on bigger picture with your political ambitions and see where OC fits in?

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  103. What curious and positive responses have you induced YK? And I have yet to witness anyone briskly walking away from us. Do we get a few dirty looks sure we do but for every dirty look we get 10 people asking us positive questions. Fact!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  104. I am out too….. email me if u want

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  105. So let me see if I got this right;
    If you are one of those people who are so proud that they can hit their target at 50ft with a handgun while standing in a peaceful set up like a gun range but have never been in a gun fight and are too scared to open carry, then you are a true 2nd A supporter?

    By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  106. I just wanted to throw my two cents in. With all this talk about “moms groups” putting pressure on the corporations. Don’t forget there are a large group of us moms (and growing faster by the day) that now carry concealed. The corporations (and maybe some men) better start thinking about our voices, and our numbers making a difference on their bottom line. Not all moms are against guns and we like (or did) Starbucks. I guess I’ll have more money to spend at the range these days.

    By cheryl on Sep 20, 2013

  107. oh sorry, I forgot to say. I have been following the OC movement in Texas and think its great. I haven’t personally made it out to help, but hope to someday. Last weekend I had a sheriff give me a hard time for legally carrying concealed. He only knew I was carrying because he requested my id and discovered my permit and then questioned “why would I carry”. It really put me off. Hopefully if the law was changed in Texas to give the choice and the police were better educated about the laws to enforce, this would all work better.

    By cheryl on Sep 20, 2013

  108. Ever hear the phrase, “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar”? Aggressively OC’ing long guns into Starbucks freaks out the sheeple. It doesn’t normalize guns, it makes them seem even more fringe to those folks. It makes them more likely to vote for politicians who say they’re going to do something about all these pesky gun nuts. I’ve had far more luck calmly explaining my reasons for carrying a gun in a one-on-one, friendly setting. I portray myself as the pleasant, reasonable fellow I am, and it changes peoples’ minds. The average person gets their initial attitude towards gun owners from the media, so they’re already inclined to think we’re nuts. Waltzing into a Starbucks with a third-tier AR that’s been dragged through a Cheaper Than Dirt catalog’s bargain bin is not going to help that.

    If we want to retain our current rights, much less reclaim our lost ones, we have to do it the same way we lost them: gradually, in the court of public opinion. The antigunners lost their momentum in ’94 because they overreached, and the public at large saw them as extremists for the first time. If we want to avoid the same fate, we need to avoid the same mistakes. We have to dominate the mainstream, and slowly shift the mainstream to our side, until the mainstream IS us. Sitting around whining about slaves and jackboots isn’t going to do that. Taking someone out to the range and showing them just how much fun it is to shoot an AR will.

    By LHS on Sep 20, 2013

  109. LHS…. Sorry you wasted all that time typing all that out…. Considering it’s mostly false..

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  110. “oh, I’m all for the 2nd Amendment… so long as you don’t exercise it in public.” what a bunch of 50%’ers. Open Carriers are NOT your enemy. We are just working towards more Constitutional Carry Laws; any weapon, any where, any time, carried in any fashion. If you were FOR the 2nd Amendment, you would understand that that’s what it is all about.

    < – – will not apologize for being an Open Carry advocate. see me Sunday, on Seawall, Galveston Island, Texas. I'll be the guy carrying the camouflaged M-4.

    By Shawn on Sep 20, 2013

  111. No, we’re not 50%ers…we just carry smart. We don’t walk into businesses and throw our nuts on the counter and say “It’s my right!” Starbucks just laid the foundation for other businesses to snub us because of y’all. Coming soon to a business near you…all because of OC. Yea, thanks for asserting ‘your rights’ and proving that you’re an idiot.

    By KeeFus on Sep 20, 2013

  112. These guys aren’t worth it Jason/Terry they aren’t any better than the Government in my opinion that we’re fighting. They think their opinion is the correct one and anyone else is just wrong and nothing you can do will change that. Don’t even waste your breath any further, THEY AREN’T WORTH IT!

    By Scott Liberty on Sep 20, 2013

  113. A question for you long gun OCers: do you seriously carry a long gun, as in a shotgun, AR, AK et al with you all the time? As in when you go to work? Do you tote your long guns into Federally prohibited locations such as the Post Office? Did you tote your gun with you when you went to your last job interview?

    By Joe in PNG on Sep 20, 2013

  114. The people who are complaining that the OC crowd’s actions lost them the ability to open carry in CA or in Starbucks make no sense. Ok, something’s either allowed or its not. If its only allowed because nobody ever actually does it, then it was really never allowed to begin with. That’s like telling your child that “you’re allowed to eat cookies” but then when he starts eating cookies you tell him “because you were eating cookies, it’s not allowed anymore. You ruined it.” So apparently he was never allowed to eat cookies in the first place.

    And I think that is what this is all about. If it is the law, if we can do it, then we should be able to exercise that right. If by doing it, we lose the right, then we never really had it to begin with. So the laws are being tested right now. The final outcome has yet to be determined.

    By David Murray on Sep 20, 2013

  115. Joe, you are kidding right?
    No, we don’t OC 24/7. Do you cc at work? Do you cc at the post office? Did you cc at your last job interview?
    I am sure you meant something by your questions, just not sure what. Where you trying to be funny? Was there a point you where trying to make?

    By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  116. A question for you Joe in PNG. Is your opinion the only one that matters? Whatever you say is right and anyone else is WRONG :)

    By Scott Liberty on Sep 20, 2013

  117. “any weapon, any where, any time, carried in any fashion”

    How in the world can a sane person justify that as appropriate, much less safe??

    Guns are not talismans whose mere visibility wards off danger. Neither are they fashion accessories to show off in public. Firearms are potentially lethal tools that require safe and responsible handling, especially in a public setting.

    Open carry certainly has a place but I believe that unless you are carrying as part of your job (and easily identifiable as such), urban environments and crowded public places are simply not the place for it.

    I swear, is it going to take some mentally unstable wackadoodle stripping a gun from an open carrier and shooting up a crowd of people for the zealots to apply some common sense?? It is not like the majority of the advocates carry in security holsters and such… and don’t get me started on the lunacy of long guns in public!

    Ugh, this is so exasperating.

    By Tim on Sep 20, 2013

  118. Reading through the comments I see that yet again if you don’t absolutely worship the idea of somebody showing up anywhere at any time with an AK (that they’re probably exhibiting poor muzzle control with while carrying) then **YOU** are the enemy of freedom and are no different than the gun banners.

    Even if you aren’t trying to ban anything. Or have worked for gun rights for years. Or have taught lots of non-LE ordinary joes how to better use their weapons for self defense. Or have contributed significant money to help protect gun rights. Or have spent time in legislatures and knocking on doors to get out votes and promote important reforms like shall-issue concealed carry.

    Even if you’ve done all that, you’re no better than a gun banner if you think some dude should have the common courtesy to avoid flopping around an AK in the coffee shop.

    The internet is awesome.

    By TCinVA on Sep 20, 2013

  119. Todd – we’re giving the 2nd Amendment movement a black eye? Tell me please – what exactly have YOU done for the 2nd Amendment, aside from sitting on your lazy ass or hiding in your basement with your guns? We are actually the front line against all of these gun control measures that crop up every time a criminal takes four or more lives. You left out the ultimate goal of this open carry movement. That is, to enact some legislation that would give Texans the choice to openly carry their handguns or to conceal. This has NOTHING… ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with toting AR15s in public. In fact, our toting of AR15s in public only exacerbates the ridiculous notion that it’s perfectly legal to do so, yet if you see my handgun, I become some sort of criminal. It makes no sense to conceal it. You sheep in the CHL training classes have been conditioned to brainwash your customers into believing you have some sort of tactical advantage by concealing. Well, in my book, you’re just a cold-blooded douchebag, who wants the element of surprise whilst you murder another human. Kiss my ass. I will (eventually) show my handgun, holstered appropriately of course, so every criminal in the vicinity knows I am not their victim today. Again, those of you who think that by showing my handgun I make myself the first target are brainwashed morons. Wake up.

    By Chris Donawho on Sep 20, 2013

  120. TCinVA, I’m glad you agree with us…. that openly toting around an AK or AR is ridiculous. I, too, grow tired of slinging a rifle to make a point. The goal, which Todd left out, is to enact legislation so we can openly carry our handguns. No one in the OC movement prefers to walk around with their rifle. No one. Take the C out of CHL and I will gladly leave my AR behind. Until then, I will defend myself the only legal means Texas allows. CHL? I don’t need a permit to defend myself. It is my right, not a privilege.

    By Chris Donawho on Sep 20, 2013

  121. Todd, You can’t argue with a fool. If they don’t understand that poking the bear is bad, even if you give yourself the right to do it, and is just going to get you eaten alive!
    I’m happy your surgery went well.

    By Franky2shoes on Sep 20, 2013

  122. My only open carry experiences were during my career as a soldier and during my second career as a police officer. However, I support the “right” of people to exercise their rights. If you don’t use a right then you might as well not have it. The problem isn’t the OC crowd. The problems are the strong anti-gun groups who loudly denigrate guns at every opportunity and the thin blooded wimps who advocate hiding from them on the grounds that offending them may lead to more restrictive gun laws. This second group, which includes the author of this piece and all of his PC friends, are the same ones who think that every kids deserves a trophy for just participating in an event. Sheesh!
    “If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” ~ Samuel Adams

    By Ken Cleghorn on Sep 20, 2013

  123. You’re welcome. Thanks to you guys, we now know never to stand up for our rights, or exercise them in any way, ever. Because then we’ll lose them.

    You say open carry “zealots” are making things worse by getting a rise out of ultra leftist companies like Starbucks. That we’re agitating scared soccer moms into taking action against us that will bring about tyranny.

    Well news flash, the difference between us and yall is that we acknowledge something that you don’t. “We’re already there.” We’re not willing to go any further down the road that you are apparently comfortable with. You can go ahead and shift with the declining culture. We won’t. And when your government issued “privelege” of concealed carry is eventually taken away, you can shrug and say, oh well, at least we tried. We won’t.

    By Patrick C. on Sep 20, 2013

  124. You OC guys need to take your militant B.S. back to redditt or wherever you came from. Isn’t there a cop you need to try and bait into arresting you somewhere?

    By OC Failure on Sep 20, 2013

  125. “Guns are not talismans whose mere visibility wards off danger.”

    Tim – you’ve been conditioned to think that way. When you look at the basic facts, such as criminals prefer soft (unarmed) targets, then yes, the mere visible presence of your sidearm will deter the common criminal from carrying out his intended robbery. Chicago is proof-positive that criminals seek out soft targets. I prefer not to be a target at all. The so-called “tactical” advantage of CC only brings you closer to the fight. It is my preference that the fight never occur to begin with.

    I’ve had this CC vs OC argument with several CHL instructors. After a civil discussion, most CHL instructors agree with my statements, one by one, but still somehow revert back to the “tactical” advantage. How can these people agree with my statements and then revert back to “CC is the way” to go? The only plausible answer to that is they are conditioned to believe the hype that CC carries a tactical advantage. In my eyes, CC invites a tactical firefight in the streets. CC allows the holder to think or truly believe he is the one with the upper hand.

    This is why two CHLs had a firefight over a road rage incident and both ended up dead. They each thought they had the upper hand. Had they both been openly armed, they both may have thought better of their next actions.

    Speaking of CHL folks, such as yourselves, exactly how are you representing 2A rights when you are gunning each other down. All we did was drink some coffee. You guys kill each other. Of course I dont rant about you guys killing each other because I am smart enough to know better. It would be nice if you guys would reciprocate and engage a few brain cells too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html

    By Chris Donawho on Sep 20, 2013

  126. Very disappointed in my fellow gun owners. I don’t OC or CC, but I’d like to carry however I desire. It’s true, free men shouldn’t need to ask permission from the government and pay a tax to do so. I look at it this way, we should all be on the same side and not bashing each other. I find it sad that some are willing to just live with the crumbs that the government allows them to have. It should be the other way around.

    By Donny on Sep 20, 2013

  127. Todd Green clearly hates ‘Murica. Anyone who brings up blowback does.

    By John on Sep 20, 2013

  128. I see alot of argument stating well if a criminal sees you carrying you’ll be the first target. Psychologically that makes no sense, unless the person is a total sociopath. Most robbers use a gun because it is quick to itmidate a victim. When a a gun carrier pulls out his/her weapon how often does the “robber” hang around? They don’t, the easy target now became complicated. These people are lazy!! That is why they are robbing stores. They are too LAZY to do the work to get a JOB. They go the path of least resistance. Now do I want to pack a AR on my back in a store? No, but what makes no sense to me is I CAN but I have to hide my .45. How much sense does that make? If the site of a gun scares people of a country that has been at war for almost 20yrs on and off. The people of this country have their heads in the sand. Guns are part of our culture. We train our kids everyday with guns. The top selling games have someone blowing away another person with a gun. Make up your mind America!

    By SavageMind on Sep 20, 2013

  129. This new policy will absolutely not change how I behave in Starbucks or anywhere else – i.e. politely, quietly, and unnoticed. In a non-offensive environment, CC is more tactically sound than OC almost always. I think Jason said it best:

    “YK …if I OC solo usually I am in less populated areas… we preach not to do solo walks in populated areas because of the chance of a attack. … but when solo I carry it in many configurations depending on platform and surroundings. usually on a single point in front or side.”

    Since most of us on this site train and carry to protect self, family, and society, folks in this OC “movement” are disregarded because they compromise tactical advantage by transforming their self-defense tool into a billboard. Furthermore, they compromise the tactical advantage of the rest of the firearm-owning population by being misbehaved and generally goofy with these tools:

    1) Guns out of holsters and in public without immediate threat to self or others:
    http://b-i.forbesimg.com/clareoconnor/files/2013/08/1014189_602901839732697_1599059858_n-2.jpg

    2) AR with no sling, optic, and likely no ammo (see mag in incorrect pocket):
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks/

    3) Fashionable threaded barrel and pink trigger, and likely no suppressor:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-2/

    4) Again, unholstered firearm in public without immediate threat:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-7/

    5) Is that a Fobus holster? Probably not serious about equipment to defend himself, but serious enough of an OCer to go to the “rally”:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-8/

    6) Sorry, Todd, but I’m pretty sure this 1911 is all “fun” and no “run”:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-10/

    7) Why is this pointed at his genitals? Oh, for a “appreciation day” photo shoot:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-11/

    8) AR-15, Mod everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, which was “popular” ten years ago:
    http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlf45meek/gun-lovers-take-to-starbucks-14/

    9) Suit and musket? Jesus Christ:
    http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/oc-idiots-at-starbucks.jpg

    10) Borat with an unslung shotgun in a fucking restaurant:
    http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/shotgunatstarbucks.jpg

    This is why we at pistol-training.com do not buy into this idiocy. Defense of you and yours is serious. This topic is not a joke. The OC Movement hurts the cause when you smile like a fool for a photo with an unholstered or unslung WEAPON in PUBLIC. It hurts the cause when you rant about the 2A but couldn’t hit the broad side of the NRA HQ with your Fobus-clad Glock with a pink trigger. It hurts the cause when you purposely look for altercations with LE instead of going to your job during the day to earn a living for your family, like the rest of your fellow Americans.

    Get over yourselves and smell the roses. As mentioned ad nauseam, firearm ownership is becoming more ubiquitous than ever before, reactionary laws are loosening, and the recent cries by the left have gone rejected. Go with the flow – we are slowly getting the upper hand and it is going unrealized.

    By sys999 on Sep 20, 2013

  130. What is it with some of you Concealed guys, you have your permission slip and you think that your rights are secure? I am sure that many of you are 2nd supporters and you do put your money where your moth is but in the real world you are closer to the anti-gun side than not. Once the Anti-gun guys get rid of OC, then they will ban certain types of rifles the other types of guns untill it comes down to the permitted people then they will come for those too. With the anti-gun agenda it is an all or nothing thing… at some point you too with become their enemy. And having a “permit” to carry is just that PERMISSION…and for you to have a RIGHT , any rights, are not based on permission and can never be removed. Todd you attacked the OC people by calling them idiots, and moronic , you tried to label a whole group with smug and asinine comments and used your forum to cosey up to the anti gun nuts to show how nice you can play well with others. Good for you, maybe they will LEt you keep you gun a few days longer. Thank god the founding fathers did not suck up to the powers that be, other wise soccer might be the national pastime and fish and chips would be more popular than hamburgers. I like many OC people do not feel the need to carry a rifle to wal-mart, but it is making a point, since carrying a pistol is not legal we have to use what is …including black powder guns… the point is not to shock but to make a point and STAY WITH IN THE LAWS THAT NOW ARE ON THE BOOK!! And if you think for one second that you having a permission slip from the government will help you one bit if you ever have the misfortune to shoot someone .. Just remember what happened to Zimmerman and he had a permission slip too!

    By Robert on Sep 20, 2013

  131. “CA used to allow carrying of an UNLOADED PISTOL….” WTF? Why on god’s earth would you carry an UNLOADED FIREARM? I can only think of one reason… Because you want to LOOK COOL. That was the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a LONG time.

    By Ricky on Sep 20, 2013

  132. Awesome of some of you to be internet hardasses all behind your anonymous screen names and whatnot. Hint; the NSA still knows who you are.

    The in your face crap doesn’t work any better with guns than it does for the “WE’RE HERE AND WE’RE QUEER!!!” folks, or the Westboro folks. It pisses people off and alienates them from the very message you are trying to send.
    You can’t change the anti groups’ minds, but you sure can tip the on the fence people the wrong way.

    Some of us have been fighting this fight for decades, I say again decades, and winning. When you are winning then the last thing you should do is step on your dick with golf cleats.

    The level of just plain stupid makes my head hurt.

    By Chuck Haggard on Sep 20, 2013

  133. A few points to address some of what’s been said since last night:

    1 — Again, I am not saying OC should be illegal. The fact that so many of the OC extremists continue to complain to the contrary tells me that, like any extremist, you don’t actually listen to people who disagree with you or want to have a discussion, you just want to chant your catch phrase and pound your heads against the wall.

    2 — Again, the post above wasn’t addressing every person who carries openly. I have plenty of friends and students who live in places where OC is very much the norm. OC itself is not inherently bad and nor are the people who do it. It’s the people who don’t use their heads about when/where/how to carry because they’re too busy thumping their chests that I’m talking about.

    3 — A number of folks have asked what I’ve done for gun rights. Apart from being an NRA employee for a couple of years and an NRA volunteer for many more, working for two major gun companies, and being politically active? I guess my only minor little involvement has been that thing about teaching hundreds of people a year to carry a gun everywhere they go and teaching them how to be effective with a handgun. It’s sort of what I do for a living. Really, you come to a site called pistol-training.com and accuse me of being the kind of person who sits in the basement polishing guns? Unscrew the dunce cap and THINK before you comment.

    4 — All of the people who are Open Carrying in places where Open Carry is legal and pretending they’re somehow “more edgy” or “more patriotic” are being silly. If you follow the law, you’re absolutely no different than me (who carries concealed). In fact, you’re no better than the guy in Illinois who *doesn’t* carry. He doesn’t want to do something illegal, and clearly neither do you. The Boston Tea Party wouldn’t have been of historical note if they’d just run around doing stuff that was perfectly legal. How you can think of yourselves as brave “fight the government” patriots when you’re just humbly obeying the law is beyond me.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  134. In response to this horseshit from YK: “BTW….I’ve heard projections of Texas turning blue in 10 years. Maybe you want to take a look on bigger picture with your political ambitions and see where OC fits in?” Ok YK, it’s not about fitting in. It’s about exercising our rights regardless of whether or not we fit in doing it. If I wanted to fit in I’d play fantasy football and tell people they should wait ’til they don’t have rights anymore before they give a fuck about them.Do I think our government will take my rights away? No, I don’t because I have plenty of guns and ammo for DEFENSIVE action if I become the victim of state-sponsored violent crime. Your rationale is that if registered sex offenders start moving into my neighborhood I should start fucking kids. I will NOT fuck kids, and I will NOT stop OCing.

    By Lois on Sep 20, 2013

  135. What the hell just happened?

    You bitches be cray cray.

    By Tyler on Sep 20, 2013

  136. What’s to be angry about? Gun rights lost? your version of rights haven’t been lost because apparently you would never open carry anyways, and you would never think of carrying in a Starbucks especially, you morally superior intellectual champion of where the second amendment applies and where it doesn’t. Good job creating no gun zones in your own mind before The libtards and government could make them in real life. A right not practiced has already been given up willfully. Good job. YOU lost the “battle” before it even started.

    Did people practicing free speech cause the existence of free speech zones? By your logic, Maybe if no one spoke out we would still have free speech everywhere… But because people practice free speech now we need permits for free speech events and be located in small confined areas far from what were speaking against. If those people never spoke out, we would still have free speech everywhere instead of free speech zones…
    In reality, by Not practicing free speech, the right is lost everywhere.

    By Brian on Sep 20, 2013

  137. You guys keep using gay rights as an example and it’s a bad one giving that they have made tremendous leaps and bounds within their movement. That example just doesn’t makes sense giving I haven’t seen them lose anything only gain!

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  138. Brian — your version of rights haven’t been lost because apparently you would never open carry anyways, and you would never think of carrying in a Starbucks especially, you morally superior intellectual champion of where the second amendment applies and where it doesn’t.

    I have open carried before and will open carry again.

    I have carried in plenty of Starbucks all over the country for years. There’s a Starbucks inside the grocery store half a mile from my house that I’ve been in hundreds of times while carrying.

    You’re being the typical OC Extremist who gives normal people who open carry a bad name. You’re assuming everyone who doesn’t agree with your jihad is the Great Satan.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  139. Totally agree. Even if you had the option to open carry why would you? Concealing and carrying your firearm (as I do everyday) is the biggest tactical advantage you could have on a person that is trying to do harm to you. There is no need to show off your weapon and let people know of it. Keep it hidden and let no one know of its there unless a situation arises where it is required.

    By Jeremy M on Sep 20, 2013

  140. Lois, take reading comprehension classes. My post was pretty clearly about political climate in Texas and where OC promotion should fit in political activism priorities, not fitting OC in society.

    Simple fact is when voters turn Texas blue, it’ll be no different than NYC or Chicago which you all OC guys are continuing to avoid in your never ending “fight”.

    I am amazed how you all, with flood of your posts here, are carefully avoiding any discussion of the event that prompted this post. Let me refresh it for you. A private corp that previously publicly took a pro-2A stance, i.e. people like you and I, not government, have publicly changed their stance to anti-gun partly because of OC action.

    I repeat, regular people changed their stance to anti-gun without any governmental pressure and partly due to OC action.

    Spin it however you want, but this is what happened and I hold you accountable.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  141. ToddG, I am trying to understand your last statement but need clarification.
    You say you have open carried, did you do it in public? Have you open carried at a Starbucks?

    By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  142. Jeff Zumba, is that you?

    By James on Sep 20, 2013

  143. YK, interesting how you KNOW that Texas will turn blue. Do you live here? Got any stock tips?

    I am amazed too, I am amazed that you are so blind to the truth. Those who OC did not change the mind of Starbucks, groups like MDA did. The public’s view becoming anti-gun is due to the media who have to lie about what actually happened so as to turn people to their side.

    You also seem to keep forgetting that to open carry is legal, are you saying we don’t have a right to do something that is legal?

    And as far as CC being “tactically superior” to OC, that is bull. From the day I started the police academy to the last day I was a PMC, the only reason we ever carried concealed was when doing under cover work. Otherwise, sidearm was always out and so was the rifle.

    I would like to ask of the CHL only guys, how much practical experience do you have with guns? And I don’t mean playing at the range, I mean actually in theater, you know, real world experience in using a gun to save a life or to control a situation.

    By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  144. Todd… You dont have to open carry to support open carry. The disappointing thing is seeing so called pro 2nd amendment people get upset for people obeying state and local laws… The 2nd Shall not be infringed, but we even accept a level of infringement don’t we…
    If your pro second, you shouldn’t have a problem with a well mannered law abiding citizen walking into a place of business with his rifle on his back, where legal, to spend his hard earned money…
    Todd maybe you’re the one who scared everyone off with your open carrying… Because apparently you’ve done it so much in so many places.
    If you support the second you support all gun rights because they shall not be infringed. I understand that’s gotten away from us a bit and we have many many laws, but enough is enough. don’t tell me you support gun rights or open carry but don’t support what the OC group is doing. If you don’t support law abiding citizens obeying gun laws what other rights should we give up and what other infringements should we put on the second amendment?

    By Brian on Sep 20, 2013

  145. Brian — You’re missing the point or, as I’m coming to expect from the more extremist wing of the OC crowd, maybe you’re just not interested in anything but your own words.

    I *still* haven’t said OC should be illegal. I’m not talking about whether it should be legal or illegal. Nothing in the original post above talks the legality of open carry. Nothing.

    What the original post is about, and what so many of the extremists refuse to see, is that it was the MANNER, TIME, and PLACE in which you decided to show off your patriotism. OC is no more or less legal than it was a few days ago. But now, in part thanks to these unwanted, uncomfortable, inappropriate “rallies” at Starbucks, you’ve managed to influence a major company to back off its Second Amendment support.

    As YVK said, no matter how much chest beating and flag waving you want to do, the end result is that we’ve been diminished both in terms of places we can all go (OC or CCW) and in terms of the general perception of gun owners in society. Your radicalized jihad is tone-deaf and you make all other gun owners — especially the sane, rational, polite Open Carry guys — look bad.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  146. YK, I Know exactly what you meant and my comment still stands. It’s not about fitting in with anyone else’s idea of what my “political activism priorities” (which will be acted out IN SOCIETY) should be. Not fuckin’ kids. Not gonna stop OC’n.

    By Lois on Sep 20, 2013

  147. RCL, your reading comprehension or attention to written text are lacking too. First, I didnt say TX will turn blue, I said those are the projections, which are based on projections of Hispanic vote in that state.
    I also indicated somewhere up that OC is a right, of course. I also said it carries responsibilities.
    I can go to the nearest corner and say any crap I want to under 1A. It doesnt mean this is a right thing to do or it will help my cause.

    Dont run around the truth, you lose credibility. Starbucks didnt cave into demands making their stores gun free when they were pressured to prohibit CC. The only, one and only, reason MDA were successful to have Starbucks bend over is OC giving MDA all necessary ammunition. Pat yourself on the back, nicely done.

    By YK on Sep 20, 2013

  148. Let’s make sure we can separate OC of long guns from OC of handguns. Any of you anti-OCers out there who would balk at the idea of OCing a handgun should go ahead and turn in your weapons to the local Brady Bunch and start cheering at Obama rallies. You’re no different from them.

    Besides, it was the Brady Bunch and the sissy leftists that cried out for this to happen. I don’t agree with long gun carry, but I don’t berate people for doing it either. Grow up.

    By TimG on Sep 20, 2013

  149. Well said. This article is exactly right.

    By James J. Reeves II on Sep 20, 2013

  150. I followed a link to this site from a liberal site. Nice article, and very interesting feedback.

    Reading the posts from the more sane among you, and snickering a bit at the rabid, I feel compiled to leave a little honest post from “the left” or “the enemy” for many of you. Lunatics attempting to gain respect for gun owners through outlandish stunts is your undoing. I have been tarnished by the antics of the very far left enough to know that the very people you attempt to reach become turned off – and see you and your reasonable argument as the same.

    You want to be seen as normal people, with normal requests, but you are shackled with your extreme. I personally want to see more of them, as I really don’t want any guns anywhere near my family. So to the foolish that think you are winning hearts and minds by you show of gun-toys, keep it up.

    By TBR on Sep 20, 2013

  151. after reading all the comments from today, I have noticed that the core guys from this page have brought up several times about gay-rights.

    Is this connection to gay-rights and CC just localized to this page (and guys) or is it a connection that runs throughout the compleate ccw staunch supporters community ??

    I have seen this brought up 3 times…

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  152. It has begun!

    I never knew that Gavrilo Princip carried a 9mm 1911…..until now that is. ;)

    By john556 on Sep 20, 2013

  153. Well, Jason Oreck, that’s a splendid question!

    How many of y’all hatin’ on these guys are, at the same time, totally supportive of these guys?

    I’ll bet that Venn Diagram looks like a *$#% perfect circle. It’s a good thing irony doesn’t actually burn.

    By Tam on Sep 20, 2013

  154. And Rosa Parks should’ve just stayed in the back of the bus. This is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not a social custom or business policy. Guys like you have rolled over to every step of unconstitutional infringement upon our right to keep and bear arms since the Jim Crow era, to the Sullivan act, NFA 1934, GCA 1968, FOPA 1986, USR 922R in 1989, AWB in 1994 and on and on. All “reasonable’ gun controls, you see, what can it hurt? Fact that they’re ALL clear violations of the second amendment’s absolute verbiage (shall NOT be infringed is as absolute a statement as you will every find in the Constitution) should be the FIRST response to ANY demonstration of our RKBA. It’s called social norming when the left does it (Hegelian dialectic), look into it, it’s how they’ve gotten where they are today, with guys like you sympathizing with them. Grow a pair.

    By NormB on Sep 20, 2013

  155. Norm — Please explain how I rolled over on the 1994 AWB in a way you did not.

    Until you can answer that question, stay off my lawn.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  156. Jason — So you’re saying the OC movement exists because you’re scared carrying concealed will make you gay?

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  157. Well Todd I guess I touched a nerve…you mad bro?

    Honestlly I don’t care what the gays do… That’s their (and apparentlly your) issue to deal with…not mine

    But you never awnsered my question.
    Is the gay rights CCW connection localized to this page or a more widespread connection?

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  158. Jason — You definitely demonstrate the maturity and responsibility of your OC movement with these “you’re gay!” type comments.

    And your desire to touch my nerves is disturbing.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  159. Todd now don’t try to turn it around and backpeddle…

    It was YOUR group that brought up Gay rights in these comments 3 times…. None of MU group even mentioned it untill I just asked if the connection of gay rights and ccw was localized to this page or across the compleate CCW staunch supporter community …..

    I never said you were gay, but it was you that brought it up 3 times so……

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  160. Funny, several hours later, and NONE of my questions have been answered. Try, try again…

    1) Do you OC longguns at work? YES/NO

    2) Do you OC longarms in Federally Prohibited locations such as Post Offices? YES/NO

    3) Do you OC longarms to job interviews, or to first meetings with business clients? YES/NO

    By Joe in PNG on Sep 20, 2013

  161. This is a prime example of how everybody in today’s society think they can do anything they want with “No repercussions”, and then when something does happen and its their fault, they try and push the blame to others. Because to themselves its NEVER their fault. I once had a fairly well known and respected Law Enforcement Trainer say, I now know why I left Northern Virginia, because everybody thinks their somebody important. Nobody has any humility.

    This is also a good example of what happens when amateur’s get together and have no common sense or are only thinking about themselves, this has doing nothing more but make it harder for the folks doing the real heavy lifting.

    Todd thanks for the article. To the folks that disagree, thanks for making it harder for the rest of us

    By Andrew on Sep 20, 2013

  162. Jason,

    You’re supposed to say “No homo!” after touching another guy’s nerve, even if you do say “bro” later in the sentence.

    That’s in the Internets Handbook someplace.

    By Tam on Sep 20, 2013

  163. So here is the point, Jason, though I fear it will fall on the same tone-deaf ears as everything else.

    The gay rights movement, as anyone who actually pays attention to politics knows, started with very outrageous in-your-face public displays. And outside of some small, politically extreme localities it didn’t get them far in terms of achieving the civil rights they felt they were due.

    Then they changed their plan. Instead of men in lipstick and speedos marching through main street, they went mainstream. They started to get their message into the media — not as extremists but as victims. They learned that in order to win they had to educate, and they learned that in order to educate they needed to appear sympathetic rather than radical.

    Carrying AK47s in a shopping mall isn’t mainstream America. It’s downtown Mogadishu. And it’s not something that most Americans want. The rifle-carrying get togethers at Starbucks were the Gay Pride equivalent of putting on a wig, lipstick, and a dress, marching down the street, and being disgusted that there are people who think it’s sending a bad message.

    So you can subtly accuse me of being gay, but I’m pretty explicitly accusing you of being the equivalent of a cross-dresser, I guess.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  164. Joe in PNG

    Yes Sometimes
    No I don’t want to go to jail
    Yes I have… In fact my last job I had them excempt me from the employers no gun policy.

    I know how you are trying to ask leading questions and where you are going with it…. And I chose to humor you with awnsers

    Understand in TX we do not want to OC long guns everywhere we go. We want the choice to be able to OC handguns… But it is not legal to OC handguns because of a outdated 120yr old law that was inacted to prevent freed slaves from carrying handguns in public.

    In the meantime we will be OCin our longguns in a effort to make it very crystal clear that we want The OC bill that got halted this last leg session to go thru. Call it a statewide protest-demonstration-whatever you want…. Bottom line is we want the option to OC handguns and we can’t…. So we will legally OC longguns and normalize the public and LE to OC in the meantime….

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  165. I don’t understand the open carry (OC) fuss. Where I live OC is no different than holding a umbrella. No one is bothered and if there was a boob that became afraid of seeing a gun, then that person is looked at as weirdo. The anti open carry comments sound like the anti-gun or fudds that think balk guns are evil.

    I have noticed where OC is not allowed and only CCW is lawful, cops act like thugs and the people are generally rude.

    By Loren on Sep 20, 2013

  166. Jason — So we will legally OC longguns and normalize the public and LE to OC in the meantime…

    Good Lord, man, don’t you get it?

    Look at what your “normalization” efforts led to at Starbucks! There is the end state. No matter what you want to tell yourself, no matter how many times you lie to yourself, walking around like you’re in a war zone doesn’t make the people around you feel better or safer.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  167. For the record..

    That is the 4th time you have brought up gay rights

    And

    None of our guys has ever OCd a AK (or any other LG) into a shopping mall that I have seen or heard of ( and I Would of seen it)

    So Todd are you gay ? If you don’t mind me asking….. With your orginal post of notifying and whining like a little girl I could see a connection there…… I don’t care either way. how you choose to “pack your heat” is up to you…. pun intended..

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  168. Todd… Is OC legal in your state? Handgun or rifle ??

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  169. Jason — No, I’m not gay. I hope this frees you from the fascination and wonder it’s caused.

    And since you cannot conduct yourself in a polite, on-topic manner, pretend this is Starbucks… as in, you’re no longer welcome here.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  170. (deleted by ToddG… Jason, your inability to respect other people’s rights is showing through… you were told you’re not welcome here)

    By Jason Orsek on Sep 20, 2013

  171. “I know how you are trying to ask leading questions and where you are going with it…. And I chose to humor you with awnsers”

    Jason (and, apparently, the remainder of the OC crowd): it is all too apparent that your logic circuits are busted, but unless your spell checker is busted too please humor us by using it to avoid basic spelling and grammar errors.

    If making cogent arguments in a non-offensive manner is beyond you, you can at least avoid offending our sense of aesthetics.

    By Alex F. on Sep 20, 2013

  172. And then comes homophobia. Bring in a racist or two, and you will have completed the stereotype for the gun-lover crowd.

    Really, I’m telling you, the larger group will always be judged by its most radical fringe.

    By TBR on Sep 20, 2013

  173. Todd wants to put deviant behavior on a them same level with the right from God to protect yourself and family. That is the same kind of tactic used by the mainstream media (CBS,ABC,MSNBC,NBC,ect). The same media that vilified personal responsibility, individual freedom and the guns best designed to protect them.

    The guy holding the shot gun is smiling and holding it in safe manor. Why would anyone be afraid?

    I would rather stand next him. The guys with pistols at the top of the page. They look intimidating, not a fun place to be with guns.

    By Loren on Sep 20, 2013

  174. Dear OC crowd, Why bother to carry a firearm at all when you can simply carry around a recording of a shotgun being racked? Surely this would do just as much to deter a would be criminal as the sight of your XD in a serpa does.

    The bottom line for myself, and I believe many here on PT/PF, is that the criminals who scurry away at the first signs of resistance are not the criminals we are most concerned with. The truth is, many violent criminals are far less easily persuaded and those who are can be made aware of the fact that you are not a soft target through means other than the sight of a holstered firearm. So, in my humble opinion, there are far less detractors to CC than there are to OC.

    2:01 mark sums up my feelings on self defense up rather succinctly: http://youtu.be/-oqAU5VxFWs?t=2m1s

    By john556 on Sep 20, 2013

  175. For the record, I asked about the OC of longarms because I still find it hard to believe that the above folks so adamant about the superiority of an openly carried long arm. Really? That’s the main reason one’s carrying their Bushmaster into Starbucks? Then obviously you must tote a longarm openly during all your daily activities.

    Likewise, for the record, I’m a fan of low restrictions, Vermont & Alaska style “Constitutional Carry”. I would happily tote a S&W Model 27 in a nice holster most everywhere I went…

    But, one still has to mind their MANNERS. Do I really need to explain that concept?

    By Joe in PNG on Sep 20, 2013

  176. I tend to just read the blog and do my commenting elsewhere, but sometimes the stupidity is such that it requires a response. Not to pick anyone in particular, but here are a couple of issues that seem to be repetitive:
    ** You also seem to keep forgetting that to open carry is legal, are you saying we don’t have a right to do something that is legal?**
    Just because you can doesn’t mean it is a good idea if you do. Passing gas in a crowded elevator is legal, but stupid. Wearing your pajamas to class is legal but really doesn’t do much except indicate what a goof you are. Not washing, brushing your teeth, or changing your clothes for a month is legal and you have the right to do so, but it really offends most folks.
    ** I would like to ask of the CHL only guys, how much practical experience do you have with guns? And I don’t mean playing at the range, I mean actually in theater, you know, real world experience in using a gun to save a life or to control a situation.**
    I can’t speak for everyone, but since I know some of the folks commenting against OC I will point out you have a pretty good selection of active and former LEOs, soldiers, firearms trainers and so on. FWIW, I’m a LEO with 20+ years experience and a fair number of serious social encounters under my belt and a number of the guys and gals here make me look like a rookie.

    For all you folks that are challenging the 2nd Amendment chops of folks here you might want to try to get some facts first. That way when you make some of these silly accusations you might be able to avoid looking like a complete idiot. To those in the know it is comparable to you saying Jeff Cooper didn’t know anything about shooting.

    By David Armstrong on Sep 20, 2013

  177. I used to think that the internet was for porn.

    I was wrong.

    It’s for derp.

    By Tam on Sep 20, 2013

  178. When you people get through with your crumbs, can I have the rest cause I didn’t get enough.

    ToddG, you have no room to talk since it was your article that started it all and called people idiots.

    Yeah, that’s polite. The childishness and cowardice I see here is disgusting.

    What I see going on in these comments sounds a lot like talking to the anti gun people and liberals in general. We don’t have to all agree on what’s tactically superior. We should agree that people should be able to carry how we want. In Texas we cannot.

    I’ve seen lots of the pics and videos of people OCing and for the most part have conducted themselves properly, yet you want to attack people who want to do things differently. These people for the most part went to Starbucks with their long guns, because Starbucks’ policy was to follow the law and in Texas you can’t open carry a pistol anywhere outside of your own property. They felt they had a place that respected their rights and wanted to patronize them while also out getting awareness to the fact that we can’t OC a handgun.

    You do realize that because of these people’s efforts that the land commissioner who actually got CC going in Texas is going to speak at the event at the Alamo in October and is pushing for OC to become legal? The OC people are out there educating and because of it, the politicians who support OC should have an easier time getting it passed. Here in Texas for several sessions we have not got an OC bill to get anywhere, well, we’re done trying it the politicians way. We are going to be proactive.

    If people are out OCing and it gets seen and makes the news, it educates that it is legal. Even encounters with the police that are bad helps, because it educates them. Believe it or not there are many that don’t know it is legal. If people get comfortable with seeing the guns then it helps get the bill passed. Will it work on everyone, no of course not, but if you told those types your were CCing, they’d still freak out.

    We should all be on the same side and not worried how those against us look at us, cause they want all our guns. Will some that are on the fence go to their side? Sure, but many will also fall on our side.

    Our founding fathers didn’t get this country where it is today, by playing nice, they laid it all out on the line. Let’s take a look at the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    They basically said if they wanted something done, they’d have to do it themselves.

    I’ve rambled long enough. All I will say is that we should all be on the same side and be able to carry how we want.

    By Donny on Sep 20, 2013

  179. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cYnT6mjSy84&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DcYnT6mjSy84

    By Justin on Sep 20, 2013

  180. “Will some that are on the fence go to their side? Sure, but many will also fall on our side.”

    Oh, so this is a hearts & minds thing?

    Sir, the vast majority of Americans are not going to take the side of the guy in Starbucks with a rifle slung over his shoulder. The fact that almost everyone at a site by the name of pistol-training.com is siding against you is what we a clue.

    By john556 on Sep 20, 2013

  181. *call* a clue

    Apologies for the lazy proofreading.

    By john556 on Sep 20, 2013

  182. Apologies for the lazy proofreading.

    Proofreadin’? ‘Pologies? You must be one o’ them CCW sissies.

    By Tam on Sep 20, 2013

  183. I’m against the practice for a lot of reasons that has been discussed on various forums, so I won’t further belabor it here. I can only hope that those who are pushing for open carry do not cry a single tear when they start getting banned from privately owned businesses. There are many places in rural areas that will not care. It is part of their culture. However; if legalized, plan on many of the current businesses in Texas that have the “no illegal firearms signs” to change those to “no guns”. This will become the new normal in metropolitan areas. I only hope that you will not be upset with them. Currently, Texas is pretty great about private businesses and many public venues not caring about firearms carry if they are concealed. Plan on this changing for a variety of reasons. It was like I told the folks in California who “educated” the public into not only making OC illegal, but they also created an environment that set many other firearms related laws in the wrong direction. CCW in California did not get better. So, if you choose to show everyone your gun, plan on many of them educating you about private property rights. Please leave with a smile and be happy that they are exercising their rights just like you and show the same level of respect that you want.

    By nyeti on Sep 20, 2013

  184. Well…I really just wanted to share the article in question. I can’t believe it turned into a rabid ranting by people who can’t understand the logic that is being presented to them.

    By TElmer2 on Sep 20, 2013

  185. Around where I live, because of yet another open carry Constitutional Scholar; schools will go into immediate lock-down when a person outside the school is walking around. So OC’ers…how’s the quest to educate the public and change public perception going? Maybe it’s time to gather up and come up with a new plan because all you’re doing is failing and making it worse. Now, what’s that definition of insanity again? http://www.katu.com/news/local/Carrying-a-gun-around-schools-didnt-work-out-quite-as-man-hoped-224634911.html

    By Matt on Sep 20, 2013

  186. The Constitution was created to curtail government from infringing upon the rights of the people, which are inherent. The 2nd amendment was created for one reason-to keep at bay or if necessary, put down, a tyrannical government. At present we have a federal gov. pulling out all the stops to curtail our right to bear arms. We have the DHS moving into areas which were in the past, the purview of local law enforcement, this an effort to nationalize the police force. We have the federal gov. arming and training local police, who now look at the citizenry as a population of an occupied country. The NDAA, Patriot Act, NSA, you could probably add more to this list yourself.

    Patrick Henry said, “I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?” These forces aren’t being gathered to fight foreign terrorists. They’re being gathered to fight us.

    So you say Open Carry is inappropriate. We should have a right but be too ashamed to practice it? When IS it appropriate? In light of the above-mentioned events, now IS the most appropriate time to exercise one’s 2nd amendment rights. NOW is the time to make it publicly known that some Americans will stand against, let’s just say it, tyranny. You can be as dismissive as you like, but that is what we’re up against. We are openly exercising our rights, doing anything less would not have the same power or legitimacy.

    When I go on an open carry walk, that is my intent, to show my resolve and to give others hope that they can stand with me. I’ve been on 4 walks thus far. I haven’t witnessed any swagger, no weapons “brandished”, no behavior designed to intimidate. You might be surprised (though you shouldn’t be) at the support we get from businesses and other folks walking or driving around while we’re out. We’re doing a walk in Dallas this Saturday at 10am. Join us.

    By clay davis on Sep 20, 2013

  187. By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  188. Colin lost me in the first sentence with his “coming out of the anti-gun closet” line. Suggesting that Starbucks has been secretly plotting against gun owners is ridiculous especially given their new policy which still falls far, far short of banning guns in their stores and specifically states that the company isn’t taking a public stance on the political issue.

    Also, we’re going to count that “out of the closet” as a comment regarding homosexuality so that’s one more in the Open Carry people’s column. Since we’re apparently keeping track.

    By ToddG on Sep 20, 2013

  189. So Matt, you asked how’s it going with the schools? Actually, it is going great. Here in the state of Texas there are more and more school districts arming their teachers because they know it is the only way to stop a madman with a gun. And yes, some of us involved in the OC movement are the same ones who helped them get it passed so they could.

    By RCL on Sep 20, 2013

  190. “Join us.”

    None for me, thanks.

    You won’t win over any sheep while appearing to be the wolf. It’s as foolhardy of an endeavor as it is to attempt to convince OC supporters to stop scaring said sheep. So it is with that irony laden realization that I bow out of this conversation.

    By john556 on Sep 20, 2013

  191. What gets my Serpa in a bind is that I live in a non permissive state (NJ) and when rational gun owners like myself and the many who patronize this site try to argue for gun rights (yes, the same ones you *FIGHT* for), we are thrown your extreme OC bullsh*t in our face.

    It’s never the polite CCW professional being thrown in our face, b/c ‘the enemy’ (ergo your neighbor) never knows of or hears of them and therefore never speaks of them in righteous indignation. But, but….they certainly CAN recall at least one rally or one OC ‘incident’ in the news that makes them paint all gun owners with a broad brush. I put incident in quotes, b/c it doesn’t even have to be ‘real’ to the gun crowd, it just needs to ‘seem’ uncomfortable to those not ‘in the know’ to sway neutrals to anti or antis to extreme antis.

    I’ll let you guys in on a lil’ secret, YOU don’t represent all gun owners (nor do I/we), but when YOU lack manners, taunt the police, upload your shenanigans and disrespect the rest of the different shapes and sizes of people, you make the rest of us gun owners incapable of making strides in our home states.

    For the record, you were GIVEN a right, you can call it God given, but it’s really a man WRITTEN LAW that will allow you to Keep and Bear those Arms.

    If Starbucks GAVE, yes GAVE you the right, b/c they OWN their PROPERTY, just like you OWN your PROPERTY, then you should have RESPECTED the right and not abused it, you should have respected the other people on their property as you’d have them RESPECT yours. But no, you couldn’t respect their property nor the other company they kept, so now, you’ve EARNED the RIGHT to BUGGER OFF.

    Even still they were NICER than I would be if someone MUZZLED me in my house or wondered around my house like they were about to be attacked by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. All they did was simply ask you to take the shenanigans somewhere else.

    However, if you push this one more inch, you will find that Schulz will call for an outright ban and then you’ll have a Schulz to add to your Bloomberg. Then, instead of having a neutral party you can sway, you will have made another enemy.

    *slow golf clap* Great work guys, great work! *slow golf clap*

    By BaiHu on Sep 20, 2013

  192. No, john556, you speak that which you don’t know about. People have responded well to the OC of long arms. You come across to me as one that likes just the crumbs given to you. That’s perfectly fine. I do not.

    By Donny on Sep 20, 2013

  193. All I can say is I am disappointed you all. I thought gun owners stuck together, but apparently not. I will leave you to your discussion, because in all honesty nothing I say will sway you. It reminds me of talking to leftists. Sad. Good day and bless your hearts.

    By Donny on Sep 20, 2013

  194. Donny,
    We are in this together, but if you’re not willing to hear what we’re saying and not willing to see that your actions have had negative consequences, then you don’t need to go away mad, you just need to go away and stop picking a fights where respect, manners and logic were doing just fine to improve our position.

    By BaiHu on Sep 20, 2013

  195. RCL, the people in my state have a strong firearms history that has supported open carry, concealed carry and carry for teachers for many, many years. Teachers with a CHL have been allowed by law for years to carry guns in schools where I live. The State I live has a love for guns, coffee, marijuana; supported “gay rights” (very popular on this blog lately) and we are very proud of it. But public opinion is turning away from open carry. Attempts to “educate” the public are instead turning people off to not only open carry, but sadly “guns” in general are being negatively associated. Our legislature has considered the debate on “open carry” and more and more cities are considering disallowing it(which is allowed under state law except for those with a CHL). My observations of OC are – it is going backwards, so while trying to make something better-you are making it worse.

    By Matt on Sep 20, 2013

  196. John556,

    Counting crows?

    You must be one a dem homosexual a-rab lovers. You probably like black people too, and refuse the word of raptor jesus.

    herpaderpaderp.

    P.S.: Tam made a revelation. The internet was once indeed for porn. We’re in sad times.

    By Tyler on Sep 20, 2013

  197. Spot on Todd.

    By chem on Sep 20, 2013

  198. OCers are a lot like the dude cavorting through the gay pride parade wearing nothing but a leather jockstrap and a feather boa. You’ll notice that went on for years with no appreciable improvement in gay rights. Gays started getting mainstream when folks realized their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc were gay, and NOT like the freaks parading down the Castro district. Once it started getting mainstreamed, it became acceptable and even fashionable in some cases. Why? Because they went out of their way to show that they’re just like us straight folks in all the ways that matter. They took the mystery and the misinformation out of the debate, and they profited thereby. The method takes time, but over a generation or two, it’s worked a complete 180. 50 years ago you could be locked away in a mental ward for being gay. Now we have openly gay legislators and athletes. That didn’t happen because of the jockstrap-and-feather-boa crowd, it happened because of the folks who made TV shows depicting average joes coming home from work and cracking open a beer just like the rest of us. That’s something the pro-gun folks like us should appreciate and copy.

    By LHS on Sep 20, 2013

  199. And in typical Open Carry zealot fashion anyone who disagrees with them is anti-gun or not as “educated” as them.

    A rifle has precisely zero place inside a cafe and it doesn’t take two matches rubbed together to figure out way.

    By Matthew on Sep 20, 2013

  200. And on a side note I’m real curious to one thing as you condemn CCWs as “not real believers in the second amendment. Why is it you were all willing to go to an establishment that had previously been neutral on the issue and yet I’ve never seen any of you trying to enter a court house or a police station that is very much a public place.

    Because condemning people who obtain a conceal carry permit as beggers of the state while only going to places that allow open carry is essentially the same thing.

    By Matthew on Sep 21, 2013

  201. Fuk soccer moms they should be teaching there kids about guns rather than turning them into soccer teacup pussys

    By Andrew Smith on Sep 21, 2013

  202. When I go on an open carry walk…

    Boy, that just says it all right there.

    You don’t go for a walk while you just happen to be open carrying; no, you go on an Open Carry Walk.

    How bout taking your next long open carry walk on a short pier?

    By Tam on Sep 21, 2013

  203. Donny,

    No, john556, you speak that which you don’t know about. People have responded well to the OC of long arms.

    I’m sorry, john556 should have been clearer: He meant here on Planet Earth.

    By Tam on Sep 21, 2013

  204. I wonder what the open carry people would think if someone knocked on their door and they peep thru the peephole to see a guy standing there with a sidearm, shotgun or an AR. Would you open your door without suspicion and invite them on inside? I live in an open carry state and am 100% for your right to openly carry, I am also 100% for your right to drive a car but I am 100% against reckless driving.

    By David on Sep 21, 2013

  205. LHS, perfect analogy.
    Nobody want to live next door to the feather boa and leather banana sling dress code bath house… except for other banana sling boas.
    I would LOVE for a upper middle class, lavender Polo shirt wearing gay couple to move next door. Those guys know how to make the neighborhood look fabulous.

    By JodyH on Sep 21, 2013

  206. Todd, your original post was well crafted and made an informative point.

    Recently, I started studying Christian apologetics. I had an instance, speaking with a person, where I destroyed the “message” I believe in with the “method” I delivered the message. I realize some Christians have a history of making this mistake. I did. However, their are some like Ravi Zacharias, who’s method of delivery is a strong as at the message they want to deliver. Communicating with humans can be a difficult skill as reading these entries have shown.

    I was informed by you original post. You make a great case for us in the carry crowd, however we chose to carry.

    Stay strong Todd. I appreciate this site and its information on numerous gun related subjects.

    By John on Sep 21, 2013

  207. Here is a Post I put on several sites a few years ago and got a Lot of Bashing on a few of the other sites I follow and got lots of PM’s that I need to mind my own business. Well I totally agree with Todd….

    —–I want to get on my Soap Box for a few about open carry. But first let me State that I believe and support the Second Amendment 110%. My Bitch is with how some people abuse the privilege of Open Carry. But come on folks let’s do it right and not Look like a Jack Wagon while open carrying in public.
    I was in Chick-fil-A in Chantilly today for lunch and this Jack Wagon was open carrying, first thing I noticed his Revolver hanging off his belt it looked like an S&W N/L frame, second thing was his the belt was all stretched and would not support the weight of the revolver it was all flapping in the wind, next was his holster……..It looked like something Barney Fife would carry. I am glad it had a thumb snap to hold to keep the revolver from falling out. He was getting looks from everyone who saw his handgun and a few moms moved their kids away from him as he walked by, he was totally oblivious to his surroundings and how he carried his gun.
    Please when you go out in public carrying either open or concealed take some Pride in yourself and being an armed citizen. Be aware of your surroundings and how people around you are reacting to you and don’t act like a Jack Wagon with you gun on your hip for the whole world to see!
    Now Come on Guys; this is what gives all of us a big black eye in the public and gives Gun Owners a bad rap.
    A little about me, I have been carrying a handgun almost every day for the last 23 years and been carrying concealed the last 12+ years as a FED LEO and would NEVER go out in public looking like this guy. I spoke to the guy when I walked out and asked him Nicely to “pull him self together” and at the least get a decent belt and holster. He basically told me to Fuck off and he can carry any way he wanted and anywhere he wanted. I said thanks for making such a fine example of how to properly carry a weapon and away I went.—-

    By Dave on Sep 21, 2013

  208. Just the view of one more Texan, me: While I’ve yet to participate in an OC activist/demonstration day, I support them. If my work schedule (or lack thereof) ever allows it, I will participate in one or as many as I can until we are granted the right of OC.

    No, I’m not big on OC. I agree that neither an AR nor a M4 Benelli has a place in a mall or coffee shop (unless the LGS in the mall sold it)… but since current Texas law is so insane, I want OC legalized. Why? Because I want to be able to display my holstered CCW pistol, ie, go from CC to OC if and when the need, or happenstance requires (happenstance being accidental display).

    Currently, if my shirt tail rides up when I’m stretching or bending over, and someone sees my pistol, if they call the cops, I can get a ticket for “Brandishing,” which can lead to me loosing my CCW. I’m a skinny guy. I CC a SigP938 because except for our 2-3 months of winter when I can wear a jacket without falling out from heatstroke, a gun the size of the Sig is the largest that won’t print under my clothes.

    I shoot IDPA/USPSA with my HK USP 45acp. I want to be able to CC it without overbearing cops deciding I’m a ‘potential threat’ of some sort and making an example of me, or ‘teaching’ me a ‘lesson.’

    I’ve been to many places in Arizona and New Mexico when OC people came into, or were already inside of, businesses/restaurants. Nobody freaked out. Nobody even raised an eyebrow. Why? Because they’re used to it. Those guys weren’t acting crazy, so no one batted an eye.

    And you know what? In those communities, in rural Az and Nm, there is very little to virtually NO robbery, home invasion, or any other type of armed crime. Why? Because those communities are the inverse of ‘gun free zones.’

    Is OC of an AK or Mossberg 930 the absolute ‘best’ way to achieve public familiarization and comfort with, and desensitization to OC of handguns? Maybe not. But then again, none of us have the advantage of hindsight at this point, and only the future will tell, and unless someone can come up with a media-worthy way of spreading the word that gun people are generally good people, what is our alternative?

    If the only time gun people (perhaps not the best term, but I’m gonna run with it, for now) come together to stand up for their rights is when our backs are against a wall, such as the proposed gun control legislation this year, then we’re eventually going to lose ground. I believe we either have to more forward, or we’re going to move backwards, because the gun control crowd isn’t going to stop, no matter what we do.

    By Robert on Sep 21, 2013

  209. Just saw Dave’s post, above mine: I agree, 100%.

    I can’t stand slobs, and we do ourselves a disservice when we allow our ambassadors to represent gun people in a poor light.

    By Robert on Sep 21, 2013

  210. Robert, I think what you envision for open carry, most of us are good with. Rural communities where most folks are pretty firearms oriented, and are often responsible for their own safety due to long L/E response. In Texas, nobody is really trying to take rights away like other states, gun rights are trying to be extended. Accidental firearms display by CHL holders is now protected, training time was cut significantly for CHL, firearms in vehicles at schools is protected, cities cannot pre-empt state laws, ease of CHL renewal, no more specified guns for CHL’s, armed school marshals, AND did not allow legislators extra rights that the citizens do not have. Essentially, they have made it much easier to carry a concealed handgun. The problem is those who want to display their firearms openly in built up urban areas is really the issue (you know the places where all the anti-gun voters are). Personally, all the photo’s of people displaying their guns at Starbucks (including all the ones of people with pistols un-holstered and posing) and the L/E encounters are creating new enemies. Again, there has never been a cultural norm anywhere for urban open carry, especially the extreme fringe who really do want to walk around with AK’s/ and AR’s. SO, with all the success, including protection for accidental display, are we really sure we want to bond the anti’s together to stop a practice that even most hardcore firearms users despise. Is this what we want to hinge the fight on? Do you REALLY want to see those “NO GUNS” signs at many major national establishments that are found in urban areas instead of the currently popular “No illegal carry” signs? Because that is what is being asked for. Even most pro-gun business will change their tune when they start to see what many of us have with the “high profile” open carry people who want to educate and make statements…often with horrendous carry gear and even worse carry habits and confrontational attitude. My biggest fear is that if open carry is adopted, many will not like the follow on issues-like confrontations between private businesses and open carry advocates when asked to leave. This is not what I want to see the mainstream media focus on…and they will.

    By nyeti on Sep 22, 2013

  211. nyeti — That’s just crazy talk. When is the last time the antis got motivated by over-the-top Open Carry folks, banded together, and caused any kind of policy change?

    Oh, right. Starbucks.

    By ToddG on Sep 22, 2013

  212. Todd, your observations were very much accurate. In the past I would have tried to explain to guys like Jason and Justin where they were going wrong but there’s no point. They won’t get it. When you get to that level of self righteousness you lose a sense of what is really going on around you. I have an uncle who could easily be Jason or Justin….same mentality. His wife cant stand him and is afraid of him and his kids have one by one moved out of the area pretty much as soon as they could. He has no clue. One of them told me there is no point talking to him, he doesn’t listen he thinks everything he does is perfect. His way or the highway and everyone else is a liberal or a coward. He is loathed by his own family……and he has no clue. It’s really not about open carry but about a self righteous over inflated sense of ones own moral superiority. Really no different then a guy like Lennin or Mao…..just a different issue.

    By Mark on Sep 22, 2013

  213. Actually, in California the OC folks got legal OC made illegal, AND did nothing to help the CCW issue. What I saw with L/E in particular is that the normal “Pro-Gun” line cops (who got to deal with the OC’ers on YouTube) were pushed into the same camp with the Anti-Gun police executives.

    What is kind of weird is that Texas’s new law that prevents cities and counties from pre-empting state gun laws so that you don’t have the situation in most states where cities come up with highly restrictive gun laws (which I look at as a greater good)-Is the same law that prevents a partial solution to the O/C issue where individual counties could legalize open carry if that is in line with the wants and needs of those counties citizens.

    By nyeti on Sep 22, 2013

  214. Well said Todd. This whole debacle is proof of how some of the pro-gun folks will actually push people to be against us instead of just being indifferent.

    By Ryan on Sep 22, 2013

  215. Oddly enough went through this yesterday @Wally Whirl. In the 20 items or less line on my 54 th birthday, noticed my personal space was being encroached upon by dude about 30 at my 6.

    Glanced back and he gave me a feral look, so I looked back to the front and contained a giggle. Checked out & noticed Dude-bro was heading for his car next row over and had a Gen3 mid-size cavalry carry on his left side in a BZh Serpa. Thought “Jesus wept” to myself and got in my car marveling the fit youngster never realized the near- senior citizen he was encroaching had a Gen2 G19 and S&W 642 plus reloads for both.

    You cannot convince these people they are making themselves targets and hurting the cause!

    Yes, I’m a 21 year LEO vet, but carried illegally and undetected for more than 10 years before this career as a concerned citizen.

    STFU nd keep yer gun a secret till its needed.

    By Coldcase1984 on Sep 22, 2013

  216. There is an argument that has been put forward a few times in the 200+ comments that the OC advocates seem to have completely missed. It has been advanced by ToddG, Keyfus, and several others.

    We are not losing our gun “rights” to the government right now – for the most part. We are losing ground by creating a backlash against property owners who happen to own a LOT of property. Starbucks’ reversal of its position should have been a powerful message that the “in your face” approach is destined to fail. Remember, Starbucks isn’t really a hippy-liberal place. It is a place that just wants your money. And they have decided that some folks’ money isn’t as valuable as others. I suspect that decision calculus was well grounded in hard data. If we as gun owners continue the “in your face” approach – a lot of private business owners will be backed into the same corner that Starbucks was. They will have to choose between 95% of their customers that don’t scare away the others, and 5% that do.

    OC advocates – take note – even ToddG’s WIFE (who is no doubt around guns a fair amount) wouldn’t enter a place full of OC’rs. I have seen so much BAD gun handling among gun owners that I wouldn’t take my kids into one of those places either. I wwill admit that if I saw a bunch of folks with handguns on their hips I wouldn’t be too swayed (and would probably awesome LE), but if I see a moron with a shotgun or an AR I am heading the other way. Without turning my back, and assuming that you have some nefarious purpose in mind.

    You may think that those of us who aren’t fans of the “in your face” strategy are ceding ground. I honesltly don’t care – because your strategy is apparently losing ground a lot faster than it is gaining it. Don’t assume that the rest of us are not politically active, are not supporting the NRA, and are not trying to do something with a long-term vision in mind.

    -dan-o

    By dan-o on Sep 22, 2013

  217. Excellent article! The in your face open carry crowd is not doing us any favors with their attitude. I went to an open carry rally in my town this past summer it could have easily passed for a biker rally. Certainly not the impression you want to give to people who are unfamiliar with the shooting.

    By Jim K on Sep 22, 2013

  218. Greetings from a former pistol owner in the UK. If I may I will offer an opinion from my viewpoint. There are two types of people, pro individual firearms ownership, and anti individual firearm ownership. Within those two groups there are many sub groups ranging from the two extremes “No one should have any type of gun.” To “I should be allows to own and carry anything I want anywhere I want, and no one should be able to even ask why.”
    Both arguments have their reasons, I (on a purely intellectual basis) favour the anything anywhere argument, BUT I also understand that we live in an imperfect world, and not everyone will have the same point of view as myself, and going out of my way to deliberately antagonise the “no one should have a gun” brigade, is not necessarily The wisest course of action.
    However I no longer have any of my pistols because we British gun owners were nice and polite and thought our reasonable, logical arguments based on reality would not upset anyone and cool heads would prevail.
    Well how wrong were we? I just wish enough of us had taken the “The best defence is a strong offence.” Attitude then maybe we might still have our handguns.
    Did some gun owners go over the top with Starbucks? Yes they did, but its passion like that that will carry the day in the end.
    Never give up, never surrender, and don’t go quietly into the night.

    By Elliot on Sep 22, 2013

  219. This is spot on. This bunch of crap slinging apes set back the right to carry movement fifty years. I just finished reading an interesting article about stupidity that shed light on these morons.

    http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/Stupidity/

    By C. Scott Johnson on Sep 22, 2013

  220. I have the right to wear a ski mask all day long, if I walk into open carry night at the waffle house wearing my ski mask will they think anything of it other than “oh, here’s a guy who is practicing his right to wear a ski mask”. I can guarantee you that if I did that every eye would rightly be on me out of suspicion.

    There is a thin line between freedom and anarchy.

    By David on Sep 22, 2013

  221. “It was the OC people who planted a flag and declared
    Starbucks their territory. That an anti-gun group formed
    and protested shouldn’t surprise anyone.” – ToddG

    Wrong. The national effort by anti-gun groups to disparage Starbucks began in early 2010, when only a few open carriers wearing properly holstered pistols at a single Starbucks location in Washington state. Groups like the Brady Campaign, CSGV, and others insisted Starbucks corporate ban firearms from their stores nationwide. Starbucks responded that they followed whatever the law was in that state, which incensed the anti-gun groups. For two years, Starbucks stood their ground. In 2012, the anti-gun groups upped the ante by calling for a national “Boycott Starbucks Day” to be held on Valentines Day. The pro-gun groups countered with a national “Starbucks Appreciation Day”, held on the same day, at which participants were encouraged to open carry firearms where legal, and to pay using $2 bills if possible to reference 2A. Some chose to carry long guns on that day to show they would not be intimidated.

    So in reality, the carry of rifles at Starbucks was in response to the national anti-gun effort, not the cause of it as you incorrectly assert.

    By Rich7553 on Sep 22, 2013

  222. REALLY???
    So now he’s blaming Starbucks retarded decision on the law abiding gun owners??? There’s nothing wrong or illegal with either type of carry as long as the law allows it. If they wanted to remain neutral they would have stay that way!! They (Starbucks) are the ones who dragged themselves into it. Their moronic CEO Shultz is as anti-gun liberal FUKTARD as they come!!!
    BTW…there is NOTHING wrong with supporting a business that respects your RIGHTS and local laws by hosting an “appreciation day”!!! STOP PINNING GUN OWNERS AGAINST EACH OTHER!!! Wake the fuck up!!!

    By Shruba on Sep 22, 2013

  223. What was a better tactic for bringing showing people that gun owners are decent regular folks and important to business? “Gee, we had record profits today with a metric ton of $2 bills while there were crazy anti-gun people screaming outside?” or “everytime these gun people show up with AR-15’s and shotguns we not only lose business, but soccer mom’s complain and we get the police out for 911 calls”. What makes a better impression, which changes hearts and minds via the dollar (which is language of the free market).
    This is why I wish the NRA would have a special gift type card to truely show the American economy and businesses who we are rather than sending me crap in the mail.

    By nyeti on Sep 22, 2013

  224. Where was the pic inside starbucks taken ? I’m understanding it was taken at a starbucks in kuwait

    By Shep on Sep 22, 2013

  225. http://practicaltacticalpodcast.com/starbucks/

    Edit: I was contacted by the individual pictured above. He is in the US Military, and for context, wanted to advise that this photo was taken in a Starbucks in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005. He did not request the photo be removed, just wanted to add context for this particular photo. -Casey

    By Shep on Sep 22, 2013

  226. I had an instructor tell me the other day that the Gun crowd is divided up with 20% progun, 20% antigun and 60% on the fence, and that we as gun owners owed it to ourselves and our fellow gun owners to conduct ourselves in a manner that pulls people to our side instead of pushing them to the other. Starbucks didn’t ban guns from thier stores they asked that you not bring them. It was never about concealled guns.
    As for the guy who is more armed with his G23, when the bad guy who saw you carrying takes you out first I take him out with the concealed gun he didn’t see to bring closure to your widow.

    By Stanley on Sep 22, 2013

  227. QUOTING A PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE: “… I never understood the OC movement. In CA, you could OC with no bullets in the gun….it didn’t make since to me, carry an unloaded gun???? Even to make a statement??? I was told from a young age, if you are going to carry a gun, carry it loaded and make user you are ready to use it if you draw your gun on someone. Not carry an empty gun and bet them with it lol The OC group forced CA to change the laws because the would film the contacts with police and acted like retards, then post them. They are not the brights bunch. You said it best Todd…”
    ——————————

    Do the gun rights movement a favor and slit your own throat you fucking piece of shit.

    In the meantime, this video by TheHossUSMC pretty much sums up what I think of you militant concealed carry pricks:

    By AnthonyHatesMilitantConcelaedCarryPricks on Sep 22, 2013

  228. Having worked at a gun store, just about every open carrier I bumped into unfortunately filled out this checklist.

    Unkempt appearance? Check.
    General sperginess? Check.
    Crappy holster? Check.
    Keltec, Kahr, or Taurus pistol? Check!

    By anon on Sep 22, 2013

  229. You should pull down the second photo. A disclaimer saying that the “particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005″ is weak.

    I agree with you overall, but I also think its lame to use this photo to sensationalize your story. The photo of the guy holding a shotgun is much more provocative than the top one with a gun slung over someone’s back – exactly the reason you ran it.

    By Adam on Sep 22, 2013

  230. @Stanley – “…when the bad guy. Who saw you carrying takes you out first…”.

    What are there, like about 30 states where general open carry is lawful, and thousands of people who open carry each and every day? So how about providing just one example where an open carrier was “taken out first” in a robbery. I’ll wait. In the meantime, I’ll say you sound just like the anti-gun activists who, whenever there is pro-gun legislation is proposed, wail and gnash their teeth with their chicken little, sky-is-falling predictions about blood running in the streets, shootouts over parking spaces, and rolling gun battles on the interstate. Hasn’t happened, doesn’t happen, won’t happen.

    By Rich7553 on Sep 22, 2013

  231. I think it’s safe to say that as a whole we can rest safer now knowing we have people like “AnthonyHatesMilitantConcelaedCarryPricks” armed and at the ready representing our fine community. I certainly feel assured that my rights will never be second guessed after those on the fence read his persuasive argument.

    Obviously this ToddG guy knows nothing about guns, if it weren’t for his insanely awesome logo I wouldn’t listen to a word he says. I bet he doesn’t even own an XD.

    By David on Sep 22, 2013

  232. How many folks would feel comfortable in any public venue with a bunch of ethnic looking guys in mujaheddin garb open carrying AKs?

    Having seen numerous instances of egregious gun handling, why should I or any sane person assume that a gaggle of open carriers are all card carrying members of Mensa who are intellectually incapable of doing something stupid.

    The argument that rights not exercised are rights lost won’t hold in this arena. Demographically the group encompassing the anti-gun zealots to the weak minded who fall for the “common sense argument” outnumber the serious gun owning public.

    Those who flout societal conventions with guns are poking the proverbial hornets nest. Behavior like Open Carry will encourage the adoption of legislation that will negatively impact gun owners.
    e.g. http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

    By John O on Sep 22, 2013

  233. Interesting, I live in a country that doesn’t need to carry guns, actually one of many countries where the people don’t have to carry guns at all. So forgive me if I think your second amendment ravings are a bit hollow. You want to be able to shoot who ever you damn well please when ever you want to – because somehow this is you right. No wonder the USA will fall away from the rest of the world and settle into its own little civil wars over the right to kill.

    By Robert on Sep 22, 2013

  234. Rich7553,

    I think the shooter at the Washington Navy Yard STARTED shooting by popping one of the guards. We will know more about that one in a few weeks, but that is what the press reported in the hours/days following the shooting.

    -dan-o

    By dan-o on Sep 22, 2013

  235. Ah yes Robert, why even comment then ? oh, right..more anti American crap. What country are you from anyway, the Vatican ? Oh nevermind, they have guns too

    By Shep on Sep 22, 2013

  236. You completely rock!

    Yes, I’m a pussy-assed liberal who’s not big on guns but I felt it was needed for me to shoot at least once. And I’m glad I did. Having shot, I have a great respect for guns. It confirmed my belief that they’re not toys.

    Carrying in Starbucks or anywhere in public, isn’t what the Second Amendment is about…unless, of course, you’re SO far gone that you truly believe that the non-existent UN troops will pop out of a garbage can and “take mah freedim ‘way”.

    Anyway – well written.

    By Paul Day on Sep 22, 2013

  237. I do not appreciate your use of the term “retarted” as an illustration of the ignorance of this activity. I have two sisters with Down’s Syndrome and I’ve watched people refer to them as retards many times in my life.

    Their condition is not one that comes from a lack of interest in learning or knowing something. They likely have a stronger desire to learn than most of your readers and you yourself ever will. The fight that they overcome each and every day to learn new things and accomplish things that we take for granted is equally strong. The difference between my sisters and the people you are addressing is that my sisters try to learn and understand the world. Your misguided compatriots willingly ignore anything that doesn’t support their viewpoint, hence the term ignorance. If you think that a derogatory term for disabled people, who are treated their entire lives as if they are lesser people because they struggle with certain activities, is a good analogy for ignorance, then you have simply proven that you are just an ignorant, feces throwing monkey yourself.

    By Larry Bryan on Sep 22, 2013

  238. Paul Day — Carrying in Starbucks or anywhere in public, isn’t what the Second Amendment is about…

    Actually, it’s precisely what the Second Amendment is about. I carry a gun every day and absolutely support the right of every law-abiding American to do the same. My objection is to people who would rather look like Rambo during a coffee break and who pretend they’re helping the RKBA movement when, time after time, they’ve proven they’re really just hurting it.

    Larry Bryan — I do not appreciate your use of the term “retarted” …

    I honestly don’t give a flying kitten.

    By ToddG on Sep 22, 2013

  239. Would it have been so difficult to just do the right thing? Your prideful ignorance is no different than the ones you attempt to shame here.

    By Larry Bryan on Sep 22, 2013

  240. Larry — If we ever decide to add another editor, I’ll keep you in mind.

    In the meantime, please submit this to your supervisor:

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  241. Mr. Green, I’d rather notify your registrar of your violation of the terms & conditions of their service. Perhaps they’ll accept your form as an appeal?

    By Larry Bryan on Sep 23, 2013

  242. My registrar? You mean the company that provides my internet service? I’m pretty sure they host things far less acceptable to you than someone who says “retarded” when you don’t like it.

    How this discussion went from the idiots who make up the extreme fringe of the open carry community, to gay-bashing, to political correctness is beyond me. 8-)

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  243. Chiming in….my major complaint about folks wandering around with weapons to “make a statement”,or because “It is their right” is that I don’t know if the stranger with the AR slung on his back is 1)competent to hit the broad side of a barn, 2) competent to make accurate threat assessments and take appropriate actions and 3) actually a “law abiding gun owner”. Add the fact that for myself, I would never OC in VA simply because I am not physically or by training able to guarantee 100% no one will take my gun away and use it. A little kid ran up and shot a cop with his own gun recently.Granted, the gun never left his holster in that case, but simply having the weapon out where it can be grabbed, knocked into, or potentially dropped makes it more dangerous to be around them than if they did not have their gun with them. The two CC enthusiasts I’ve known who go no where (except where they will be metal detected) without a gun think it far better to surprise a bad guy than to advertise. They are careful enough that I only know they carry because they’ve told me (and I’ve seen one of their custom holsters/vests). I don’t worry about folks like them. I probably won’t worry if I stop at the local hunting store or one of the little stores that do deer check in during hunting season if someone has a gun on them. But if my kids are around, a Starbucks or a WalMart, or simply walking down the street I’ll be moving on…not out of fear of the big scary gun, but out of simple prudence where a stranger is concerned. I’ve determined since the idiot open carry types are so determined to “prove” guns are safe by wandering around with rifles in inappropriate places that if I happen to not have my kids around, I’ll go play 20 questions with them- why are they grocery shopping with a gun, is there a threat, is the gun loaded, is the safety on (if loaded, is a round chambered, and if so, how is this supposed to prove to me guns are safe?) and have them show me it is unloaded/safety engaged, what is their training (marksmanship, safety, threat assessment, response). Assuming polite and cooperative responses, I’ll simply go back to asking why they need to be armed in a Krogers and how someone without the time or balls to ask all these questions is supposed to know they are safe. And tell them they are idiots, nicely. If they give me lip, or are operating in what _I_ believe is an unsafe manner (chambered round, no safety, or lack of training), I _will_ call the cops that there is a potential safety problem, or that someone is armed and suspicious.
    The sheer wonder is…VA is open carry, and I’ve never seen any but LE or hunters open carrying. So I may not get to go confront crazy. Oh, and in interest of full disclosure, I’m one of those gun grabbing liberals who hates the 2cd amendment because I want the NRA to quit pulling strings to get funding for ATF and comprehensive background checks gutted over the years, want to see background checks a requirement-some free 800 number with a yea or nay or see a dealer message instant check for private sales, required even if you transfer a gun to your brother, ID check for ammo- a felon with an illegal gun ought to not be able to buy ammo freely for it, make him pay black market premiums- and fix the national background check system so all the states need to report in a timely manner…paperwork sits on rural sheriff department desks for months, and meanwhile some abusive a-hole can go 20 miles and get his murder weapon. I’d _like_ folks to get a license, like a driver’s license, because I think it is just plain wrong that someone like me who has never fired a gun (one of these days I’ll find the time..been saying that for 25 years)can waltz into WalMart, buy gun and ammo, and walk around with it in public with some minimal instruction I got 25 years ago. I think I ought to have to show I know which end to point at a minimum. But that’s a wish, not a demand.
    But I wish I liked Starbucks coffee. I was never boycotting because they allowed guns-if they had encouraged Starbucks Appreciation Days I would. Leave because some guy with a gun inside gave me the creeps? Yes. Again, it isn’t the gun, it is the stranger running around with it that potentially scares me.

    By Robin A on Sep 23, 2013

  244. At first I agreed, it is very in your face and what not. Then there was the terror attack over the weekend in Kenya. However, if there had been folks with rifles in Kenya? yes lives would have been saved. Look at Israel and Switzerland. people can carry there openly and people don’t pee themselves like Chris Matthews. So I am changing my view and saying I was wrong. Open carry is where we need to be. Its a new century with tangible asymmetric threats. We need to be able to respond immediately and not in minutes.

    By Mr. Crowley on Sep 23, 2013

  245. Mr. Crowley – are you saying OC with long-arms, or OC with a sidearm on your hip?

    By dan-o on Sep 23, 2013

  246. Larry Brian,

    Let me take this opportunity and advise that you get over yourself and relax just a bit. In the context Todd was using the word he was not trying to diminish those with special needs. Context determines much in our particular language and if you’re honest you know that. I have family friends who have a son with Down Syndrome. The wife is a militant on the term retarded much as you are. What she doesn’t know is that everyone around her thinks she’s over the top but they tolerate her ravings on the term out of obvious sympathy for her sons condition. Her husband is a good guy who understands context and realizes the difference between a slang term and using the same term to try and hurt someone. He knows his wife is over the top and she just adds one more level of stress for him to deal with. Odds are there are people around you who will never tell you this just as I won’t tell my friends this as my wife would kill me but the reality is you’re not educating anymore then you are irritating for no good reason.

    If someone is saying something with the intent of hurting someone then I totally agree that is offensive. If they’re simply saying it in context that clearly isn’t disparaging anyone with special needs then you really need to relax and let it go

    By David on Sep 23, 2013

  247. David — Thanks. You’d think English wasn’t so complicated for people to understand.

    Larry won’t be responding, however, as in his fit of pique last night he decided to post my work address, home address, home phone number, and various other bits of personal information. Because, you know, he thinks people should behave civilly and stuff. 8-)

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  248. Very “sheepdog” of him. Maybe you could wear an armband too so they know you are one of “them”.

    By nyeti on Sep 23, 2013

  249. nyeti — He’d probably just prefer I tattoo my wrist. I wonder if 19114EVR is already taken…

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  250. (edited; please don’t use this site to advertise your products for free without asking — ToddG)

    By Bear Arms Shit on Sep 23, 2013

  251. This is really fun reading for a gun control advocate. A majority nationally don’t back concealed carry laws, and when confronted with “open carry” are outraged.

    The number of “spree killings” is becoming weekly news, and general discussion of gun laws are hitting political discussion boards (left and right) daily. The conversation is mainstream enough to get substantial attention on Facebook.

    As the desperation mounts, the voices of the fringe become louder. You are watching as the laissez-faire begin to be involved, and your emissaries are walking around like they are living out their action-hero fantasy.

    In the insular world of you’re “CC” or “OC” crowd, you think you are protecting… something. To the general public, it looks very different. The conversations you have with other gun-enthusiasts is radically different what the undecided are hearing.

    Again, keep it up!

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  252. TBR — As the desperation mounts, the voices of the fringe become louder.

    I’d say the anti-gun crowd has proven that just as well as we have. By going after guns that scare them because of their looks or imagined capabilities instead of looking at issues that might actually reduce violent crime, the fringe antis have blessedly screwed themselves into a corner. You know why you won’t get a new Assault Weapon Ban out of Congress? Because the Dems lost control of Congress when many of them were voted out by constituents in retribution. You know why you’ll see less push for radical non-sensical feel-good restrictions on law abiding citizens’ rights and freedoms? Because the great people of Colorado just taught state legislators around the country what happens if you kitten with our guns or our right to own and use them.

    If you think “spree killings” are on the rise (as opposed simply to the amount of 24/7 news coverage of such events)… if you think the majority of Americans are opposed to CCW (as CCW becomes more and more common and more states adopt less and less restrictive policies on it)… then perhaps you may want to consider whether you’re the one living in an “insular world.”

    I’ve got two landmark Supreme Court cases in the past five years saying I’m right. What have you got?

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  253. The author ToddG thinks we should just play nice and be good little subjects and try to keep our 2nd Amendment rights where they are politically correct.

    By Hal Carlisle on Sep 23, 2013

  254. Killings with 5 or more victims “Mass shootings” are up in both frequency and body count. There are more than enough references for this simple fact.

    The results for CC and OC in national polls consistently have 50-53% against each.

    Colorado has the same (50+%) polling against OC CC, you won in this election for a number of reasons, none public support.

    I would love to discuss the Supreme Court cases. It may be hijacking the thread a bit. These are very solid wins for gun rights advocates, and you should talk them up, however on the public support side, you are loosing ground day-over-day.

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  255. TBR — We’ll have to agree to disagree. What I see from polls is a significant upswing in private gun ownership, a shift in private gun ownership from traditional hunting arms to handguns and modern sporting rifles, and in particular a significant uptick in women purchasing firearms explicitly for personal protection.

    As I’m sure you know, polls reflect how they’re asked as much as they reflect how they’re answered. I’m sure we could each trot out poll results supporting our respective positions. Luckily, my side has SCOTUS decisions to protect us even if we do become (or have become, from your point of view) a minority group in need of protection.

    Also, fwiw, thank you for being civil. Not everyone (from the pro- or anti-gun side) has managed to be so in this discussion.

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  256. Anti-Gunners say, “who needs to carry a gun and own an AR-15 just use a shotgun”. The Hunters said, “yeah, you don’t an AR-15 to hunt, get rid of them”. The Concealed Carriers say, “why would anyone open carry they should stop”. The Anti-Gunners sit back and watch it all collapse. Of course there are jackasses in every group, but letting the exception swallow the rule is a mistake. They’ll ban open carry because the conceal carriers will support it, and then they’ll come for the those too. Lowest hanging fruit my friends, lowest hanging fruit. They’re playing chess and we’re playing checkers.

    By Bill Starks (OCer) on Sep 23, 2013

  257. Bill — For. The. Umpteen. Millionth. Time.

    None of the pro-RKBA people here have called for outlawing open carry.

    Constantly trying to reframe the issue from what it is (the most extreme OCers making us all look bad and pushing a major company away from its previously publicly “pro-gun” looking stance) to something it’s not (we hate OC and wish all OCers were dead!) is a waste of everyone’s time.

    I don’t care if you OC or CC. It makes not a whit of difference to me. What I do care about is idiots holding demonstrations with their ARs and AKs that scare enough people that the eventual reaction is a further restriction on our rights. You know, like what just happened at Starbucks.

    Even if you want to give those OC Rifle Rally guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they had good intentions in the beginning, how many times can they claim philosophical and political superiority when there is evidence smashing them in their faces proving that the net impact of their actions was negative?

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  258. I have yet to meet a single person who’s changed their mind about guns because of someone OCing. I think it’s a positive thing for suburbanites to see OCers. Maybe, just maybe, some of them will be scared at first and then go home and watch the local news and realize “Hey, that guy had this huge, horrible rifle strapped to his back, and magically no one died. How did that happen?”
    And frankly, I don’t think the OCers started the poo fight with Starbucks in the middle, I think it was the anti-gunners who kept pushing so the OCers pushed back.

    By Hal Carlisle on Sep 23, 2013

  259. “They started it!” isn’t really the basis for a smart political move. If, as you say, the “OCers pushed back” that doesn’t change the fact that it was their actions that got the attention, their actions that bothered non-gun owning patrons, and their actions that Starbucks put a stop to.

    Regardless of who threw the first stone, the over-the-top in-your-face reaction by these particular radical OCers hurt us all. Heck, I might even write a blog post about that!

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  260. This is not a failure of the OCers. This is a failure of American culture and the Politically Correct police, the people who are offended by everything.
    People need to understand that if I carry a gun, that’s my human right and it doesn’t end at their comfort zone. You still have a right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom of religion outside your home. I mourn this country for not understanding that about firearms.
    Lastly, I’d love for Starbucks to disclose what their earnings looked like on the days the anti-gunners tried to boycott them but the gunners all went en masse. They waited till the checks were cashed, then they turned on us. Good riddance.

    By Hal Carlisle on Sep 23, 2013

  261. Hal — If Starbucks was making more money supporting the Mogadishu Wannabes, then why didn’t they come out with statement leaning the other way (“protesters not welcome, AK-wielding coffee addicts are!”).

    The free speech analogy is a great one. Starbucks doesn’t owe you a forum for making speeches even though making speeches is legal and protected under the First Amendment. If you wanted to hold an anti-war protest inside Starbucks all over the country they might tell you to cut it out… regardless of how the Board of Directors individually feel about the war.

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  262. Thanks for the compliment Todd. Look, living in the echo chamber of our respected groups does nothing for either cause. I read a good article, read the first dozen sane reply, and was taken at how rational the group was. Then… Well, then the OC crowded show, right?

    The trend you site, increase in private gun ownership with the intent to defend, is troubling to me. That the poll I site are ONLY at 50+ when I feel they should be much higher, that troubles me. I don’t know that you (RKBA group) should be excited about it. More people with less training and dedication spell additional troubles for you’re sport, and the potential for more mass and accidental shootings.

    As for the SCOTUS. You have brushed up with it twice. Let me ask this. What do you think you have won with Heller? Private property (homes, businesses etc.) can still bar armed people. Federal and state buildings enjoy exceptions, and can bar armed people. As in this case, Starbucks said “get out” because of public sentiment. Malls are doing similar things based on the antics of the OC groups. So, my question is, where you going to “carry” these things? When almost all places say “stay out” what then?

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  263. TBR — First a few clarifications.

    I’m not in this for any sport. In fact, except for some local things I’m directly involved with from an admin side, I don’t compete anymore. My interest in private firearms ownership is almost purely and strictly in terms of personal protection.

    Second, every major study — even the CDC’s own information — shows that accidental injuries and deaths from firearms are way down compared to a couple decades ago and the trend is toward further reduction. I’d actually be willing to bet the proliferation of CCW has made a big impact here. People tend to get more and better training for carrying a gun. Also there’s the internet, which has helped spread information and a very pro-safety culture to the masses.

    The major victory in Heller was putting to bed the tired (and false) cliche that the Second Amendment was for militias or otherwise encompassed something less than a private, personal, individual right. Between Heller and McDonald the “it’s only for the militia!” argument is dead.

    You’re correct, if all the businesses in the country decided to ban firearms on their private property we’d be in trouble. But that’s not happening. Starbucks didn’t even go so far as to say they’re banning. They just “politely request” in a way that most of us (the RKBA side) reads as “we don’t care if you legally carry concealed, but please lay off the scary looking AR15s and AK47s in our shop, ok?”

    McDonalds and Duncan Donuts, in response to the Starbucks thing, both publicly stated that they, too, simply adhere to local, state, and federal laws. So they’re not banning us. Neither are any of thousands upon thousands of restaurants and other businesses all over the country that are frequented by people who want to carry. How long do you think a place like Home Depot would last, on a national scale, if it took a stance against gun ownership?

    And let me put the question back to you in a different way. Suppose I owned a restaurant that you wanted to patronize. And suppose I put up a sign that said, “No pro-Obama bumper stickers allowed in our parking lot.” Should someone with one of those bumper stickers (a) not eat there, (b) remove his bumper sticker, or (c) eat there anyway and know that no one is really going to call the cops and have him arrested for trespassing over a bumper sticker?

    Lawful CCWers make those decisions every day. And it’s more than worth it to exercise our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  264. Very interesting debate. Amazing how intense it got, for all the wrong reasons.

    The bottom line is, now where are our cops going to go get coffee? Will they have to lock their guns up in their cars when going to Starbucks?

    Any business has the right to refuse someone from bringing a gun into their establishment, regardless of open carry laws in any states.

    Open Carry only applies to public areas. Starbucks is not alone in their restrictions, and many other businesses are feeling the need to put up signs, trying to make their patrons feel safer.

    But we have seen what gun free zones has done for the wolves who decide to go hunting sheep….

    Not one mass shooting lately was completed at a place that was not a gun free zone. So in my opinion is they are missing the mark and putting their patrons in more danger, because everyone there won’t be armed and not able to fight back.

    By Kenny T on Sep 23, 2013

  265. Todd,

    Guns are the third largest cause of death in America now, and account for more than 75k emergency department non-fatal wounds last year. I would be curious where on the CDC you got you’re info, because I cant find it.

    The examples you discuss, home depot etc. I think speak to a issue we never seem to come to terms with. Urban vs. Rural. I doubt that there are any CC people in my local Home Depot most of the time, primary because there are few people in urban areas that care to carry. In rural environments the demographics flip-flop. Most people in urban areas are frightened by the site of people walking around with guns, and rural dwellers may be more comfortable with it.

    I want to answer your last question, but I have to think about it for a sec. Don’t really have a quick take on it.

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  266. So, if someone openly carries a newspaper and a cup of coffee in a Starbucks, would you feel equal levels of rage for them being an in-your-face first amendment tough guy?

    By Bergman on Sep 23, 2013

  267. Bergman — Nope. Because carrying a newspaper in public is a very normal, everyday thing that isn’t likely to get attention and scare anyone. It’s not likely to force Starbucks to ask people to stop carrying newspapers in their store.

    Now if someone came in with a megaphone and started shouting about , then yeah, I’d hope the folks at Starbucks were smart enough to know the guy’s First Amendment rights didn’t force them to put up with that behavior on their private property.

    The mere fact that you don’t understand the disconnect between carrying a newspaper in public and carrying an AK47 astounds me and at the same time makes me realize why the OC Jihad crowd is just never, ever going to take responsibility for the trouble it causes.

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  268. You have zero respect for other people. You are most likely uneducated, overwieght, and sad.

    By Joe on Sep 23, 2013

  269. Me? I’ve got an Ivy League diploma, law degree, and I get to shoot for a living. So you’re wrong on two out of three. 8-)

    But thank you for that very respectful comment.

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  270. @TBR – “Guns are the third largest cause of death in America…”.

    Bull.

    Using 2010 data from the CDC WISQARS database, the total number of firearms deaths was 31,672 which places it in 13th, not 3rd as you assert.

    In order, the leading causes of death in 2010 in the US were:

    1. Heart disease, 597,689
    2. Malignant neoplasms, 574,743
    3. Chronic low respiratory disease, 138,080
    4. Cerebrovascular, 129,476
    5. Unintentional injury, 120,859
    6. Alzheimer’s disease, 83,494
    7. Diabetes Mellitus, 69,071
    8. Nephritis, 50,476
    9. Influenza and pneumonia, 50,097
    10. Suicide, 38,364
    11. Septicemia, 34,812
    12. Liver Disease, 31,903

    By Rich7553 on Sep 23, 2013

  271. From CDC I get this list…
    Number of deaths for leading causes of death
    Heart disease: 597,689
    Cancer: 574,743
    Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
    Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
    Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
    Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
    Diabetes: 69,071
    Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
    Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
    Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

    Now, the 3 is cited in a number of articles, however, I cant breakdown down the CDC numbers without some time/effort, but the intentional self-harm, Accidents (unintentional) numbers will include many guns related deaths.

    I don’t need hyperboley to make the point. If its not third, you still must concede the number is way to high.

    The subject gets to large for the discussion at hand, and will quickly get out of control unless we keep it on track with “carry” laws, and the effect of “open carry”. So, to bring it back around, and to try to answer your question, basically why is your perceived second amendment right less important than my first amendment right. The answer is, these each have to be seen independently. They are not to be weighed next to each other. The limits of speech are reached at some level, just as the right to arms have some logical limit.

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  272. TBR,

    The examples you discuss, home depot etc. I think speak to a issue we never seem to come to terms with. Urban vs. Rural. I doubt that there are any CC people in my local Home Depot most of the time, primary because there are few people in urban areas that care to carry. In rural environments the demographics flip-flop. Most people in urban areas are frightened by the site of people walking around with guns, and rural dwellers may be more comfortable with it.

    You’d be surprised: We walk among you.

    I live in one of the trendiest intown neighborhoods in Indianapolis, and I run into the servers from my local craft brew bar at the local gun show. (One of the biggest in the nation!)

    Heck, I’ve run into the owner of one of the city’s microbreweries at the range where I’m a member.

    By Tam on Sep 23, 2013

  273. To follow on what Tam said, I live in a suburb of Washington DC and carry everywhere I go. I spend a lot of time at Johns Hopkins Medical Center and a surprising — to me — number of the doctors, nurses, and techs are gun owners.

    TBR — I don’t need hyperboley to make the point. If its not third, you still must concede the number is way to high.

    Absolutely it’s too high. So is the number of people who die from medical malpractice. As I pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, more children die in backyard pool accidents than die of accidental gunshot wounds in the United States… should we outlaw backyard pools because of that? Isn’t “one death too many,” then, as well? Guns also SAVE lives, but backyard pools don’t. Backyard pools are nothing but recreation. Is a little fun in the water worth the death of even a single child?!?!?!

    No. But while it’s beautiful to pretend a single life is more precious than all the gold in the world, societies naturally operate on a more utilitarian level than that. Millions of people shouldn’t have to give up their pools just because somewhere, sometime, someone is going to have an accident. One hundred MILLION gun owners in the United States shouldn’t lose their right to self defense, protecting their homes, and yes, recreation just because some people are irresponsible. If you start down that route, guns may be first but what comes next? Alcohol. Automobiles. There’s no end in sight.

    By the way, seven times more children are killed each year in drunk driving accidents than are killed by firearms. So how about all the anti-gun folks redirect their efforts to tougher laws & enforcement about drunk driving? DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!

    By ToddG on Sep 23, 2013

  274. More is gained from driving, or I could argue from a swimming pool than gun ownership.

    I agree that this endless blather, salacious news stories, is unnecessary. People will die from many causes. I don’t see guns as a net positive for my society, so I would like to see less of them.

    That the CC crowd “walks among me” would bother me less if you would be willing to bend on greater background checking and mental health. I have every right to worry about my family in the presence of under-trained, potentially mental ill, and overly casual gun owners in my proximity – just as you push to protect your family through the use of a gun.

    By TBR on Sep 23, 2013

  275. There seems to be a disconnect between the idea of a right, its exercise, and the basic rules of a 300m+ democracy all living together.

    The fact that a certain right exists isn’t absolute, nor is it granted by the divine or by birthright. That’s not how a democracy works. Thats frankly not how any society or complex group works. Rights are not absolute – they are granted by the majority, and are subject to change. Even constitutional rights can ultimately be changed – even though the process is incredibly arduous. Marching around and saying that you are above the laws of the country because your rights are granted by “birthright” isn’t a legal or legitimate argument. Nobody cares what you think, and I can invent plenty of other reasons why I want to follow certain laws and not others.

    There is also a sense that just because you have a right, that gives you and absolute right to exercise it. That is also not correct. Just ask the first guy who yelled fire in a crowded theater. As a massive and incredibly complex country we’ve enacted an enormous amount of laws (some good, many bad) governing how we exercise our rights so that our society doesn’t implode.

    Property rights and other rights often contradict each other. The definitions of what is fine in the abstract, on your property or on public property, is VERY different from what is acceptable on private property. The first amendment grants you very broad free speech rights – that can be very curtailed by private property owners. No religious sermons, no politics, etc.etc. I can ask you to leave my establishment for many reasons or no reason at all. Hell, Nevada casinos have managed to make it acceptable to throw patrons out who count well. This isn’t about your rights – its about whether your tactics for broadening their acceptance are gaining you more traction or less. In this case – its less.

    I also think the broader point that some folks have been making on the bad-assery of pushing these rights in say….Texas, is a very valid one. Just like gay-pride parades that take place in NYC, San Fran, or Miami – you are preaching to the converted. And your preaching is only providing fodder for activists in places that are far less receptive to continue to curtail your rights. Just like opponents of gay rights have used pictures and images from gay pride events that illustrate utter excess to campaign against bringing that kind of “debauchery” to their locations… folks in many parts of the country that are FAR less receptive to gun rights will use images of people with AR15s and AKs in starbucks to rally and further curtail rights in their jurisdictions.

    So yes… you might be right on paper, and in your head. But you are wrong on strategy, and wrong on execution.

    By Vlad on Sep 23, 2013

  276. “The fact that a certain right exists isn’t absolute, nor is it granted by the divine or by birthright. That’s not how a democracy works.”

    The USA isn’t a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    By David on Sep 23, 2013

  277. RIght. Except that’s not the practical application. At the time of the writing, all men were not considered equal. Article five is there for a reason, and our rights have been interpreted, abridged, reinterpreted, and contextualized since ratification. A strict interpretation of the words you quote would make for a fundamentally different country – one without drug laws, without most traffic regulations, without most business permits, with little or no regulation of business, and without a history of prohibition, suffrage, slavery, etc. etc.

    Insisting we suddenly act and consider this issue through the prism of some unattainable historic utopia is pointless. We aren’t the country this phrase tried to capture. We are some profoundly mutated version of what the founders intended.

    By Vlad on Sep 23, 2013

  278. TBR, for the record, the “Pro Gun” people are not the problem in the mental health arena. You can thank HIPA laws for that. We want the mentally ill to fail background checks….its up to the doctors to get them in the system. The same with medical marijuana users, other criminal drug users, and “we” would really like to see those who are trying to buy guns illegally prosecuted. We don’t need to expand background checks, the bloated government can’t even get the information into the system we have, and when it does work, they don’t prosecute.

    By nyeti on Sep 23, 2013

  279. Thanks for the great rant. I loved it. :)

    While I don’t have a problem with OC, I think there something unsettling about big ass rifles and shit being slung on the back of the person standing behind me to get coffee. It’s a little Mad Maxish. OC is like, wearing your speedos to the beach..while uncomfortable to look at it, it’s tolerable. However, having a two foot gun on you at a coffee shop is like wearing your speedos, with the crotch and ass cut out and an anal plug up your ass. It’s fucking scary to look at and you want to get away from the person as quickly as possible.

    By dorkamusprime on Sep 23, 2013

  280. I disagree completely: It is my position that CCW is insane and not effective as a deterrent to crime, and that if a person is carrying a firearm, that it MUST be carried openly so as to notify everyone that he or she is armed. This would also notify any criminal intent on perpetrating a crime, that such and such person is armed and would therefore make the armed person the first target of the person intent on committing the crime. I do believe that liberal thinking on this is erroneous and that Concealed Carry should be outlawed completely as it always was in the past, as it deters no one from committing a crime. The reason why CCW was outlawed of course is because criminals always conceal their weapons so as to commit crimes with them. If a criminal walks into the Convenience Store parking lot and sees a guy standing out front smoking a cigarette has a pistol on his hip: he has two choices: move on to greener pastures, or take out the guy with the pistol first. Who has a problem with that?

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  281. “YK …if I OC solo usually I am in less populated areas… we preach not to do solo walks in populated areas because of the chance of a attack. … but when solo I carry it in many configurations depending on platform and surroundings. usually on a single point in front or side.”

    WOW Paranoid much? Seriously most people do not worry about having a “posse” or worry about traveling alone unless they are going to a KNOWN high crime area.

    Its not OC or CC that is at issue here, its the soft skulls and weak minds of some of those that actually do carry who is at issue, which is part of what this post is about.

    Paranoia and fear is all I see hear as well as false bravado. At least the author of this story has a head on his shoulders.

    Thanks for the article

    By Tin foil hat hater on Sep 24, 2013

  282. Concealed Carry should be outlawed, first as it is not a deterrent to anything and any stats purporting it can be fabricated. there is no quantitative value to “crimes prevented”

    Open Carry mandatory. Wear it on your hip: be the public’s protection.

    CCW is insanity, a bunch of guys who hope they get to pull on somebody and blow them away but what will happen if there are more than one CCW in a place and shooting breaks out: nobody will know who is who and they will be shooting each other, which is fine with me, but …

    if everyone is open carry everyone knows who is who.

    CCW is idiotic. Does not deter anyone.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  283. and both CC and OC ARE the issue, as CC is idiotic and accomplishes nothing.

    Wear it on your hip, so you put the criminals on notice.

    Oh, you want to be CC and be Charles Bronson some night and get some punk to mug you so you can blow him away.

    only in your dreams you don’t have the guts to do it.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  284. “There’s nothing wrong or illegal with either type of carry as long as the law allows it.”

    This is exactly the WRONG kind of thinking and why the pro-gun side has and will continue to have a serious public image problem. The legal standard is a very, very poor guide for how a civilized, decent person should act.

    Under the law, if I look out my window and see my neighbor’s child drowning in the pool, it is perfectly legal for me to simply stand there and watch it happen. I have no legal duty to help the child or even to notify someone else of what is happening. I would hope it would be obvious that doing so would still be wrong and horrible.

    Unfair or not, if a person wants to be an effective activist on any issue, their behavior on that issue, and any even slightly related issue, needs to be above reproach from anyone. When even people on “your side” are criticizing your behavior, you’ve lost all effectiveness. Who’s “right” no longer matters at that point, because the damage has been done.

    By Terrie on Sep 24, 2013

  285. Terrie — That would be very wise and brilliant if the RKBA movement was the only one where people disagreed on priorities and magnitude. You’re right, we should take our lead from homogenous movements like environmental activists (they all burn down neighborhoods and want to ban automobiles, right?

    By ToddG on Sep 24, 2013

  286. there IS something wrong with CCW in that it accomplishes nothing and is counterproductive for reasons stated above.

    it should be outlawed and prohibited and people who want to carry, mandated to carry openly.

    if those people making the case for CCW is that it deters crime it does not.

    and is therefore useless and permits the mentally ill and other miscreants to conceal, bait, and blow away.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  287. If George Zimmerman had been forced to open carry, Travon Martin, if indeed a miscreant, would have been deterred which is the supposed purpose of CCW.

    Or if not a miscreant would be alive today because Zimmerman would not have had to confront him, and Travon Martin would certainly not have gotten into an altercation with him, knowing he was packing heat.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  288. but unfortunately ToddG there are no homogenous activist groups organized to ban idiots.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  289. hippydippy — Can you tell me the Mega Millions winning numbers for tonight?

    By ToddG on Sep 24, 2013

  290. sure 3, 24, 25, 30, 55 and 8 as the Mega Ball.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  291. In an attempt to bring the conversation back to the genesis of the article. The issue is, are protesters working within the sphere of gun rights, who open carry rifles and other more conspicuous guns, in places where these guns are unusual, helping or hurting their cause.

    We lack enough empirical evidence at this point, so we can only use anecdotal. The article started with the statement by Starbucks, that’s a great starting point for showing that the effect is not what the protesters intend. Let me try to offer a more personal anecdote. You are attempting to sway ME.

    You have all the people you regularly talk with. Your friends, family. You need to expand past those bounds and bring in me. If you think I am unmovable, that may be true, however I have a long list of things I want to change, or dedicate my time to. Gun rights may be one or two on your list of important issues, you should be concerned that it is moving its way UP my list. I may be happy to leave it alone – dedicate my efforts to any number of other issues I care about, but it’s becoming hotter because of things like these open carry groups. Further, as an active participant in politics and my society, my voice joins into the mix that hits the soft middle. You need these people, and while they may never dig deep enough to care about the subtly of your argument, if I start talking about scary – stupid men carrying their AKs into coffee shops, you lose.

    Let me hit on one point as an example. Gun rights people like to point to technical details. “This receiver is nothing more than blahblahblah with a modification it blahblahblah” or “this open carry guy is in the ‘ready hike’ position”. People outside your world don’t care, and this sort of technical intimidation turns them off. They see a scary guy with a nasty looking gun. I work in a very technical field. Daily I have to present information to people who are very smart and capable people – just not technical. It is MY responsibility to present my information in a way that is effective for them. I am attempting to influence their thinking, it is MY responsibility to do it in a way acceptable to them, not the other way around.

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  292. The issue is the efficacy of law as it pertains to the carrying of firearms, the intent of the law, why the law is what it is, that permits or prohibits the carrying of firearms, by any method, the two options being openly or in a concealed fashion.

    It is obvious that people carrying and displaying or brandishing firearms are seeking attention, by creating a scene and this kind of demonstration has little use other than to make people think that these brandishers are mentally unbalanced from the get go, as far as the brandishers are concerned.

    The issue is in part, whether or not firearms may be carried and brandished openly, which no law in Ohio, or other states, prohibits per se, but the manner of brandishment may constitute inducing panic or disorderly conduct each case needing to be evaluated on its own merits.

    In any particular local jurisdiction, there may be ordinances regarding brandishment, but disorderly conduct or inducing panic charges can be used to suppress brandishment of firearms for the sole purpose of getting media, attention. without getting near to a violation of any constitutional right to keep and bear arms, in my opinion.

    no act is criminal in and of itself: it is the state of mind of the actor in each case which determines whether or not someone shooting someone else in the head is guilty of murder or completely innocent on self defense grounds, and the same applies to carrying and brandishing firearms in public places.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  293. for instance, in the image of the guy with his hand on the pump and other hand near the trigger of the shotgun: I would probably either immediately try to fatally strike him in the head with a blunt object from behind or head tackle him and try to break his head on the floor, and let the authorities sort it all out later, but that person is too close to being able to fire that weapon for my liking all other things being equal.

    but that is just me.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  294. “hippidippy”,

    If you are so unstable as to be driven to attempted homicide that easily, please do us all a favor and stay the heck far away from all firearms.

    By Tam on Sep 24, 2013

  295. Well, Tam. That is an issue those on the gun control side are trying to point out.

    Not everyone is suited to owning, carrying and using firearms. There should be reasonable controls that allow for us to filter people who are unsuitable out.

    In a reply to me up thread someone said the gun rights groups were in agreement restricting guns from the mentally-ill. I see no sign of that gun rights supporters are willing to move on any background check, up to allowing the BLIND to carry guns.

    I am sane, can see, have no criminal background, or criminal tendency. I am still not a good candidate for carrying a gun. I have no intention of killing, or hurting, anyone. Given a situation where the gun would come into play, it would be a negative for the situation for ME to have a gun. But, I still could carry, because everyone should be packing, right?

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  296. TBR wrote “I am sane, can see, have no criminal background, or criminal tendency. I am still not a good candidate for carrying a gun. I have no intention of killing, or hurting, anyone. Given a situation where the gun would come into play, it would be a negative for the situation for ME to have a gun. But, I still could carry, because everyone should be packing, right?”

    No of course not every one should carry a gun,some people like yourself are clearly not suited to it, but THEY should have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a gun. You are free to choose for yourself, but each individual should also have that choice. (I’m obviously referring to the class of people you place yourself in = sane and non criminal.)

    By Elliot on Sep 24, 2013

  297. Elliot,

    I should have reworked the last sentence better. I may be able to make it over the bar of acceptance, and have the interest in buying a gun, but not what it really takes in a panicked environment. Many people are not thoughtful enough, experienced enough, or self aware to make the proper determination, that they are NOT a good candidate to carry a gun.

    I would really like everyone to review the post I made early today, its more on point with the real topic, however, this slight tangent is int resting too. I am willing to admit that I should not carry, I think the same could be said for many walking around with guns without much real life experience. This leads to unpredictable results. If the bar were higher than “I want one” and “I haven’t been a criminal yet” then society might be more willing to accept citizens carrying guns.

    I have purposely left this info out of my posts, but it seems germane at this point. I work with a fair number of people involved in law enforcement and high-end armed private security. To see the level of competence, ESPECIALLY in private security, is to see that real training makes a difference. Its not really about shooting at all.

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  298. TBR — First, I (and I think most folks who read this blog regularly) totally respect your personal decision not to own or carry a firearm. If you don’t think you could use one when the moment of truth came, then you’ve made the right decision.

    Having said that, there’s a big leap in logic between your personal acknowledgement of your personal feelings or ability and the assumption that there are others out there who are lunatics just waiting for a chance to cause trouble. Given the many millions of Americans who carry every day, statistics are pretty clear that neither accidents nor malicious acts are associated with lawful gun ownership and possession.

    There are already many federal and state laws on the books that determine who can and cannot get a firearm. You’ll see our side often chant the mantra “enforce the laws on the books.” But banning concealed carry because it’s easier than enforcing those laws isn’t an answer we’ll accept.

    As for the importance of training, look at the name of this blog. Look at the other topics discussed here. I think you’ll find that the typical reader here considers average “private security guard” training to be laughably inadequate. I, too, have a bit of experience with LE/mil/security folks at all levels. And I’m willing to bet I know more about their specific training regimens and policies.

    I happen to be a driving enthusiast. Because of that, I’ve become attached to the idea that there should be stricter limits on who can drive and what qualifies someone to operate a vehicle on a public highway. If you’re honest, you’ll agree that statistics clearly show there are more deaths in automobile accidents every year than deaths from gunfire (and thus by definition, more than accidental and/or negligent deaths by firearms). Furthermore — and this is pretty important — there is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car. So as I said earlier, if what you want is to maximize utility and minimize unnecessary injuries and deaths, redirect your effort from the high-profile but statistically uncommon “gun problems” and get your state to institute tougher restrictions on getting a driver’s license. Get your state to make texting while driving a felony. Get your state to make first time DUI convictions serious offenses. Etc.

    Guns might be more noticeable and more scary to you (I mean that literally, not as a jab) because you’re less familiar with them than driving. You can understand driving because you do it all the time. Those of us who do the gun thing all the time have a perspective that you lack.

    By ToddG on Sep 24, 2013

  299. ToddG – Nice response, and serves as a pivot point back to the article, and my post from early today.

    First, that I am mucking about in a debate that normally falls further down my list of concerns should indicate to you, and others, that concern around gun laws are more troubling to people now, and I contend that a vocal part subculture in your camp is making more trouble for you than you want.

    Second, people that are well trained, conscious gun owners should be MORE concerned with better gun laws, and concerned with the image less conscious gun toting groups. Look, I think we agree that the open carry people are generally giving you a black-eye, but further, I think its reasonable to state that showing such poor judgement, these people are not just bad spokesmen, but a danger to society, and should not be carrying around guns.

    The car vs gun debate is always a stock debating point. There is a risk/reward equation in all things, and cars may be more deadly, but have greater reward. My society benefits greatly by the increased mobility provided by cars, but I cant say the same about guns.

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  300. Responding to the bit about “training site”. While I haven’t read much of your site, I would be willing to bet there are a fair amount of you that are very serious gun owners. I referenced LEO and a security firm. Let me elaborate a bit on those two points.

    The security company is incredibly professional. They don’t have any real worry getting lumped in with the rent a cop world. The LEO people and security people both have issues with citizens carrying guns. Recently they, the security company, had all employees do a week worth of training on dealing with legally armed citizens. The basic feedback was, this is a mess. The last thing these people want to do is get into a situation with unknown people shooting just because they too have a gun.

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  301. Wish I could edit. Last sentence was unclear. They, security/LEO, don’t WANT the help of the public during a potentially dangerous situation. Their feeling is, it will complicate the situation, and lead to worse outcomes.

    By TBR on Sep 24, 2013

  302. TBR

    If I was carrying a weapon and a person presented exactly like this person in the image at top of this article: I would probably shoot to kill him immediately as a prophylactic measure, and let the authorities sort it out later.

    better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  303. Hand on pump: finger near trigger.

    Dead Man Walking.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  304. “hippidippy”,

    If you are so unstable as to be driven to attempted homicide that easily, please do us all a favor and stay the heck far away from all firearms.

    By Tam on Sep 24, 2013

    This would be completely justifiable homicide.

    The man appears to be deranged and readying the shotgun to be fired.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  305. the car v gun is nothing but a red herring.

    but even if it was not:

    nobody can buy a car legally without it being registered with state authorities.

    nor operate it on public highways without a license to operate it, and insurance against damages caused by it.

    not so with a firearm.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  306. Todd:

    Having sent in the comment that began this thread, I just came back to it and read the whole silly thing.

    All I can say is that you have the patience of a saint at times (well, maybe not with that hurt feelings questionnaire, but it was pretty funny).

    What was interesting to me was that both the radical OC folks (and I agree with their view of the law, but their tactics puzzle me) and the anti-gunners seemed not to understand a word you said. The both seem to be in private echo chambers that prevent outside sound from entering.

    Anyway, I think your view of the battlefield is much clearer than either of their. We are winning–but we haven’t won yet and we could still pull defeat out of the jaws of victory if we get too cocky or careless.

    Thanks, for what you do to help us, and for putting up with the abuse you took from people too myopic to realize that you are on their side.

    By SteveJ on Sep 24, 2013

  307. SteveJ you have not addressed one issue raised especially the fact that CCW laws are useless and counterproductive and that Open Carry should be completely mandatory.

    I don’t blame you for resorting to nothing but obtuse ad hominem.

    By hippydippy on Sep 24, 2013

  308. Picture of the gentleman you have posted is of a US Army soldier on a US installation in Kuwait that maintains a Starbucks – and all GI’s had to carry their weapons.

    By Can on Sep 25, 2013

  309. It is not relevant who he is or where he is.

    the only thing relevant is that if a person were brandishing a weapon like that in a public place he or she would be liable to inducing panic or disorderly conduct charges, if not assaulted by any CCW holder in the vicinity as the person appears to be readying a firearm for discharge, taken at face value and with no other information.

    That is quite distinct from “Open Carry”

    Now, address the fact and truth that CCW laws do nothing to deter crime, but that a person openly carrying, DOES deter crime.

    And please address my position: if private citizens wish to carry firearms, it should be mandatory that they be carried openly, so both criminals AND law enforcement personnel are able to identify the fact that any person is carrying a firearm and could be deadly.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  310. “Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.”
    *eyeroll*

    Seriously, is your best argument “stop being weird”?

    By DocMerlin on Sep 25, 2013

  311. “there is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car.”
    – Actually there is. The courts have upheld it repeatedly.

    By DocMerlin on Sep 25, 2013

  312. hippydippy,

    nobody can buy a car legally without it being registered with state authorities.

    This is factually incorrect. Registration is only a requirement for operating on public roads. You can buy a car and drive it around your property ’til the cows come home without registering it or licensing yourself.

    This would be completely justifiable homicide.

    The man appears to be deranged and readying the shotgun to be fired.

    Obvious troll is obvious, but I’ll pretend you’re arguing in good faith and reply anyway.

    Self defense has three prerequisites. Let us see if they were met.

    Ability: Yes. The man has a shotgun, so he is perfectly able to kill you.

    Opportunity: Yes. If you are in the same room as a man with a shotgun, he is close enough to kill you with it.

    Jeopardy: The man is standing there with the shotgun pointing at the ground, smiling and posing for somebody else with a camera.

    There is not a jury in the United States of America that would not convict you of attempted homicide and throw your @$$ under the jail for “either immediately try to fatally strike him in the head with a blunt object from behind or head tackle him and try to break his head on the floor“.

    As an aside, the loving detail to which you go in describing violent physical acts is a little disturbing to well-adjusted people. Have you considered seeking anger-management treatment?

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  313. The aspect of Starbuck’s announcement that sits wrong with me is this…Schultze (CEO) was vociferous in his support of gay rights at the shareholder meeting in March of this year. Even to the extent of telling disapproving shareholders to take a hike. Now when the gun rights issue gets heated, he wants to slip out the back door. So, to me, Schultze and his company are picking which rights are more equal than others.

    By JimK on Sep 25, 2013

  314. The problems with both open and concealed carry, to me, is I don’t think it’s necessary. The conversation over “ready”, and allowing “perps to see the weapon” to me are so overkill. Despite the horrific news, the instances of the type of violence that you may effect by carrying is just not prevalent enough to outweigh the risk. More, and more casual access to guns makes potential violence greater, however, I walk around every day with no real fear that I will be involved in any situation where there will be gun play. The society I want, and for the most part live in, has no real need for every person to be “read” to kill each other.

    This is not some liberal Pollyannaish world view, its reality. We don’t live in a constant dystopian state. We live in a society with some level of crime, acceptability is relative. We all will always want it lower, set a new baseline, but I can’t possibly believe that everyone on this thread think we need to be on-guard every second of the day. I blithe walk into my coffee shop (non-Starbucks by-the-by) and every morning without a care about my physical safety. I’m much more concerned with the problems of my day.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  315. TBR,

    The problems with both open and concealed carry, to me, is I don’t think it’s necessary.

    This is a new legal concept to me. I would like to review your life and see if there is anything I find unnecessary.

    Despite the horrific news, the instances of the type of violence that you may effect by carrying is just not prevalent enough to outweigh the risk.

    Risk? What risk? Are you accusing me of plotting to commit murder, TBR? Is that what you are saying? Is that your reasoning behind your attempt at prior restraint; the fear that I might do something?

    I’m a little ashamed of you. After all, I trust you to come hurtling at me in a two-ton metal box at a mile a minute protected by only a stripe of yellow paint on the ground. Meanwhile, I have sat next to you at lunch every day for twenty years and now you’ve found out I had a gun under my shirt the whole time, you accuse me of being a future spree killer.

    For shame, Mr. TBR, for shame.

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  316. Tam,

    Shaming me is not terrible persuasive. To address where you miss read, or simply read in what you like, let’s take an honest stab at this.

    You may have a right, one that I disagree with, to carry your gun where you please. That does not make it a good idea, or a necessity within our society. Crazy people have the right to scream about conspiracy theories all day long, but it may not be useful for our society.

    Interpreting my statement as an accusation is simply misreading. My point is simple. It has been stated by “carry” advocates in this thread that their choice to carry a weapon will deter criminal activity. My point is, the actual level of criminal activity is not so prevalent that whatever percentage you may deter outweighs the risk to society.

    And, lastly back to the car analogy. Really, you are supporting my thesis. We trust each other with a very dangerous device every day. The instances of intentionally harming each other is very low. Similarly, my coffee shop is not a hotbed of violence.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  317. My point is, the actual level of criminal activity is not so prevalent that whatever percentage you may deter outweighs the risk to society.

    I have asked you what risk to society is presented by me carrying a gun.

    I am asking you again in hopes of receiving an answer this time.

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  318. Tam,

    Are you really asking what “unintentional risk” a gun may pose? Without becoming flippant, or resorting to endless linking to accidental shooting stories, let me simply state that guns are by design dangerous using any definition. Safety practices are put in place to tame the potential dangerous side effects of the very device. The very site we are posting to is dedicated to train people in safe handling. Simply put, yes you are more dangerous to me with a gun than without. I don’t see any way that could be logically debated.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  319. TBR,

    Are you really asking what “unintentional risk” a gun may pose?

    Yes. I am asking you what risk, intentional or unintentional, the gun on my hip as I type this, poses to society.

    Are you implying it will do something to society all by itself?

    Are you implying I am going to do something to society with it?

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  320. Simply put, yes you are more dangerous to me with a gun than without.

    I’d like to highlight this.

    What makes you think I am any danger to you at all, with or without a gun?

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  321. “ My point is, the actual level of criminal activity is not so prevalent that whatever percentage you may deter outweighs the risk to society.”

    The thing is, empirical evidence contradicts this assertion: Over the last decade, both firearm ownership, and CCW licenses have increased several-fold, while accidental deaths and injuries from firearms have gone down. Likewise, defensive use of firearms have gone up. The actual nubmers to support my statements can be found from a number of sources… and while it’s absolutely true that there are arguments about the veracity of all numbers associated with this issue, the LOWEST number put forth for defensive gun use (DGU) is ~500,000, and the highest is in the 4.7million range. For argument’s sake, let’s go with an official org, the CDC: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html They say about 500,000 DGUs per year…

    Whichever number you want to go with, it VASTLY outnumbers BOTH the numbers of murders AND injuries from firearms…

    So, my conclusion is that there is rather less risk to society than you seem to think, and actual DGU is MORE productive than detrimental…

    By Robert on Sep 25, 2013

  322. “Simply put, yes you are more dangerous to me with a gun than without.”

    I meant to quote this and the sentence I actually quoted in my last post…

    By Robert on Sep 25, 2013

  323. Tam,

    This subtopic may go nowhere, but I will attempt to apply some logic and see where it gets me.

    You want to carry a gun because as a tool, it has force. It can maim or kill me. Without it, you are less capable of doing me harm. Can we agree on that point?

    Provided we have no intend to harm each-other, you caring a gun is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting. Can we agree with this?

    In this meeting, you with a gun, me without, some chance of mishap exists. We misunderstand each-others intentions, or any number of other unintended scenarios. You are potentially more dangerous with than without your gun. Agree?

    You carry your gun to potentially, or purportedly, thwart crime. I contend that the level of criminal activity is not enough of a threat to me to outweigh the risk. My risk/reward calculation tells me I don’t want you around with a gun.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  324. TBR:

    It’s ok. At your house you get to decide whether people have weapons or not. In public, it isn’t your decision. And, while it might seem counterintuitive to you, you are far less likely to be shot by someone like Tam than by your neighborhood policeman with his training allowance of 100 rounds of ammo a year. I don’t want you to get unnecessarily worried, but you probably saw what happened in Times Square the other day.

    Tam:

    Please feel free to carry your pistol around me anytime. For some reason I have no fear that it will jump out and shoot me all by itself, and since you are reportedly more than a fair shot, I figure that I will materially gain in protection with you around (unlike Mayor Bloomberg, I can’t afford my own protective detail). But do bring one of your Model 27’s or Registered Magnums, won’t you? Those are pistols to drool over.

    By SteveJ on Sep 25, 2013

  325. TBR,

    You want to carry a gun because as a tool, it has force.

    Maybe I want to carry a gun because it matches my shoes.

    It can maim or kill me.

    No it cannot. It is entirely inert.

    Provided we have no intend to harm each-other, you caring a gun is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting.

    Provided I have no intent to email anyone, my carrying an iPad is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting. (But if my heart held the hidden malice you keep implying it does, you would not want me holding a one-and-a-third pound slab of metal and tempered glass, would you?)

    In this meeting, you with a gun, me without, some chance of mishap exists.

    How? Do I get possessed by a Zortian brain slug? Do you go crazy and try and grab my gun? I’m trying to find this “element of risk” and not spotting it and all I get is hand-waving in response.

    You carry your gun to potentially, or purportedly, thwart crime.

    You have no idea why I carry a gun, nor is it really any more business of yours than why I picked the color undergarments I am wearing, as you are extremely unlikely to catch a glimpse of either barring a dramatic wardrobe malfunction.

    My risk/reward calculation tells me I don’t want you around with a gun.

    Fortunately my Supreme Court says that what you want has very little bearing on the matter. People in hell want ice water. You want me to not carry a gun. It’s good to want things.

    Here’s some thoughts on which to chew:
    #1) I think it is highly unlikely that I will ever need a firearm to save my live.
    #2) I have already been wrong about #1 on more than one occasion.

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  326. 1: A person carries a gun in order to fire it. A person carrying a firearm by definition, is carrying it because he DESIRES to shoot it. He WANTS to fire it. he CRAVES firing it. He LIKES firing it. A person carrying a gun is HOPING he gets to fire it. He DREAMS of firing it. He cannot WAIT for the opportunity to fire it.

    Otherwise he simply would not carry it.

    It is the same with all things people carry.

    A person carries a fishing pole because he wants to use it.

    A person carries a firearm because he wants to fire it.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  327. from the very second a person picks up a firearm and carries it with him there is only ONE thing on his mind in fact.

    What can I shoot it at? I want to shoot something, anything. That is why I have this thing with me.

    I want to shoot something.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  328. So, hippydippy, anyone carrying a fire extinguisher should be suspected as an arsonist?

    Sorry, but “liberal logic” is not a substitute for the real thing.

    By alanstorm on Sep 25, 2013

  329. Hippydippy, do you have a spare tire and jack in your car/van/bus?

    I don’t carry a first aid kit or spare tire because I want to use them. They’re there in case they are needed. Just like my firearms.

    By Robert on Sep 25, 2013

  330. “Simply put, yes you are more dangerous to me with a gun than without. I don’t see any way that could be logically debated.”

    Sorry, but “liberal logic” is not a substitute for the real thing.

    If you were to say “potentially dangerous”, that could be argued, but not well. For Tam to be potentially dangerous to you, you would have to do something to earn it, which doesn’t seem likely.

    By alanstorm on Sep 25, 2013

  331. hippydippy,

    Obvious troll is still obvious, but we’ll keep pretending you’re arguing in good faith for the benefit of any third parties that may be reading.

    A person carries a firearm because he wants to fire it.

    I am assuming that you are drawing your knowledge of the motivations of people who carry firearms from your long experience of being one?

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  332. “DGU per year” is a number which proves that CCW does NOT work.

    if the CCW had DETERRED anything, there would be no reason to USE the firearm, and therefore the necessity to USE the firearm defensively, PROVES that the CONCEALED carry did nothing.

    if the firearm was carried OPENLY however, and was effective as a DETERRENT to a crime being attempted, the DGU would not occur: the USE would not occur.

    Therefore, use the HIGH number of DGU: that is the number of times CCW FAILED TO DETER A CRIMINAL.

    the HIGHER THE DGU: THE STRONGER THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CCW and in FAVOR of MANDATORY OPEN CARRY

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  333. tam

    you are in denial. you pick up a fork because you want to stick it in something to eat.

    you pick up anything because you want to use it.

    you pick up a gun because you want to fire it.

    you want to shoot it, otherwise you would not pick it up.

    you take it an use it to shoot targets. cans bottles, animals, people.

    from the second you pick it up: you want to shoot it. period.

    a person carrying a firearm is carrying it looking for something to shoot with it.

    it is just that simple.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  334. hippydippy,

    Almost twenty years of carrying one every day says that I must be quite the paragon of deferred gratitude.

    Personally? I’m calling Poe’s Law on this one. I think you’re a gun crank attempting to parody what you think is an antigun viewpoint.

    (And unless you’re referring to the width of your fundament, it’s “hippie, not hippy. You’re welcome.)

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  335. you pick up a fully automatic firearm because it is fun to see the effect of a discharge of multiple projectiles on something.

    from the second you pick up the fully automatic firearm you are looking for something to blast away at. its fun!

    but firing away at targets is just practice for the real thing, which is a use of the firearm that accomplishes some useful task. the person shoots at paper targets so he is better at shooting it at real things.

    and so, a person carrying a firearm around, is carrying it for the purpose of firing it at something or someone, not a paper target, and accomplishing something.

    no matter what it is that he is looking to fire at: he wants to fire that sucker.

    he YEARNS to fire it. craves firing it.

    the denial of this basic truth is the basis for the rest the irrational argument you and all “pro gun” people make. It is the basis of a loss of contact with reality, a psychosis.

    “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is an example of this psychosis.

    “nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people kill people” is the exact logical equivalent.

    “guillotines don’t chop off peoples heads: people chop off peoples heads” is the exact logical equivalent.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  336. ” guns don’t kill people: people kill people. guns just make it easier for one person to kill more people, a lot more easily, and with a lot less risk to the person killing the other people”

    it the correct, fully developed statement.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  337. and no. poe’s law (which is somewhat of a canard in my opinion) is not in play.

    I sincerely do not object to people carrying whatever they want to carry, as long as other people can easily detect what they are carrying, especially when what they are carrying is a deadly weapon.

    I trust you and take you at your word that your intent is to be carrying it and using it in a responsible manner, me not knowing you from Adam. However, me not knowing you from Adam: I want to KNOW you are carrying it so 1: I can get the hell away from you or, 2: trust you and depend on you to use it only to protect our lives and common interests.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  338. hippydippy’s law: (well founded) troll paranoia does not cause everyone making unusual or novel arguments to be a troll.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  339. Well, in my absence, some attempts were made to discuss my posts. Effectively discussing will need some forum formatting. So, before I respond, please allow me a little test.

    HTML
    [h1]Bracketed HTML[/h1]

    This is a blockquote

    ItalicsBoldStrong
    Preformated

    # Markdown
    ## Heading markdown

    * List
    + List

    **strong
    ***Very strong
    > “This is stuff in a blockquote”

    Just disregard, I will post reply when I complete.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  340. “You want to carry a gun because as a tool, it has force.”

    Maybe I want to carry a gun because it matches my shoes.

    Up thread there are replies about how stupid it is to carry an unloaded gun. As I understand, and think I could find plenty of backing from this site, you should NOT carry a gun unless you intend to use it. If you are truly carrying because it matches your shoes, I think you have made very poor choices, but assume you are simply being flippant.

    “It can maim or kill me.”

    No it cannot. It is entirely inert.

    Simple semantic arguments are for the very week debater. Please reply with some substance, providing I change the question to “you with your gun can maim or kill me”

    “Provided we have no intend to harm each-other, you caring a gun is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting.”

    Provided I have no intent to email anyone, my carrying an iPad is unnecessary within our theoretical meeting. (But if my heart held the hidden malice you keep implying it does, you would not want me holding a one-and-a-third pound slab of metal and tempered glass, would you?)

    Again, most of your reply is simply flippant. The only meat in there is you agree that it may be unnecessary. The entire “hidden malice” bit is the same you have chased before. Let me set it straight. I have no malice for you, and assume you towards me. Last bit is surreal… Really. The intended use of the iPad is very different than the gun, thats the very reason you want to carry it with you, and don’t use your iPad as a tactical weapon.

    “In this meeting, you with a gun, me without, some chance of mishap exists.”

    How? Do I get possessed by a Zortian brain slug? Do you go crazy and try and grab my gun? I’m trying to find this “element of risk” and not spotting it and all I get is hand-waving in response.

    You see no instance, no possible scenario where misunderstanding a situation may lead you to pull your gun, or when said gun is pulled, you have made a mistake. If you believe you are infallible, you need to consider more.

    “You carry your gun to potentially, or purportedly, thwart crime. ”

    You have no idea why I carry a gun, nor is it really any more business of yours than why I picked the color undergarments I am wearing, as you are extremely unlikely to catch a glimpse of either barring a dramatic wardrobe malfunction.

    “ My risk/reward calculation tells me I don’t want you around with a gun.”

    Fortunately my Supreme Court says that what you want has very little bearing on the matter. People in hell want ice water. You want me to not carry a gun. It’s good to want things.

    Your right to a gun, as the current interpretation of the constitution by the SCOTUS, is not absolute, and not eternal.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  341. “It is the same with all things people carry.”

    Right. I carry a set of jumper cables in my car because, secretly, I harbor an overwhelming desire to have a dead battery under the hood.

    *blink blink*

    “you pick up a fork because you want to stick it in something to eat.”

    Or because I hate the idea of ruining my manicure by eating steak off the bone with my hands.

    I can only surmise that hippydippy is the current incarnation of The Shadow, for he alone knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men (and women, because sexist pig is sexist.)

    By JeffB on Sep 25, 2013

  342. “As I understand, and think I could find plenty of backing from this site, you should NOT carry a gun unless you intend to use it.”

    Change “you intend” to “you are willing, if you have no other options to secure your personal safety”, and you’d be closer.

    By JeffB on Sep 25, 2013

  343. TBR:
    It’s ok. At your house you get to decide whether people have weapons or not. In public, it isn’t your decision. And, while it might seem counterintuitive to you, you are far less likely to be shot by someone like Tam than by your neighborhood policeman with his training allowance of 100 rounds of ammo a year. I don’t want you to get unnecessarily worried, but you probably saw what happened in Times Square the other day.

    au contraire. As a citizen I have as much say as you. The current make-up of the SCOTUS aside, licensing, permitting, background checking, and a slew of other restrictions are at a 1:1 ratio with you desire.

    As for the police. First, I don’t like them carrying at all times either. Add that, as I stated in another post, LEO and security experts will talk much more about the situation over the sending “lead down range”. That you equate the number of bullets fired with competent traning training me, and may worry the the core of this forum too. After all, they are in the training business, not the bullet marketting business.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  344. JeffB,

    Fair point. Should have used “you are willing”. I was unnecessary putting intention without situation. I Think my statement is still right on with the better (your) choice of words.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  345. “1: A person carries a gun in order to fire it. A person carrying a firearm by definition, is carrying it because he DESIRES to shoot it. He WANTS to fire it. he CRAVES firing it. He LIKES firing it. A person carrying a gun is HOPING he gets to fire it. He DREAMS of firing it. He cannot WAIT for the opportunity to fire it.

    Otherwise he simply would not carry it.”

    Hmmm. I am a person, and I carry a gun every day I go to work. I literally pray every morning and again at night – and sometimes several times during each day at work – that I never, ever have to use it. And yet I must carry it because it goes with the badge and other things that I am told I have to have. I have made it past my retirement eligibility with this philosophy, lost some friends along the way to shoots gone bad, and frankly cannot understand where you are coming from. At all.

    What puzzles me is that you seem averse to others carrying firearms, convinced that they only carry them because they secretly hope to be able to use them, and yet should you ever have a need for one instead of having one yourself you will call 911 and pray yourself that someone like me shows up to save you butt or – more likely – draw the chalk outline around your cold frame and secure the scene until the detectives get there.

    You want someone else to provide you with what you seem to think is an acceptable measure of safety, which is o.k. with me since that’s how I got a job for over two decades. However, you should not fault others for wanting to provide themselves with the same measure of safety at their own expense, time, and risk – at least they are not putting someone else’s life on the line for it. They know exactly where they stand, and while you think you know where you stand it is not nearly so defensible from certain very real bad things in life without someone like me to be there with you. Now, you have no idea where I am at any given moment but will scream until I either get there or you can’t scream anymore for whatever reason.

    And before you draw the “but you are trained” card I’ll toss out that yes, I am trained; I am also a law enforcement firearms instructor and the senior agency armorer where I am. My required level of training & performance is actually the bare minimum to pass the required legal standards – as with so many if not most officers in the world. My shooting perfect scores every year has nothing to do with the requirements and everything to do with my own personal drive. Many shoot the minimum and that’s it until next year.

    How do you know which officer is going to come to your aid – the ‘bare minimum’ guy with the lowest-bid sidearm or the 2+ decades experienced shooter? You have no idea; best bet is plan for the bare minimum at the longest possible response time. Most of the folks here know this sort of thing already and frankly, it is not acceptable to them to abdicate the responsibility for personal protection to some state agent who met the bare minimum requirements – they prefer to have the best possible training & equipment themselves and the comfort of always knowing where that is. And every one of them knows the prayer that I say every day with my badge; without a badge they say the same or similar prayers. No one who carries a gun wants to use it. We would all rather have a boring uneventful day.

    The folks here at P-T and other similar places are the top-notch real experts that we in the LE field look to for guidance, help, direction, and innovation. I use some of their materials to train our folks and also to keep myself in trim. They are professional shooters; I am an armed professional, but don’t ever mistake that for being a professional shooter.

    And I still don’t ever want to use my gun for the reasons why folks like you make me carry it. I will if I have to, but hope to God that day never comes. In my line of work I meet a lot of armed citizens and have rarely ever met a citizen gun owner & carrier who did not feel the same way.

    By Ancient Woodsman on Sep 25, 2013

  346. I think with the better choice of words, the statement is much closer to correct, yes.

    In *MY* opinion, you should NOT carry a firearm unless you are willing to use it as the last resort to secure your own safety (and that of your family), are well practiced in its use, function, and have given long, serious, considered thought to the ramifications of doing so.

    What most of the anti-gun folks I’ve met seem to think is “People who carry a gun can’t wait to be the Super-Ninja-Hero of the Day and are itching to get in a gun fight so they can save the world, get the girl, and drink martinis all night!”

    That is, they ascribe those ideas to those of us who do carry, then call US crazy for believing it. When we don’t.

    I’ve never met a legal, gun owner who carried daily who didn’t meet the criteria I set forth above. Everyone I’ve met (granted, the n value isn’t as high as it COULD be, but still) who carries HAS thought carefully about the consequences, has trained, has studied and studied the laws, is compliant with those laws, and starts off every day with a prayer akin to “Dear God*, please don’t let anything happen where I have to shoot someone today. Amen.”

    *Substitute your deity of choice, or non-deity of choice, or neo-pagan-symbolic-entity here.

    Are there bad gun owners? Yes, sure, of course. Dur. But there are bad pizza joints out there… doesn’t stop me from getting carryout at Pies and Pints every time I get to Fayetteville, WV, though.

    By JeffB on Sep 25, 2013

  347. hippydippy — A person carries a firearm because he wants to fire it.

    This statement, repeated over and over again, is all the evidence I need that you’re neither serious nor rational about the subject; and, that absolutely everything you say here can be ignored.

    I don’t carry a gun because I want to fire it, I carry a gun because I may need to fire it. I don’t wear a seatbelt because I want to get in a car accident. I wear it because I realize I may get in a car accident.

    By ToddG on Sep 25, 2013

  348. hippydippy — A person carries a firearm because he wants to fire it.

    This statement, repeated over and over again, is all the evidence I need that you’re neither serious nor rational about the subject; and, that absolutely everything you say here can be ignored.

    I don’t carry a gun because I want to fire it, I carry a gun because I may need to fire it. I don’t wear a seatbelt because I want to get in a car accident. I wear it because I realize I may get in a car accident.

    You wear the seatbelt because you want it to perform a function. You get in the car because you want to drive it. You don’t sit in it just to sit in it.

    You pick up a gun because you want to fire it.

    every time you pick it up, it is with the intent of firing it.

    all else is semantics and denial.

    if not: from now on, when you pick up your firearm to carry it in a concealed fashion, do NOT take any bullets.

    you can scientifically test the deterrent value of CCW that way.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  349. unless you pick it up and do NOT take ammunition: that is proof that your intent and desire is to fire the weapon.

    all the verbal and logical gymnastics, and denial, notwithstanding.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  350. IF.. your intent is to DETER crime.. which is the supposed intent of CCW….

    the carrying of it OPENLY is a TRUE deterrent.

    Concealing it does not deter a thing. The intent of concealing is so someone will commit the crime, and THEN you will have legal justification to fire it.

    If you conceal carry it is evidence that you do not intend to DETER ANYTHING.. but HOPE something happens so you can sate your craving to shoot someone, like Zimmerman did.

    : conceal, bait, and blow away.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  351. good to see the OC crowd making sane, rational arguments that will cause us to change our opinion of them.

    By Rob E on Sep 25, 2013

  352. JeffB,

    Now we’re talking, not bickering. Really, nicely said, and read with interest and respect. However, the discussion started with pointing towards the more… “outgoing” of your group. Discuss/defend that.

    hippydippy,

    You wear the seatbelt because you want it to perform a function. You get in the car because you want to drive it. You don’t sit in it just to sit in

    hippydippy – well done. I think I may use that in the future.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  353. you are missing the boat Rob.

    There is nothing wrong with OC: it should be mandatory.

    I want to know who is packing, frankly.

    so does law enforcement.

    CCW needs to be prohibited like it always was in the past.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  354. JeffB

    That is, they ascribe those ideas to those of us who do carry, then call US crazy for believing it. When we don’t.

    Again, the article I was interested in spoke to this very well. I, up stream, spoke honestly about this very subject. This happens on your side as much as on my side. Considerate people are not the two dimensional targets you shoot at. Respect my arguments, I respect yours. I’m competitive, think I am right, will argue till you change your mind, but don’t think I am the amalgam presented to you by gun supporters. I am a human man.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  355. Obvious troll or not, I agree with him about mandatory OC. I firmly believe all criminals illegally carrying guns should do so openly. Also, the law should require written prior notice of criminal activity. It’s only logical after all. More laws will solve this problem.

    By happydappy on Sep 25, 2013

  356. OK, discussion at its lowest level. Happydappy and Hippydippy are obviously not the same people. I don’t agree with Hippydippy much at all, really. But the quality of “happydappy” content hardly breaks the bar of childishness.

    Is this really what you have? Really the content of your charterer? A handful of us would like to talk, children please leave the room.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  357. when the other guy resorts to ad hom, its over.

    means: cannot address argument made, whatever it is, changes subject to poster, ignores post.

    is admission of no refutation of argument.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  358. Hippydippy said:

    “However, the discussion started with pointing towards the more… “outgoing” of your group. Discuss/defend that.”

    Why? Not my job to defend what others say. They are grown ups… they can speak for their damn selves.

    TBR:

    “Considerate people are not the two dimensional targets you shoot at. Respect my arguments, I respect yours. I’m competitive, think I am right, will argue till you change your mind,…”

    I have met very few “considerate” people on the anti-gun-ownership side of this discussion. The overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to remove from me the best option for defending my wife and daughters from harm in the name of “peace”. You may find this offensive, and if so I really don’t care, but your “right” to live in a world free of violence does NOT trump my right to protect my family from violence.

    You painted all gun carriers with the same brush when you told Tam that she was more dangerous because she had a gun. Implied in that is this: “People with guns are dangerous”.

    What you, sir, fail to realize (or recognize, I don’t know which) is this: I, as a gun owner, am absolutely NO threat to you.

    I don’t know you from Adam, but if you showed up on my front porch, said “I’m TBR from pistol-training.com, and I’m in a bad way… I could use a meal and a place to sleep”, then I would probably offer you a warm shower, a hot meal, and a place on the sofa (sorry I can’t offer a bed… My wife and I take one, my two girls take the others, and we only have three bedrooms.)

    Hell, you might even get one of the dogs to sleep in the den with you, stand guard, let you know if someone breaks into your Prius.

    In the morning, I’d offer you coffee, my wife’s biscuits and gravy (you should try them, they are heavenly), and a ride to the bus station.

    What I would NOT do is harm you or pose a threat to you…

    … unless you tried to harm us first. At which point, things change.

    Yet you have painted all gun owners with the same brush: We’re all threats to you, and therefore bad people.

    Then you wonder why we don’t trust you?

    Please, you’ve gotta be smarter than that.

    I’ll respect your arguments, sir, when you respect ME.

    By JeffB on Sep 25, 2013

  359. CCW is useless. point conceded.

    deters nothing.

    the higher the number of DGU the more times CCW failed to deter anything.

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  360. game set match

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  361. JeffB,

    I have met very few “considerate” people on the anti-gun-ownership side of this discussion. The overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to remove from me the best option for defending my wife and daughters from harm in the name of “peace”. You may find this offensive, and if so I really don’t care, but your “right” to live in a world free of violence does NOT trump my right to protect my family from violence.

    You are talking to one now. We aren’t a monolith, just as this article started. You are not all the same, and slightly further down this post, you “paint” me several times with an undeserved brush.

    I do have a right to live in a world as free from violence as you. I don’t trump your right, we stand together in a society trying to find the right blend.

    You painted all gun carriers with the same brush when you told Tam that she was more dangerous because she had a gun. Implied in that is this: “People with guns are dangerous”.

    You really need to reread that. I took time with those posts. She, Tam, IS more dangerous to me with a gun than without. Nothing said yet contradicts that simple fact. There is very little logic that can twist the fact that an armed person is more dangerous than an unarmed person.

    What you, sir, fail to realize (or recognize, I don’t know which) is this: I, as a gun owner, am absolutely NO threat to you.

    That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people. Again, that’s the point of carrying the dam thing.

    I don’t know you from Adam, but if you showed up on my front porch, said “I’m TBR from pistol-training.com, and I’m in a bad way… I could use a meal and a place to sleep”, then I would probably offer you a warm shower, a hot meal, and a place on the sofa (sorry I can’t offer a bed… My wife and I take one, my two girls take the others, and we only have three bedrooms.)

    Hell, you might even get one of the dogs to sleep in the den with you, stand guard, let you know if someone breaks into your Prius.

    In the morning, I’d offer you coffee, my wife’s biscuits and gravy (you should try them, they are heavenly), and a ride to the bus station.

    Love biscuits and gravy. Love dogs, have a pointer named Lily. Driver a Jaguar (v12) not a Prius, but would LOVE a Tesla

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  362. You want to be treated like a “human man,” yet you insist that we are all carrying because we want to shoot our guns. YOU are telling US why WE carry OUR guns, and we are trying to give you our reasons, yet you continually dismiss them. You must admit that there is something wholly wrong about you giving us our intentions. Treat US like people.

    We do want to shoot our guns. That’s what shooting ranges are for. And yet still, that is only out of a want to be better at shooting. Training to shoot is not fun. It is tiring. It is tedious. It is fatiguing. It is painful. It costs a whole lot of money. However, shooting is not the only thing we train to do. We work to be observant. We try to be conscious of our surroundings wherever we are. We do our damndest NOT to get into a situation where we will have to use that gun. Todd is the epitome of what we do. Working to master pistolcraft so that in that horrid moment, on that unforeseen day we may perform at the highest level and prevent another tragedy from happening. The tragedy of ANYONE getting hurt because of the ill intentions of another person. We don’t carry our guns so that we may shoot them; we carry them so that they may protect us, and that is not just a simple play on semantics. At its base is the mindset that we bring to the table.

    As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

  363. “That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people. Again, that’s the point of carrying the dam thing.”

    Being capable of being a threat and actually being a threat are completely different. This is the crux of the argument we submit: a gun is not threatening without a person with harmful intent behind it. Thus, coming from that mindset, when you say that we are much more dangerous once we put on a gun it hits a bit of a nerve. It seems like you are assuming that because we are carrying a gun we mean to harm someone which, any one of us will tell you, is entirely false.

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

  364. OK, TBD. You can believe what you want. You don’t want to listen to opposing views, because you HAVE to be correct.

    However:

    “What you, sir, fail to realize (or recognize, I don’t know which) is this: I, as a gun owner, am absolutely NO threat to you.”

    “That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people.”

    Those are NOT the same. Being ABLE to inflict injury and being a threat are NOT the same.

    Would you support a national database and mandatory licensing of people who take Tae Kwon Do classes? People who have pocket knives? People who have a softball bat at their home?

    By JeffB on Sep 25, 2013

  365. TBR said: “She, Tam, IS more dangerous to me with a gun than without.”

    You’ve dodged the question of how. Intent is what matters, not so much the tools the person has on their person. At conversational distance, just about anybody you meet could kill you if they wanted to, even if they don’t have a gun. A 17 year old kid killed a cop in El Paso a few months back by punching him a few times. The kid wasn’t even big or muscular…

    I’m sorry, TBR, but your argument that a gun makes someone more dangerous to you isn’t based in the real world.

    FYI, I have faced down someone with a gun when I didn’t have one. If he’d tried anything, I had him cold because he was close enough for me to grab hold of him, and I had a knife to his gun. Wisest choice he’s probably ever going to make was walking away…

    By Mike S. on Sep 25, 2013

  366. “As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.”

    Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  367. when was the last time you were threatened with deadly force?

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  368. “As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.”

    How could anyone think it was loaded if they did not even know you had it?

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  369. “Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?”

    I have no idea why someone would, and no, I don’t. However, I can’t tell you what the outlook for that type of behavior is for the rest of my life.

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

  370. “Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?”

    I have no idea why someone would, and no, I don’t. However, I can’t tell you what the outlook for that type of behavior is for the rest of my life.

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

    Whether you are CC or not you do not get threatened with deadly force.

    therefore, the purpose of carrying ammunition is to load it and fire the weapon.

    the reason you want to conceal that you have the weapon is?

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  371. 1. the concealed unloaded weapon has the same deterrent value as the concealed loaded weapon.

    2. the unloaded OPEN carry has MORE deterrent value than any concealed one, loaded or empty, just by being visible.

    why would you want to conceal it – if the intent was not to use it, but the intent of carrying it at all.. is to reduce the possibility of needing to use it?

    By hippydippy on Sep 25, 2013

  372. “1. the concealed unloaded weapon has the same deterrent value as the concealed loaded weapon.”

    Sure

    “2. the unloaded OPEN carry has MORE deterrent value than any concealed one, loaded or empty, just by being visible.”

    Iffy, but I understand your argument.

    “why would you want to conceal it – if the intent was not to use it, but the intent of carrying it at all.. is to reduce the possibility of needing to use it?”

    Assuming the only consequence of me openly carrying a weapon is that people with ill intent decide not to do whatever it is they were thinking of doing, then no, I wouldn’t want to conceal it. However, there are more consequences than just that. Other people may perceive me as having ill intent. I may get hassled more. I may be seen as a troublemaker, or an extremist. People I’m with just might not want to be around me. And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

  373. Ryan,

    You want to be treated like a “human man,” yet you insist that we are all carrying because we want to shoot our guns. YOU are telling US why WE carry OUR guns, and we are trying to give you our reasons, yet you continually dismiss them. You must admit that there is something wholly wrong about you giving us our intentions. Treat US like people.

    Ryan, give me you reasons. I have been as crystal clear as I can, I’m not trying to shut down any productive avenue of discussion, and where I have seen reasons given, have discussed them with honesty.

    Being capable of being a threat and actually being a threat are completely different. This is the crux of the argument we submit: a gun is not threatening without a person with harmful intent behind it. Thus, coming from that mindset, when you say that we are much more dangerous once we put on a gun it hits a bit of a nerve. It seems like you are assuming that because we are carrying a gun we mean to harm someone which, any one of us will tell you, is entirely false.

    I have never stated that anyone in this discussion, or anyone in the CC or OC groups have any malice. If I have struck a nerve, it may be that you haven’t really thought this through before. The nature of the gun as a device has nothing to do with intentions. No one has even attempted to address my point directly. A gun, by its very design, has the potential to harm me, family and friends. I am, without a doubt, in a more dangerous situation in the company of a gun carrier vs a non-gun carrier.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  374. Jeff

    OK, TBD. You can believe what you want. You don’t want to listen to opposing views, because you HAVE to be correct.

    This makes no sense to me. I argue because I think I am correct. I am always open to opposing views, I’m the only gun control advocate on this thread! I’m LISTENING!

    Those are NOT the same. Being ABLE to inflict injury and being a threat are NOT the same.

    Why? Do you really think there is no situation where you could make a mistake?

    Would you support a national database and mandatory licensing of people who take Tae Kwon Do classes? People who have pocket knives? People who have a softball bat at their home?

    These things aren’t causing my society trouble. The death toll is statically insignificant.

    By TBR on Sep 25, 2013

  375. TBR — I’ve got to tell you, I fell out of this debate primarily because your contention that being around lawful gun owners puts you in a “dangerous situation.” You clearly don’t understand it regardless of the many people who’ve tried to explain, but that’s just a very offensive attitude.

    Nonetheless, to address your last statement and hopefully give you an understanding of why the object isn’t the issue compared to the man:

    You said, I am, without a doubt, in a more dangerous situation in the company of a gun carrier vs a non-gun carrier. So let me ask you this. Would you rather be alone in a room with me, who is carrying a gun, or with an unarmed but otherwise unfettered Charles Manson?

    If you’re walking down the street and someone attacks you — whether it’s with a gun, knife, baseball bat, or really thick phone book — are you more or less “in danger” if there also happens to be a law-abiding citizen, like say a cop, with a gun nearby who tries to help you?

    Your analysis has been very one dimensional. You keep saying that things like accidental shootings only occur when there is a gun present so a gun’s presence necessarily means the odds of injury are greater, but that completely ignores the potential benefit that a gun could have in preventing injury if you’re suddenly the victim of a violent crime. As others have explained already, the number of incidents of lawful self-defense with a firearm — many of which don’t even require a shot to be fired — outstrips the number of accidents and even felonious deaths/injuries caused by firearms by orders of magnitude every single year.

    By ToddG on Sep 25, 2013

  376. Simple semantic arguments are for the very week debater. Please reply with some substance, providing I change the question to “you with your gun can maim or kill me”

    Not only am I a week debater, I am also a day and month debater. Yes, I could, hypothetically, maim or kill you with my sidearm. I could also do so with my pocket knife, a ballpoint pen, or my boot lace.

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  377. TBR,

    Again, most of your reply is simply flippant. The only meat in there is you agree that it may be unnecessary. The entire “hidden malice” bit is the same you have chased before. Let me set it straight. I have no malice for you, and assume you towards me. Last bit is surreal… Really.

    No.

    This is where our good faith conversation ends.

    The pistol in my holster, absent human intervention, will crumble into rust and disappear without human intervention.

    You posited an imaginary meeting between you and I in which I am carrying a firearm. You claimed this firearm is a danger to you.

    Since this firearm is an inert metal object that will sit still in its holster from now ’til the heat death of the universe absent human intervention, one or the other of us would have to pull it out of the holster to make it dangerous.

    That someone wouldn’t be me. That kinda narrows things down, no?

    By Tam on Sep 25, 2013

  378. “Assuming the only consequence of me openly carrying a weapon is that people with ill intent decide not to do whatever it is they were thinking of doing, then no, I wouldn’t want to conceal it. However, there are more consequences than just that. Other people may perceive me as having ill intent. I may get hassled more. I may be seen as a troublemaker, or an extremist. People I’m with just might not want to be around me. And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.”

    By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013

    Ok. now you just introduced a lot of extraneous IFS. Assuming that you are a relative unobtrusive, have a holster on your hip that is not painted hot red, act like a normal human being for the circumstances, that is, if at a shopping mall, just stroll around and shop, or at a baseball game, cheer for the home team.

    What would draw attention to you in the first place that would make anyone think you had ill intent, etc? What would you to do make anyone think you were an extremist? Any more than if you had the holster where nobody knew where it was even if they were inspecting you closely.?

    Talking real life here. scenario one is where you are acting normally with a conceal. scenario two is where you are acting normally with a hip holster.

    why would anyone think you were an extremist or troublemaker if you did not attract attention to yourself in some way?

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  379. and…”And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.”

    Well, assuming that your OC DID dissuade 99% of those who wanted to harm you (which is a very low number when you are CC, and a lower number when you are OC and they see it….)

    so then there is this extreme malcontent who is practically psychotic in the first place in a public place who wants to harm you or the people you are with for some reason…. and he is using deadly or semi deadly force.. why would you not want to be the one he accosts first? You are the person most ready to deal with it. And.. does this person get the jump on YOU? How inattentive of you. so in your objection: this guy just immediately identifies you as armed and attacks you seeing you are armed, and you are completely unaware of his presence or movements around you?

    How many millions of years can we allow for this actual scenario to actually occur in our probability calculation?

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  380. TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape. If it is conceivable that a series of events could lead to her shooting you, so too a series of events could lead you to raping her. Who can blame her, then, for carrying a gun?

    Flippant? No. While you might see the probability of Tam using a gun to defend herself as so low that it does not justify her having a gun that could possibly kill you, the consequence of her NOT having a gun could be so horrifying to her that carrying the gun makes sense even though the probability of using it is very, very low. What value is “public safety” to her if she personally has been the victim of violence? That is cold comfort indeed.

    Ultimately, though, the public safety vs self-defense arguments may be irreconcilable. The belief that fewer guns in a society will reduce the number of homicides, suicides and accidents with guns on the one hand, vs the one person who saves herself with a gun on the other. I think the ethics of the former are very shaky.

    By Tom on Sep 26, 2013

  381. “These things aren’t causing my society trouble. The death toll is statically insignificant.”

    And MY guns aren’t causing society trouble, either. The death toll is exactly zero.

    (Well, unless you could that rabbit that was wreaking havoc on my summer squash plants in summer ’09…)

    By JeffB on Sep 26, 2013

  382. Guys, DON’T feed the TROLL!

    There are some great arguments here, and there is some great sarcasm (happydappy)…likewise, the trolls herein are, as trolls are want to do, deaf to actual discussion, presumptive, unwilling to either share their bridge, or to consider anyone else’s argument/position.

    When a person in real life acts crazy, for example, continuing to tell you how YOU feel, WHY you feel that way, and what your motivations are, eventually you have to dismiss and cut them out of your life/area of influence, simply because arguing with walls is more productive :)

    By Robert on Sep 26, 2013

  383. All,

    There hasn’t been one reply addressing the possibility for error on your part. There seems to be no room in the gun communities’ collective mind for this simple possibility. We couldn’t even make it to the escalation of a situation, or uneven justice measured out by citizens.

    I doubt I post past this, I don’t think there is much more to do other than retread ground. I will check back, answer any questions, or comments directly. I wish there were more of a meeting of the minds between each side in this debate. I keep looking for where we do meet, where each can move a little, and how we can stop bickering. I congratulate each of the participants that are seriously and thoughtful. To those that the initial article was written about, and the handful replies in support of the open carry protesters, I ask you to read my first posts on this thread, look at the Occupy Wall street group, and ask yourself if you are doing anything positive.

    To sum this up. There are many people that feel much less comfortable around people carrying guns. They each have their own reasons. These people are not much different than you. They want to be safe, and may see you as an additional problem, not part of a solution. There have been clams of hostility on this thread, clams that the gun control community is hostel towards gun rights people. This is as true the other way around. No one is moving the needle starting from this posture.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  384. TBR,

    Well actually there were a lot of people addressing that, but You either ignore it or are just missing it. If You are able to answer a question like “If You have a pencil in Your hand how can You be sure You will not accidentally stab somebody in the eye with it?” then, I think, You have all the answers You need.

    But let me try to have a go at it from the other side. Like You, I quite like thought experiments :)
    Say we have a room (no corners, everything is very soft etc – it would be complicated to hurt yourself even if You tried). There are two people in the room. Both are totally equal (like weight, mental and physical condition etc). Both are naked (for the same reason of safety). Ok?
    Now we introduce a necktie into the room. Would You agree that this cardinally (infinitely?) increases the dangerousness (if there is such a word) of the situation? I think You’ll have to say ‘yes’, because until that point it was not possible to accidentally choke/hang yourself on the tie, because there was no tie?
    Would that mean, that introducing absolutely _anything_ at all into the room will increase this hypothetical dangerousness? And the dangerousness will increase with each new item added?
    Why particularly introduction of the firearm crosses Your imaginary line where ‘accidental dangerousness’ is not comfortable to You? What about a chainsaw? A big axe? A small one? 100000 letter openers? 1000 letter openers? 100?

    By Audrius on Sep 26, 2013

  385. TBR,

    There hasn’t been one reply addressing the possibility for error on your part.

    So, at our hypothetical meeting, you and I are sipping some Starbucks and I… what? Erroneously pull out my gun and start blasting you? Is that the scenario you posit? Because it is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

    I speak from some experience when I say that I have carried a gun pretty much every day for nearly twenty years and I have yet to pull it out of the holster by accident.

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  386. Tom,

    TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape.

    I had been studiously avoiding going there, but I’m glad someone else noticed that ball lying there, as it were, and picked it up and ran with it. ;)

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  387. Audrius,

    Really, no. You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident. ToodG, and Tams’ replies this am came close, but didn’t address the issue.

    As for your thought experiment, I think you are dead on. The gun didn’t cross an imaginary line, each new potential weapon is an additional threat. The gun, by design, has greater potential, that’s what it’s there for, but each new item may increase the arsenal. The tie, in your scenario, has much less potential for accident, escalation, or killing power than the gun. It seems logical, and I applaud you for introducing this into the discussion, that you agree on some level that introducing the gun increases the potential for unintended consequences.

    Why this particular device crosses my line? Let me carefully answer this. I’m not attempting to put words in anyone’s mouth. The user’s choice of a gun for protection can reasonably be assumed because of its superior abilities. That any device has potential is not lost on me, or much of anyone who shares my position. It can be frustrating to discuss this honestly with people who choose the best tool for a job, then insist there are other tools too. We know that, but still choose a hammer when nailing something, and choose a tablet for business purposes. Most of what I have been discussing in recent posts has to do with unintended consequences. I have not moved on the theory that there is potential for unintended consequences with a gun. Additionally, there is a reasonable amount of risk I must take on in everyday life. Driving, as has been discussed. I risk a potential criminal encounter too. I must weigh if the addition of guns in this encounter helps or exacerbated the situation. I still see little that leads me to believe that the situation is improved with a gun.

    I am participating in a conversation with you. All of you. Enduring a few snide comments along the way. My intention is pure, in that I would like to discuss for both out benefits. I am happy to continue, or fade away. It’s really up to the group.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  388. TBR,

    You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident. ToodG, and Tams’ replies this am came close, but didn’t address the issue.

    You still have not answered my question, so I will attempt to rephrase it:

    You and I are at our hypothetical meeting at an imaginary Starbucks. We are talking and sipping coffee. I have a holstered gun on my belt.

    Draw me a scenario where that gun causes you harm.

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  389. TBR,

    I risk a potential criminal encounter too. I must weigh if the addition of guns in this encounter helps or exacerbated the situation. I still see little that leads me to believe that the situation is improved with a gun.

    Would you call the police instead?

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  390. Tam,

    Both your most recent comments were post while the page was static. Let me address each please. I have to run to a meeting, but will reply when I return.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  391. “Really, no. You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident.”

    My reply did. I referred to, and linked to the CDC study which includes rates of injuries, both intentional and accidental…. which have BOTH gone down over the last 20 years… by almost 50%.

    Several other replies dealt with other types of accidents being far more prevalent than firearms accidents.

    There certainly ARE accidents. Almost 6000 people die in their homes from falling. Over 5000 people die each year form accidentally ingesting poisons….

    But at over 25,000, fatalities from vehicular accidents are almost FORTY TWO TIMES more prevalent than fatalities from firearms accidents (citation: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html from the CDC 2010 study)

    So… there are 10 times more slip and fall deaths, 8.3 times more accidental poising deaths, and 41.66 times more traffic accident deaths in America (well, those numbers are all from 2010)…

    Now, lets throw in stats on CCW users vs others (every study so far has concluded that CCW holders are 1) .07% as likely to commit crime, 2) 1.2% as likely to have accidental discharge as non CCW holders) and I am VERY confident in dealing with legal firearms owners vs simply driving my car, eating something accidentally that poisons me, or slipping and banging my head in the bathroom.

    By Robert on Sep 26, 2013

  392. “I had been studiously avoiding going there…”

    Well it’s time we start going Andrea Dworkin on this guy’s butt.

    By Tom on Sep 26, 2013

  393. Tam,

    While I was waiting for my part of a meeting, I was reading accidental gun injury stories where the gun owner was concealed carry licensed, and the accident took place outside the home. I think we can agree there are a slew of them. Basically, I was looking for a case that would fit as close as I could to a competent, thoughtful, female, conceded carry individual. There are a number of “dropped purse” incidents, but I am willing to assume that you are more careful than that. The preponderance of stories center around careless people. Since I have spent most of this discussion on my back-foot, this hasn’t been addressed, but let me tell you, these are the people that scare me, and they clam the same “responsible gun owner” moniker as you.

    Anyway, this story was interesting. It has some elements of all things around RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, without resorting to stupid.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08/detroit-woman-killed-when-hug-triggers-officer-gun-police-say/print#ixzz208VteY8U

    Tam. I don’t know you, and have no idea about past experiences. I do know a thing or two about fear, and as best I can empathize your concerns about rape, I do. Men with guns, a man without a gun, each are potential dangers to a woman. Undeniably. This fact does not change the discussion one bit, just as the tie I wear didn’t change the argument.

    Robert. Showing decreeing statistics only confirms the fact that accidents happen. Comparing them to other types of accidents says nothing to the fact that a gun accident CAN and DO occur.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  394. TBR:

    “I do know a thing or two about fear, and as best I can empathize your concerns about rape, I do. Men with guns, a man without a gun, each are potential dangers to a woman.”

    And what single item levels that playing field for the woman?

    Reworded: What can a woman do to mitigate those potential dangers posed by all men (assuming, for the moment, that all men are potential dangers to all women, an assumption I don’t consider to be true)?

    By JeffB on Sep 26, 2013

  395. gun accidents CAN and DO occur.

    Swimming pool accidents CAN and DO occur.
    Kitchen knife accidents CAN and DO occur.
    Automobile accidents CAN and DO occur.
    household appliance accidents CAN and DO occur.

    Basically,the bottom line is, accidents CAN and DO occur.

    You cannot legislate accidents out of existence, the idea that you can is merely ignorant. You cannot make safety mandatory, every attempt to do so has created more trouble than it solved. Mike Rowe has an excellent treatise on this, google “Mike Rowe: Safety Third”. No rules or regulations can replace common sense.

    The antigun position has always been one of feeling and fear, and not of reason. Reason and risk mitigation demand an armed citizenry, not disarmament. The risks of any object, be it a swimming pool, an automobile, a firearm or a frying pan causing harm to anyone are minimized by regular contact, familiarization, and training. By definition, accidents are caused by improper use or deliberate misuse. if safety is the real motivation here, then the focus should be on automobiles and swimming pools, which statistically are far more dangerous than firearms. Sadly, safety is not the point, it’s fear and an overt agenda of disarming the law abiding, while doing nothing to the criminal.

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013

  396. “Showing decreeing statistics only confirms the fact that accidents happen. Comparing them to other types of accidents says nothing to the fact that a gun accident CAN and DO occur.”

    No one has disputed that accidents can and do occur. However, the fact that firearms accidents occur far less often than many other types of accidents is illustrative of just how rare this type of accident actually is, and how bizarre that on the rare occasion that it does occur that it’s so sensationalized.

    Being able to determine, whether through inference by anecdotal experience, or by empirical evidence, the likelihood of a given type of accident is rather germane to both everyday life and public policy. I contend that ~600 accidental deaths per year in a population of 319+million is statistically insignificant (although personally to anyone close to those involved it would obviously not be).

    Our media/news orgs publicize, sensationalize, and exaggerate many things… among the worst are their portrayals of most things firearms-related. Can you seriously look at at one type of accidental death, firearms, at ~600 per year, and then look at poisonings, at ~5000 per year, and argue that out of 300+million people that either one is actually significant, and therefore worthy of any level of concern beyond making sure to not drink stuff from a bottle with skulls and “DANGER” labels?

    By Robert on Sep 26, 2013

  397. All,

    Excellent replies all. Let me address each.

    Note: to keep it straight, I am going to try to indent each level. Let’s see how well this works.

    TBR:
    “I do know a thing or two about fear, and as best I can empathize your concerns about rape, I do. Men with guns, a man without a gun, each are potential dangers to a woman.”

    JeffB:
    And what single item levels that playing field for the woman?
    Reworded: What can a woman do to mitigate those potential dangers posed by all men (assuming, for the moment, that all men are potential dangers to all women, an assumption I don’t consider to be true)?

    Just to be snarky, I would say an iPad, but really that’s just a joke. I think we may be getting past this, please, just take it as a little joke.

    Your presumption is that the gun DOES level the playing field. I can’t agree entirely. There are cases where that would be true, and cases where it wouldn’t. The harsh fact still is, woman will be victims of rape.
    I’m not entirely sure about if you read in the assuming, for the moment, that all men are potential dangers to all women part from my post. If it was unclear, there is potential danger. For the record, not all men are rapists, me included.

    Og:
    The antigun position has always been one of feeling and fear, and not of reason. Reason and risk mitigation demand an armed citizenry, not disarmament. The risks of any object, be it a swimming pool, an automobile, a firearm or a frying pan causing harm to anyone are minimized by regular contact, familiarization, and training. By definition, accidents are caused by improper use or deliberate misuse. if safety is the real motivation here, then the focus should be on automobiles and swimming pools, which statistically are far more dangerous than firearms. Sadly, safety is not the point, it’s fear and an overt agenda of disarming the law abiding, while doing nothing to the criminal.

    Og – It is my contention that it is the gun carrying crowd that is unnecessarily fearful. They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response. See my posts way above. It’s at the core of my arguments that the level of fear is not in line with the response. Others have pointed to statists on crime. Violent crime has been going down for a very long time.

    Robert, up untill this point in the conversation, there has been no one to confirm that accidents can and do occure. Really, when I started this part of the discussion I thought I would get consensus on that point quickly, and move on.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  398. Og – It is my contention that it is the gun carrying crowd that is unnecessarily fearful.

    Remind me again – who is it that has a phobia about an inanimate object?

    They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response. See my posts way above.

    1.2 MILLION violent crimes in 2012. How much *MORE* “common” do they need to be, before you deign to allow us the ability to defend ourselves?

    It’s at the core of my arguments that the level of fear is not in line with the response.

    Just because you THINK it to be so, doesn’t mean that is *IS* so. When you can guarantee that no criminal will ever beat, stab or shoot someone to death, or rape them, get back with us and we’ll discuss further.

    It’s not the *odds*…it’s what is at *stake* if you’re wrong.

    Others have pointed to statists on crime. Violent crime has been going down for a very long time.

    It’s not gone yet.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 26, 2013

  399. TBR — It is my contention that it is the gun carrying crowd that is unnecessarily fearful. They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response.

    The number of people who use a firearm to defend themselves each year — as others have pointed out and provided statistics thereto — far outstrips all of the other numbers that have been thrown around here for crime, accidents, etc. That seems rather compelling evidence that victimization is not at all uncommon and that firearms are a very common and successful means of responding to victimization.

    The Department of Justice puts lifetime victimization rate for violent crime somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. That means at least one out of every five people in the US will be a victim of violent crime in their lifetime. We’re not talking about jaywalking or getting your house burgled while you’re on vacation. We’re talking about people trying to murder you, assault you, rape you, or use physical force to rob you. That doesn’t fit my definition of “uncommon.”

    More than one million people per year are victims of violent crime in the United States. That’s almost twice as many as the number who die of cancer in a year.

    So if carrying a gun would, say, double your chance to avoid cancer, would you do it?

    By ToddG on Sep 26, 2013

  400. “They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response. See my posts way above. It’s at the core of my arguments that the level of fear is not in line with the response. Others have pointed to statists on crime. Violent crime has been going down for a very long time”

    None of this has anything to do with the discussion at all. All I see above is “I don’t like this so you guys should stop”. Come back after you’ve led a successful crusade to rid the world of automobiles and swimming pools, items that claim far more lives than firearms. Then we’ll know you’re serious about safety, and not just anxious to disarm people because you fear armed people in your midst.

    I am never, ever unarmed. I rarely carry a firearm. There is very little of which I am afraid.

    Sane people who understand risk assessment will tell you that it is the vanishingly small risk for which you must be prepared. There is some risk each day in Chicago that you could encounter a rainstorm. If you aren’t prepared, you will be wet and miserable. There is some risk each day in the fall that you could go to work in the sunshine and come home with snow on the ground. If you don’t have an ice scraper in your car you will be inconvenienced. There is risk in the desert that you could encounter a rattler, be snakebit and die miles from help. The risk is vanishingly small, but only the ignorant go unprepared. There may be a vanishingly small risk of being set upon by people against whom you must use force. being prepared for that risk is not fear, it is intellect.

    In my truck, I carry a backpack. In that backpack is a change of clothes. Some food. Some water. Some simple fishing equipment. Facilities to cook, should I need to. A weeks worth of the medicines I take. Tools, cash, some cold weather gear and a few personal items.

    Does this mean I am afraid of being stranded somewhere? not even remotely. I am simply prepared. In the way more than a million miles I have driven in my career, I have never been stranded. because I am constantly prepared to be stranded, being stranded will never be a problem for me. No fear is involved.

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013

  401. I will be more verbose later, but just a quick reply to ToddG.

    The Department of Justice puts lifetime victimization rate for violent crime somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. That means at least one out of every five people in the US will be a victim of violent crime in their lifetime.

    So, that’ over the current 79 year average life expectancy of a american. Little back-of-the-envelope calculation. 28,835 days putting my self in the proximity of guns for a 1:5 chance, and within that, the assumption that the gun does any good, and not more harm… Well, yes, I am willing to risk that.

    By TBR on Sep 26, 2013

  402. Tom,

    “TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape.”

    I had been studiously avoiding going there, but I’m glad someone else noticed that ball lying there, as it were, and picked it up and ran with it. ;)

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

    Tam is a threat with or without gun. True
    Tam is also a potential ally against other threats with or without a gun. True
    Tam is MORE of a threat with a gun True.
    Tam is MORE EFFECTIVE AS AN ALLY AGAINST OTHER THREATS WITH A GUN. True.

    conclusion: the state of tam relative to threats is exactly equal with or without a gun.

    TRUE.

    Argument that “tam is more of a threat with a gun” in and of itself: INVALID.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  403. Tam is a deterrent to a crime being committed with or without a gun: not true.

    Tam carrying a concealed weapon is a deterrent to a crime being committed. not true.

    Tam carrying a weapon openly is a deterrent to a crime being committed. MIGHT BE TRUE.

    Tam carrying a weapon openly or concealed will be able to respond to a threat situation equally effectively in both cases. PROBABLY TRUE.

    If Tam is carrying openly and a crime is being committed and other unknown CCW weapons carriers draw weapons, TAM might mistake them for perpetrators or co conspirators of the crime. TRUE.

    If tam is carrying openly and other persons are also carrying openly, Tam will be able to identify people carrying openly as carrying and will not mistake them for possible co conspirators if a crime is committed. PROBABLY TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  404. I like using TAM for the subject. :-P

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  405. Accidents happen: true.
    Accidents happen with loaded firearms. True.
    Accidents happen with unloaded firearms. Not true.
    Unloaded firearms can be carried openly. True.

    A person can tell whether a firearm is loaded or not loaded when the firearm is carried openly (in a holtser. NOT TRUE

    Firearms carried openly are a deterrent to a crime being committed. PROBABLY TRUE.

    Firearms carried openly are more of a deterrent to a crime being committed than a concealed firearm that nobody knows exists but the carrier. ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

    A loaded firearm carried openly is more of a deterrent to a crime being committed than a non loaded firearm. NOT TRUE.

    A non loaded firearm carried openly cannot be used to react to a threat situation effectively. PROBABLY NOT TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  406. It is necessary that a firearm be loaded when carried openly or concealed to be an effective deterrent against a crime being committed:

    not true.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  407. A holstered revolver can immediately be shown to be unloaded (Depending on the holster)
    Many automatics have loaded indicators that are immediately visible, (depending on the holster.) None of which means anything.

    Try this on for size:

    Accidents happen: true.
    Accidents happen with all loaded firearms. false.
    Accidents happen with unloaded firearms. All firearms are always loaded.

    None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion.

    The core of the discussion is, and always has been, “You are doing something I don’t like, and I will assemble straw argument after straw argument to prove you should not be allowed to do the thing I dislike”

    No actual reason can ever be employed to justify disarming humans, only emotions. Freedom demands the individual ability to defend your person and your property. Only emotion can demand the individual be unarmed “For safety’s sake” because disarming people for safety is exactly like enslaving them for freedom.

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013

  408. TBR,

    I can relate to the opposing views here; each has their own take on things, and are confident to stand by their own convictions while listening to – but disagreeing – with others.

    All very reasonable and civilized here, but consider that a situation requiring immediate armed self-defense does not afford the range of options and luxury of time that this 4-day discussion has provided.

    If and when you have that experience, you may find your perspective changes….. unless you are simply willing to accept the loss of your own life or loved ones.

    Your country has always recognized your right to self-defense and provided you with the choice to be armed – don’t take that for granted. I encourage you to continue to exchange views and to make your own choice wisely, while respecting those of your fellow law-abiding citizens.

    Peace.

    By AlStewartJM on Sep 26, 2013

  409. TBR,

    Anyway, this story was interesting. It has some elements of all things around RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, without resorting to stupid.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08/detroit-woman-killed-when-hug-triggers-officer-gun-police-say/print#ixzz208VteY8U

    I remember that from when it happened. There was a fair amount of discussion about it because it literally could not have happened as described.

    I have worked in the firearms industry in one capacity or another for nearly twenty years. Trust me when I say that, in my professional opinion, that story as related is as implausible as “He died of injuries sustained when he suddenly fell to the ceiling” would sound to you.

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  410. On a tangential note, I am known to have fairly strong opinions on the dangers of unnecessary gun-fondling.

    By Tam on Sep 26, 2013

  411. “A holstered revolver can immediately be shown to be unloaded (Depending on the holster)
    Many automatics have loaded indicators that are immediately visible, (depending on the holster.) None of which means anything.”

    “CAN BE SHOWN TO BE” NOT “DETECTED BY PERSON OBSERVING CARRIER”

    A person seeing the holstered weapon cannot tell if it is loaded or unloaded. Your point fails. If the person is carrying openly in a manner where a person observing can determine whether it is loaded or not: the carrier is the idiot. and therefore should not have a gun being an idiot.

    Try this on for size:

    Accidents happen: true.
    Accidents happen with all loaded firearms. false.
    Accidents happen with unloaded firearms. All firearms are always loaded.”

    All firearms are NOT always loaded. Total irrational statement. INVALID FAIL.

    None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion.

    The core of the discussion is, and always has been, “You are doing something I don’t like, and I will assemble straw argument after straw argument to prove you should not be allowed to do the thing I dislike”

    Nonsense. I am not advocating against OC. I am saying that if a person carries, it should be MANDATORY OC. I AM NOT ADVOCATING AGAINST KEEPING AND BEARING AT ALL.

    “No actual reason can ever be employed to justify disarming humans, only emotions. Freedom demands the individual ability to defend your person and your property. Only emotion can demand the individual be unarmed “For safety’s sake” because disarming people for safety is exactly like enslaving them for freedom.”

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013

    Your Argument:

    hippydippy advocates against keeping and bearing arms.

    MAJOR FAIL.

    hippdippy asserts that CCW is useless and dangerous to public and carriers and law enforcement. TRUE

    hippydippy asserts that all persons carrying firearms shall carry them openly for the safety of themselves, the public, and law enforcement..

    TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  412. hippdippy asserts that CCW is useless and dangerous to public and carriers and law enforcement. TRUE

    Demonstrably false, as shown by the decided LACK of CCW people shooting up the landscape.

    hippydippy needs to lay off the psychotropics.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 26, 2013

  413. “All firearms are NOT always loaded. Total irrational statement. INVALID FAIL.”

    Ignorant of even the basics of firearm safety, then. That explains a good deal. For your edification, let me explain something all firearms owners know.

    RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

    RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

    RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

    RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

    Hope that explains things.

    “Your Argument:

    hippydippy advocates against keeping and bearing arms.”
    Orly? See if you can quote where I said that. Of course, you cannot, because I did not. I can only be responsible for what I say, not what the voices in your head tell you I said. There are many voices in this discussion, and I was making a general statement that applied generally, not in this case to your specific points, except where you make the statement about “Firearms being unloaded” Every responsible person always treats every firearm as if it were loaded at all times, period.

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013

  414. Nonsense. I am not advocating against OC. I am saying that if a person carries, it should be MANDATORY OC. I AM NOT ADVOCATING AGAINST KEEPING AND BEARING AT ALL.

    Strawman argument. Og didn’t mention OC.

    Og’s argument is absolutely correct.

    You don’t like CC. You put up strawman argument after strawman argument against CC.

    You *admit* it when you say that all carry should be mandatory OC.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 26, 2013

  415. Tam without a weapon can be a deterrent. After all she is about 6 foot tall, and probably has the ability to find something heavy to swing, if the perp was to turn his back to her.

    Tam with a weapon would be a stronger deterrent.

    Tam in a state with CCW is a deterrent. She, as other people in that state have potential to be armed.

    Criminals carry concealed without CCW. Honest people should never be more restricted than criminals.

    By DonM on Sep 26, 2013

  416. TBR — So, that’ over the current 79 year average life expectancy of a american. Little back-of-the-envelope calculation. 28,835 days putting my self in the proximity of guns for a 1:5 chance, and within that, the assumption that the gun does any good, and not more harm… Well, yes, I am willing to risk that.

    OK, you’re willing to risk that. No one here — well, no one with an ounce of sense — is going to tell you that you should be forced to own a gun or walk around armed.

    Do you think you have a right to force me to risk it, too? If not, then you shouldn’t stand in the way of CCW. If you do stand in the way of CCW, then you are, de facto, saying you feel like you have a right to make that decision for me, against my will. And it’s at that point that I stop having respect for someone. That level of hubris and paranoia combined is anathema to a free society.

    By ToddG on Sep 26, 2013

  417. Tam without a weapon can be a deterrent. TRUE

    After all she is about 6 foot tall, and probably has the ability to find something heavy to swing, if the perp was to turn his back to her.

    Tam with a weapon would be a stronger deterrent. NOT TRUE IF CCW. TRUE IF OC.

    Tam in a state with CCW is a deterrent.

    TAM IN STATE OF CCW IS NO MORE DETERRENT THAT TAM NOT CARRYING. TRUE.

    She, as other people in that state have potential to be armed. TRUE BUT IRRELEVANT.

    TAM in a state without CCW is the same deterrent as TAM IN a state of CCW TRUE.

    Criminals carry concealed without CCW. TRUE

    Honest people should never be more restricted than criminals. IRRATIONAL AND FALSE CRIMINALS ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY LAW BY DEFINITION THEREFORE HONEST PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS MORE RESTRICTED THAN CRIMINALS.

    By DonM on Sep 26, 2013

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  418. Ah. So you’re ok with criminals having the advantage over the law abiding.

    By og on Sep 26, 2013

  419. TBR: “So, that’ over the current 79 year average life expectancy of a american. Little back-of-the-envelope calculation. 28,835 days putting my self in the proximity of guns for a 1:5 chance, and within that, the assumption that the gun does any good, and not more harm… Well, yes, I am willing to risk that. ”

    Did you think we wouldn’t notice that you ignored half the equation here? You’re ignoring the rate of the accidents you claim to be so worried about, which is far, far lower than the rate of victimization. That isn’t a risk assessment, it’s simply a rationalization.

    The rate of accidents among people who are actively carrying in public is ridiculously low. Insignificant is the term that would be used to describe that statistic. Why is that? Because a properly maintained firearm in a decent quality and serviceable holster is 100% safe. There is literally no way for a Glock to accidentally go off when it’s in a Safariland that’s built to hold it. None. Zero. Ain’t gonna happen.

    By Mike S. on Sep 26, 2013

  420. On the unloaded gun discussion and the whole “deterrent thing”… That’s a stupid direction to pursue. Carrying isn’t about deterring, not entirely. It’s about defending yourself. Most of the times people who carry use their guns, they use it to deter by showing that they have it and are willing to use it. But to rely on someone deciding to leave you alone, to rely on a “psychological stop” is the definition of stupidity.

    There are people out there who won’t care that you just pointed a gun at them. There are people out there who will actually get angry at you for pointing a gun at them.

    An old cop once told me, if you’re carrying a gun, it’s either made of steel or chocolate. Because if you aren’t going to use it, you’ll wind up having it fed to you.

    By Mike S. on Sep 26, 2013

  421. Ah. So you’re ok with criminals having the advantage over the law abiding.

    By og on Sep 26, 2013

    By definition, criminals ignore the law, and honest people comply with it and are limited by it..

    therefore whether I am ok with it or not, it is the reality.

    who am I to deny that it is the reality?

    this is at the core of the basic right to keep and bear arms philosophy and propaganda:

    “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns”

    :+O

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  422. the question of whether honest people should have the ability to carry a concealed weapon, as a criminal will, being the question.

    as a justification FOR CCW.

    “Criminals carry concealed weapons.” True.

    “Therefore, Honest people should also be able to carry concealed weapons”

    that is the logic. and then:

    Criminals bash innocent people over the head with clubs and rob them of money.

    and therefore: Honest people should be able to bash people over the head with clubs and rob them of money, too.

    and that argument goes away.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  423. Congrats, Dippy. You just misrepresented the justification for CCW. Again.

    There’s more than one, ranging from “criminals are sometimes armed” to, “my bad back and wrecked knee preclude me from fighting for my life bare-handed or even running away”.

    At the end of the day, though, the only justification needed is, I don’t harm anybody by carrying, therefore you get no say in the matter.

    By Mike S. on Sep 26, 2013

  424. MIKE IN KOSOVOS POST:

    quoting hippydippy

    “Nonsense. I am not advocating against OC. I am saying that if a person carries, it should be MANDATORY OC. I AM NOT ADVOCATING AGAINST KEEPING AND BEARING AT ALL.”

    MIKE IN KOSOVO ARGUMENT:

    Strawman argument. Og didn’t mention OC.

    RESPONSE: But he did.

    Mike in Kosovo:

    Og’s argument is absolutely correct.

    You don’t like CC. You put up strawman argument after strawman argument against CC.

    MY RESPONSE NOW:

    The issue is NOT whether “i like” CC. The issue is that CCW accomplishes nothing, is not a deterrent, and is unsafe for reasons cited: other people including law enforcement cannot tell if a person is a law abiding citizen or a co conspirator. It has nothing to do with “liking something or not liking something”

    We are discussing the issue of bearing arms and how they should be born.

    You *admit* it when you say that all carry should be mandatory OC.

    I admit nothing except for the actual position taken: That it is my position that if a law abiding person wishes to bear arms, the bearer should bear arms openly, for the safety of the public, law enforcement, and himself, AND so that the openly bearing of the arms should serve a purpose other than to defend the person himself, (that is, to potentially deter crime) which self defense alone purpose, incidentally, an openly borne weapon Also fulfills completely..

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 26, 2013

    This is not debate, What you did in this case was to take statements out of context and then mischaracterize the previous discussion. In this case Og DID mention OC as a component of his premise: That my position was that “HE was doing something I don’t like,” which means carrying a weapon, and does not specify whether CC or OC. Therefore the thing he is doing: carrying a weapon either OC or CC is “what I don’t like” which is not true.

    The original statement by OG was:

    “The core of the discussion is, and always has been, “You are doing something I don’t like, and I will assemble straw argument after straw argument to prove you should not be allowed to do the thing I dislike”

    MY RESPONSE:

    “Nonsense. I am not advocating against OC. I am saying that if a person carries, it should be MANDATORY OC. I AM NOT ADVOCATING AGAINST KEEPING AND BEARING AT ALL.”

    Og goes on:

    “No actual reason can ever be employed to justify disarming humans, only emotions. Freedom demands the individual ability to defend your person and your property. Only emotion can demand the individual be unarmed “For safety’s sake” because disarming people for safety is exactly like enslaving them for freedom.”

    By Og on Sep 26, 2013″

    No. Nonsense. I am not advocating for anyone to be disarmed. I am not advocating against it at all. I am advocating the when one is exercising one half of the right to keep and bear arms, that one MUST BEAR THEM OPENLY.

    Now you come along and use a true straw man, that “Og never mentioned OC”

    But he did. he mentioned it in his premise: “You are doing something I don’t like”

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  425. Congrats, Dippy. You just misrepresented the justification for CCW. Again.

    There’s more than one, ranging from “criminals are sometimes armed” to, “my bad back and wrecked knee preclude me from fighting for my life bare-handed or even running away”.

    At the end of the day, though, the only justification needed is, I don’t harm anybody by carrying, therefore you get no say in the matter.

    By Mike S. on Sep 26, 2013

    Again: tries to justify CCW in preference to Mandatory Open Carry.

    Tries to confuse the issue.

    The fact is, that CCW serves no purpose that OC does not serve and serve better.

    Unless you can show that CCW serves the self defense purpose better, which you cannot do: if the perpetrator of a crime of violence does not know you are armed, he is not deterred in any way from perpetrating it. At the least, if the potential perpetrator knows you can blow his brains out, he might think again before mugging you. If he doesn’t KNOW this, he might just go ahead and mug you. Thus, CCW is less effective than OC.

    And in fact, CCW serves no deterrent purpose in any way shape or form.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  426. On the unloaded gun discussion and the whole “deterrent thing”… That’s a stupid direction to pursue. Carrying isn’t about deterring, not entirely.

    Wrong. Carrying a concealed weapon is not about deterrent value at all, because in fact there is none. there is self defense value ONLY.

    Openly carrying a weapon serves the same self defense purpose as does the concealed carry.

    It also has a potential deterrent value that CCW completely lacks.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  427. CCW has NO deterrent value: TRUE.

    you cannot get past that.

    By hippydippy on Sep 26, 2013

  428. MIKE IN KOSOVO ARGUMENT:

    Strawman argument. Og didn’t mention OC.

    RESPONSE: But he did.

    Provide the quote, then.

    The issue is NOT whether “i like” CC. The issue is that CCW accomplishes nothing, is not a deterrent, and is unsafe for reasons cited: other people including law enforcement cannot tell if a person is a law abiding citizen or a co conspirator. It has nothing to do with “liking something or not liking something”

    Sorry, no – that’s your OPINION, not fact.

    When the criminal does not know if a potential victim is armed or not, it *is* a deterrent to the ‘casual’ criminal.

    You can *say* that it’s not over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true anywhere but in your own little world.

    Additionally – if the weapon is concealed, then how does the cop have any suspicion of the person being a ‘co-conspirator’, hmm?

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 26, 2013

  429. “The fact is, that CCW serves no purpose that OC does not serve and serve better.

    Unless you can show that CCW serves the self defense purpose better, which you cannot do: if the perpetrator of a crime of violence does not know you are armed, he is not deterred in any way from perpetrating it. At the least, if the potential perpetrator knows you can blow his brains out, he might think again before mugging you. If he doesn’t KNOW this, he might just go ahead and mug you. Thus, CCW is less effective than OC.

    And in fact, CCW serves no deterrent purpose in any way shape or form.”

    Wrong, wrong, and – of course – wrong.

    First, statistics suggest there is a deterrent effect to CCW. More people carrying concealed, forcing would-be attackers to do their own risk/reward math means fewer people attacked. This can more easily be seen by guns in homes acting as a deterrent to home invasions. They still happen, but they’re much more common in places where people don’t have guns in their homes.

    It’s easily proven that CCW can (not always does; speaking in such sweeping generalities is the sign of a weak position) be more effective for self defense. It’s found in a saying common among professionals of violence. Speed, surprise and violence of action. This is a mantra used by those men to demonstrate the necessary elements of any fighting strategy. It’s got to be now, it’s got to come out of left field, and it’s got to destroy the other side. It’s really just some of Sun Tzu’s points boiled down into a handy phrase, meaning the core concept is good enough to have stuck around for a couple millennia.

    Much as I’d like to have the OPTION of open carry here in Texas (mainly because of the realities of dressing for 100+ degree heat), requiring it as the only carry option isn’t even moral. A regular person carrying concealed is not harming you or anybody else, which means you get to butt out of his choice.

    By Mike S. on Sep 26, 2013

  430. “First, statistics suggest there is a deterrent effect to CCW. More people carrying concealed, forcing would-be attackers to do their own risk/reward math means fewer people attacked. This can more easily be seen by guns in homes acting as a deterrent to home invasions. They still happen, but they’re much more common in places where people don’t have guns in their homes.”

    Stop right there. “if statistics show that there is a deterrent value to CCW” that means that there is some kind of statistical correlation in states that have adopted CCW laws to some kind of drop in crime. However, even if true that the ADOPTION of CCW laws CAN be proven to have had a real crime deterrent effect (a study showing such would be open to critical inspection of the methodology, etc) however, GIVEN that it IS the case that the ADOPTION of CCW Law in a state.. that would be the effect of the ADOPTION of the law.. and NOT a deterrent caused by the ACTUAL CONCEALED CARRYING by any one person.

    The theoretical deterrent value of ADOPTION of a CCW law would necessarily derive from the theoretical possibility that ANY person could be carrying a concealed weapon and that therefore some level of crime was deterred.

    I would love to see the methodology of a study that asserts this.

    But, no deterrent value is assigned to any one person carrying a concealed weapon and in fact, in theory, people who have never looked at a gun up close COULD be carrying.. that is.. a person who never saw a gun in his life would appear exactly the same as a person with a well concealed firearm holstered and loaded, in the SAME CLOTHING. or DIFFERENT clothing, the intent of the conceal carry being to make it APPEAR that the person in UNARMED.

    The intent of concealed carry is to make it appear that the person carrying the weapon, is unarmed. TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  431. A person CCW appears exactly the same as a person who has never touched a firearm or carried one all other things being equal. Both appear to be unarmed. TRUE.

    the deterrent value of any person CCW is exactly the same as the deterrent value of a person who has never even touched a gun, all other things being equal. TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  432. conclusion: there is no deterrent value assignable to the fact that a person appears to be unarmed and therefore no assignable deterrent value to a person who appears to be unarmed, but is CCW.

    It is a variation of the question: If a tree falls in a forest but nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?

    kinda.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  433. Therefore: “A person is not CCW for deterrent value ALONE” FALSE

    A person who is CCW has no deterrent value TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  434. now: a person who is ccw has a deadly weapon accessible to him. true.

    Having a deadly weapon accessible to a person has self defense value. true

    Appearing to be unarmed while bearing a deadly weapon has self defense value. TRUE.

    Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has self defense value. TRUE.

    Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has less self defense value than appearing to be unarmed. I say FALSE.

    Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has obvious self defense value. People are less likely to accost a person who could blow their head off in 5 seconds.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  435. Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has obvious self defense value. People are less likely to accost a person who could blow their head off in 5 seconds. TRUE

    Appearing to be unarmed has a self defense value.

    FALSE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  436. Oh and i forgot to tell you guys: I love all of you who want to have a positive affect in the world, in one way or another and I think all of the people on this forum are in that classification.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  437. a person with a holstered and loaded firearm could blow another person’s head off in 5 seconds. TRUE.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  438. Hippydippy,

    With the way that you add your own validity to your own statements and continue to reject everyone else’s there is no reason for you to stay here. TRUE

    You are not open to discussion. TRUE.

    By Jim on Sep 27, 2013

  439. “But, no deterrent value is assigned to any one person carrying a concealed weapon and in fact…”

    Which, again, has nothing to do with why people carry concealed. Where did you get this idiotic notion that the main purpose of a weapon is as a general deterrent?

    It’s a gun, not mosquito repellant.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

  440. “People are less likely to accost a person who could blow their head off in 5 seconds.”

    You obviously live in a state where carry isn’t common.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

  441. “Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has obvious self defense value. People are less likely to accost a person who could blow their head off in 5 seconds. TRUE

    Appearing to be unarmed has a self defense value.

    FALSE.”

    All of the above are false and true, depending on the situation. There’s much more depth to this subject than you’re understanding. You’d do well to study up before you come on here telling people who know what they’re talking about how wrong they are.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

  442. “Appearing to be armed with a deadly weapon has obvious self defense value. People are less likely to accost a person who could blow their head off in 5 seconds. TRUE

    Appearing to be unarmed has a self defense value.

    FALSE.”

    All of the above are false and true, depending on the situation. There’s much more depth to this subject than you’re understanding. You’d do well to study up before you come on here telling people who know what they’re talking about how wrong they are.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

    OK, lets start with the last post first.

    Tell me exactly how appearing to be unarmed has any crime deterrent value.

    we will go from there.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  443. “But, no deterrent value is assigned to any one person carrying a concealed weapon and in fact…”

    Which, again, has nothing to do with why people carry concealed. Where did you get this idiotic notion that the main purpose of a weapon is as a general deterrent?

    It’s a gun, not mosquito repellant.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

    Ok. what is the reason why a person would carry concealed as opposed to open? What is the reason why a person would want to appear unarmed, but was armed with a deadly weapon?

    By definition a CCW wishes to appear to be unarmed.

    Why?

    What is the purpose of appearing to be unarmed, when one is in fact armed with a deadly weapon?

    If you say self defense: please answer the following:

    “Carrying a deadly weapon openly has inherent self defense value without ever having to unholster the firearm.” TRUE or FALSE?

    “A concealed weapon has no self defense value unless pulled into view and prepared to be fired.” TRUE or FALSE?

    Just answer each one, giving your reasoning please. So we can avoid being distracted all over the place with side issues.

    true or false on each.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  444. or alternately YOU pose a question or questions.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  445. Mike & Mike… don’t feed the troll… I mean, do what you like, but it appears to be an exercise in futility, with no ability on the other side to actually reason or discuss.

    By Robert on Sep 27, 2013

  446. TBR,

    SO basically Your possition can be sumed up as: “Because I think that probability of me needing a gun is low, I don’t need one”. And I, like other people here, are ok with that.

    If You think that for You a probability of 1:4(or whatever it might be) that, say, You will be beaten and maybe crippled (or Your wife raped or Your child killed or…)is ok… well, it’s your life and Your choices.
    But please understand, that I am not ok with that, because although the probability might be pretty low, the price is high. Too high. For me at least.

    And one more problem I have with all these “probablility games”, is that this probability is sum of other probabilities. And when in the middle of the night You are stopped by a few not quite professor-like looking guys who ask You how to find a way to library… well, probability of something bad happening is getting closer to 1.
    May I propose that this change in probability might abruptly change Your take on all of the problem?

    By Audrius on Sep 27, 2013

  447. Audrius, ToddG, Tam, et al
    I could spend the remainder of my life trying to get legislation to “take your guns away”. Despite the hype, there are very few on my side of the fence that have any intention of pursuing this or illusion we could accomplish it. What I would really like is a high standard. A much higher standard.

    My first post to this thread, and forum

    I followed a link to this site from a liberal site. Nice article, and very interesting feedback.
    Reading the posts from the more sane among you, and snickering a bit at the rabid, I feel compiled to leave a little honest post from “the left” or “the enemy” for many of you. Lunatics attempting to gain respect for gun owners through outlandish stunts is your undoing. I have been tarnished by the antics of the very far left enough to know that the very people you attempt to reach become turned off – and see you and your reasonable argument as the same.
    You want to be seen as normal people, with normal requests, but you are shackled with your extreme. I personally want to see more of them, as I really don’t want any guns anywhere near my family. So to the foolish that think you are winning hearts and minds by you show of gun-toys, keep it up.

    What I’m getting at with this. You, provided you are in the sane crowd, are judged by your lowest denominator. While looking for an article to share with Tam, I waded through the endless stream of stupid people with guns doing stupid things. Found a site dedicated to CC news stories. Wow, these people are dumb.

    With some faith in your collective abilities, the opposing side would be much less likely to complain.

    Audrius, ToddG,
    The “numbers game” is tedious, and I think often gets used to muddy the waters. It’s important, but generally speaking I would rather just talk to people. In the case of the “lifetime violence” numbers… Really, they are much lower. The numbers for people involved in criminal activity are significantly higher to be involved in violent situations, and in many cases, multiple times. This changes my chances dramatically. However, as a debating point, really gets us no further one direction or the other.

    By TBR on Sep 27, 2013

  448. Mike & Mike… don’t feed the troll… I mean, do what you like, but it appears to be an exercise in futility, with no ability on the other side to actually reason or discuss.

    By Robert on Sep 27, 2013

    a weak and lame excuse not to answer simple questions or enter into a debate based on logical statements and analysis. with good reason.

    y’all like to play word games but are incapable of rational discourse, because rational discourse and analysis of your position (which is essentially a sort of paranoia coupled with a fear of being accosted or a fear that someone wants to deprive you of your favorite toys: firearms.. and you must then find justification to possess and carry deadly weapons in a concealed fashion like criminals) exposes your position for what it really is: an atavist position that is not justified by any rational means.

    George Zimmermans in waiting, hoping to carry a concealed weapon, bait, and blow away and telling yourselves that it is for some higher noble purpose, that you would “hate to have to use your weapon,” but at the same time doing everything possible to set the circumstances of your presence in public, to facilitate the possibility, which is the purpose of concealing the weapon, whether you like it or not.

    This thread being the denigration and demonization of the people who are honest about carrying firearms, those who advocate the honest way to carry them, openly, by those weak sisters who want to reserve the right to appear unarmed in public so they can spring the gun out as a SURPRISE! I GOT A GUN!

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  449. did not like that post at ALL now DID you.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  450. “Tell me exactly how appearing to be unarmed has any crime deterrent value.”

    Have I not said that I don’t care if it does or not?

    Carrying is about self defense, not at its core deterrence. Deterrence is one tool in the self-defense box, but you’re making out out to be the ONLY tool.

    Let me reiterate the last thing I told you, but in plain English: Your ignorance is staggering. Now shh. People who actually know what they’re talking about are talking.

    By Mike S. on Sep 27, 2013

  451. “Tell me exactly how appearing to be unarmed has any crime deterrent value.”

    Have I not said that I don’t care if it does or not?

    Carrying is about self defense, not at its core deterrence. Deterrence is one tool in the self-defense box, but you’re making out out to be the ONLY tool.

    Let me reiterate the last thing I told you, but in plain English: Your ignorance is staggering. Now shh. People who actually know what they’re talking about are talking.

    By Mike

    “I don’t care if it does or not”

    this is not an argument.

    you are thus admitting that it does not. true.

    You are asserting self defense alone, then as justification, which assertion cannot justify the concealing of the weapon, as there IS deterrent value which would prevent the need to actually use the weapon.

    therefore by insisting on concealing, you are insisting on not taking advantage of the inherent deterrent value to prevent the use of the weapon, achieved by displaying it openly.

    therefore you are inviting the event that would cause you to unholster and use it, and if you unholster it from concealed status, you are certainly prepared to use it.

    You are inviting it by concealing the weapon, as opposed to carrying it openly.

    and no “i don’t care” can change that.

    and that is the essence of your argument:

    ” I don’t care that you are right.”

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  452. and to repeat:

    CCW has NO deterrent value. It is not “just one justification”

    it is NOT a justification because by definition, the term “carrying a concealed weapon” means carrying the weapon in a manner which is concealed from everyone else and not detectable, which is what criminals do.

    nobody can detect the weapon being carried therefore it cannot deter anyone. true.

    By hippydippy on Sep 27, 2013

  453. Look, buddy. You’re the only one who’s talking about “deterrent value”. It’s like you’ve got some bizarre pathological hangup on the phrase.

    By Mike S. on Sep 28, 2013

  454. Look, buddy. You’re the only one who’s talking about “deterrent value”. It’s like you’ve got some bizarre pathological hangup on the phrase.

    By Mike S. on Sep 28, 2013

    look buddy it is you CCW advocates that try to justify CCW for its deterrent value.

    I just proved it has none and did away with the argument.

    Now, you are stuck with self defense, and an openly carried weapon is inherently superior to criminal carry, which you cannot deny.

    and so then you are left with nothing but ad hom, direct or indirect.

    sucks to be you.

    By hippydippy on Sep 28, 2013

  455. I don’t always troll, but when I do, I wear hippy pants.

    By Robert on Sep 28, 2013

  456. Robert — Awesome.

    By ToddG on Sep 28, 2013

  457. All,

    There is so much to discuss on this subject. So much we should be talking about. It can be very frustrating – frustrating for each side. Before this thread dies its natural death, I would like to point out some simple facts that may encourage, or at least be a little interesting.

    The Original Post (article) was 401 words Long. It generated 455 replies from about 100 unique participants (this can be off due to lax forum rules regarded IDs). Close to 20,000 words typed in reply.

    Some parts were argumentative, some dismissive, but on the hole, most participants were attempting to really say something. That it’s difficult to sway opinion, that you didn’t change the minds of everyone with one quick line shouldn’t discourage. In most debates, the two dimensional vision of your foe doesn’t exist. I encourage you to talk to real people, avoided the stereotype generated, and dispatched so quickly in your own head. It’s more fun anyway.

    Thanks all for a good conversation.

    TBR

    By TBR on Sep 28, 2013

  458. look buddy it is you CCW advocates that try to justify CCW for its deterrent value.

    We don’t have to “justify” anything. Lott and Mustard found that, when concealed carry laws were enacted, violent crimes against individuals were less prevalent.

    I just proved it has none and did away with the argument.

    Um…no. You *claimed* it wasn’t and you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim. The only thing you’ve proven is that you’ve done no real research on the subject and that you *won’t* listen to the people who actually *have* done said research.

    Now, you are stuck with self defense, and an openly carried weapon is inherently superior to criminal carry, which you cannot deny.

    Yeah, about that… you haven’t proven *that*, either.

    Sucks to be you

    Sucks worse to be your ‘argument’.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 28, 2013

  459. TBR:

    In most debates, the two dimensional vision of your foe doesn’t exist. I encourage you to talk to real people, avoided the stereotype generated, and dispatched so quickly in your own head.

    Does that mean that you’re no longer convinced that Tam is a danger to you? Good for you!

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 28, 2013

  460. The issue is NOT whether “i like” CC. The issue is that CCW accomplishes nothing, is not a deterrent, and is unsafe for reasons cited: other people including law enforcement cannot tell if a person is a law abiding citizen or a co conspirator. It has nothing to do with “liking something or not liking something”

    Sorry, no – that’s your OPINION, not fact.

    When the criminal does not know if a potential victim is armed or not, it *is* a deterrent to the ‘casual’ criminal.

    RESPONSE: The criminal not knowing if a potential victim is armed or not, is NOT a result of whether the potential victim is actually carrying or not, because the potential criminal cannot determine whether the potential victim is armed or not. That is, whether the actual potential victim is armed or not cannot be the deterrent. It is only the POSSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT BE ARMED, and NOT whether he IS or NOT in reality. Both IS armed and IS NOT armed look the same.

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    You can *say* that it’s not over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true anywhere but in your own little world.
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    petty ad hom.

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Additionally – if the weapon is concealed, then how does the cop have any suspicion of the person being a ‘co-conspirator’, hmm?

    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    when the person pulls it out and starts shooting it.

    By hippydippy on Sep 28, 2013

  461. look buddy it is you CCW advocates that try to justify CCW for its deterrent value.
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    We don’t have to “justify” anything. Lott and Mustard found that, when concealed carry laws were enacted, violent crimes against individuals were less prevalent.
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    AGAIN, EVEN IF TRUE: HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALLY CARRYING. BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY FOR A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL TO DETECT AN INDIVIDUAL CCW AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A DETERRENT. YOU CANNOT OVERCOME THIS FACT.
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    I just proved it has none and did away with the argument.
    )))))))))))))))))))))))

    YOUR RESPONSE:
    Um…no. You *claimed* it wasn’t and you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim. The only thing you’ve proven is that you’ve done no real research on the subject and that you *won’t* listen to the people who actually *have* done said research.
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    RESEARCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIMPLE LOGIC: IF A PERSON CANNOT TELL THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL IS CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON, IT CANNOT BE A DETERRENT THAT ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS OR IS NOT ACTUALLY CARRYING.

    IT IS SIMPLE LOGIC AND REALITY AND NO AMOUNT OF RESEARCH CAN CHANGE IT UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW THAT APPEARING TO BE UNARMED DETERS A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL FROM ACTING WHICH IS OF COURSE LUDICROUS.

    HIPPYDIPPY:
    Now, you are stuck with self defense, and an openly carried weapon is inherently superior to criminal carry, which you cannot deny.
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    YOUR RESPONSE:

    Yeah, about that… you haven’t proven *that*, either.
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

    UNLESS YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL WOULD RATHER PERPETRATE AGAINST A PERSON ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON THAN ONE WHO IS UNARMED AND WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WARN ME IN ADVANCE SO I DON’T BLOW COFFEE OUT THROUGH MY NOSTRILS ALL OVER THE KEYBOARD LAUGHING SO HARD.

    Sucks to be you

    Sucks worse to be your ‘argument’.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 28, 2013

    SUCKS TO BE THE PERSON WHO CANNOT ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN “NO YOU DIDN’T” AND OFFER A REBUTTAL.

    By hippydippy on Sep 28, 2013

  462. A PERSON CCW APPEARS TO BE UNARMED : TRUE.

    A PERSON APPEARING TO BE UNARMED IS A DETERRENT TO A CRIME BEING PERPETRATED: FALSE.

    A PERSON CCW IS A DETERRENT TO A CRIME BEING PERPETRATED: FALSE.

    PERIOD.

    By hippydippy on Sep 28, 2013

  463. Hippydippy, what is it going to take to get you to see that you can’t break this down into your “TRUE” and “FALSE” statements?

    This isn’t just about deterrence. This isn’t just about criminals. How about the very large percentage of our population that just doesn’t like seeing guns? What about someone like TBR, who believes that people with guns are more dangerous? He has a right to not carry a gun and to not like guns. I have a right to carry one to protect myself. If I walk into his store, or into a meeting with him with a gun on my hip, out in the open he, or any other person, is likely to treat me differently aren’t they? It creates a lot of friction in the day to day dealings of everyone. Would you not agree that if people don’t have to see the guns that others are carrying around them all the time that, in general, our daily lives run more smoothly?

    Try this on for size:

    Many people are afraid of guns. TRUE.

    Some people are likely to treat a person openly carrying a gun differently. TRUE.

    They may even refuse services or business/working relationships to someone openly carrying a gun. TRUE.

    If people had maintained CCW practices in Starbucks there likely would not have been the backlash from the company asking gun owners not to carry in their stores. TRUE.

    By Ryan on Sep 28, 2013

  464. AGAIN, EVEN IF TRUE: HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALLY CARRYING. BY DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY FOR A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL TO DETECT AN INDIVIDUAL CCW AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A DETERRENT. YOU CANNOT OVERCOME THIS FACT.

    So.

    What?

    UNLESS YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL WOULD RATHER PERPETRATE AGAINST A PERSON ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON THAN ONE WHO IS UNARMED AND WHEN YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT WARN ME IN ADVANCE SO I DON’T BLOW COFFEE OUT THROUGH MY NOSTRILS ALL OVER THE KEYBOARD LAUGHING SO HARD.

    Nice strawman – care to leave it out in the cornfield instead of dragging it through the discussion?

    IOW – your point is invalid. It’s always *BEEN* invalid and *WE* are the ones ‘shooting coffee out of our nose’ when we read your drivel.

    Oh, and BTW? All caps doesn’t make your point any more valid than putting ‘True’ or ‘False’ behind it. Where did you learn to argue a point of contention – Barack Obama’s twitter feed?

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 29, 2013

  465. SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

    Logic…. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    You may want to discuss what you *think* your point is with the victims of gang/gang shootings, or officers shot in the line of duty.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 29, 2013

  466. SIMPLE LOGIC PROVES THAT IF A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL KNOWS THAT A PERSON IS ARMED WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, THAT ANY POTENTIAL CRIME TOWARD THAT PERSON WILL BE DETERRED. THAT IS A GIVEN.

    Logic…. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    You may want to discuss what you *think* your point is with the victims of gang/gang shootings, or officers shot in the line of duty.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 29, 2013

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    red herrings. has nothing to do with the current discussion which is private citizens bearing arms openly, or concealed as criminals do.

    i would think you could do better.

    such as : logically refute the statement:

    a person who knows another person is armed with a deadly weapon is less likely to accost that person, all other things being equal.

    the exceptions you suggested are inter gang turf wars. neither CCW nor OC would deter such an attack.

    police are open carry and offer themselves as law enforcement to protect society at large, first and themselves, with the openly carried firearm.

    you have a hard time refuting the assertion that OC has SOME deterrent value, while Criminal Carry has none by defition.

    and so you resort to the cheapest debate trick:

    change the subject.

    By hippydippy on Sep 30, 2013

  467. and cheap, juvenile, childish, personal insult

    you don’t think I know the meaning of the word “logic”

    By hippydippy on Sep 30, 2013

  468. red herrings, has nothing to do with the current discussion

    I agree – your purported ‘argument’ *IS* nothing but red herrings.

    the exceptions you stated are inter gang turf wars. neither CCW nor OC would deter such an attack

    Then your argument is proven false.

    police are open carry and offer themselves as law enforcement to protect society at large, first and themselve, with the openly carried firearm

    And the fact that they, too, are shot proves your argument false.

    you have a hard time refuting the assertion that OC has SOME deterrent value

    Nice strawman – care to show where I said that?

    and so you resort to the cheapest debate trick: change the subject

    How did I change the subject, pray tell? Are we not still talking about open and concealed carry?

    Oh, btw: For someone that has repeatedly whinged about ad homs, you *MIGHT* want to re-think your “strategy” (for certain values of the word) of calling all of us “criminal carry”

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 30, 2013

  469. and cheap, juvenile, childish, personal insult

    Yes, Mr. “Criminal Carry” – tell us ALL about “cheap, juvenile, childish personal insults”.

    you don’t think I know the meaning of the word “logic”

    No, I don’t think you know the meaning of the word.

    You dismiss out-of-hand anything that doesn’t support your claim (like studies showing the general deterrent effect of CCW laws). You make blanket statements, then accuse others of ‘changing the subject’ when they bring up examples from within your blanket statement that refute you claim.

    And the whole while, you keep droning the same points over and over while providing absolutely NOTHING to validate your claim or disprove any of ours.

    That’s not logic. That’s trolling.

    By Mike_in_Kosovo on Sep 30, 2013

  470. you do not HAVE to settle for a 380 in your pocket, just because you ccw, you know. Many of use have ccw’d lw Commanders, Officers and Defenders, for many years. So you CAN have a “real gun” concealed, even under just a t shirt.

    Open carry is bad enough as to its agitaion of hte sheeple, even if they are slung, having visiable longarms is ridiculous as to its likely effect on the general public. You cowboys may want things as they were in Dodge City, but it’s not going to happen. Wake up.

    By Don Russell on Sep 30, 2013

  471. As a firm believer in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it deeply bothers me how negative, condescending, and outright rude you Concealed Carry Only folks are towards your Patriot brethren.. As someone who sees pros and cons withwith both sides of the argument, it disgusts me that supposedly professional people would call others that want the same goals accomplished “idiots” for exercising their rights within the law. I open carry everyday as my job requires it, but I talk to many CCW carriers as well, and never are we so vile to each other over such a common debate. Btw I have open carried AKs and I got a 90% plus positive feedback from my community, even the police were supportive or atleast nonaggressive, and no one got hurt and I can still OC in the same businesses as before, all it did was educate the public and build rapport for our side, I was personally thanked by active duty military and many veterans, nothing but positivity, and thats what wins hearts and minds, not calling your brothers in arms idiots because you dont support the 2nd in the same spirit we do.. Next time dont open your big mouth with negative shit and expect everyone to agree, if anything you all have convinced me further why I need to continue OCing, because if its up to you NRA apologist compromisers my generation will be the last to own guns in this country, its all or nothing folks

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  472. Ryan — Started with ” it deeply bothers me how negative, condescending, and outright rude you Concealed Carry Only folks are” and ended with “you NRA apologist compromisers”.

    Weak troll is weak.

    By ToddG on Sep 30, 2013

  473. You started it by calling me an idiot, Todd.. Thats how negativity works buddy

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  474. If you paraded around at a Starbucks with your AK until customers got uncomfortable and the company had to make a big public anti-gun announcement, you are an idiot. That’s how reality works buddy.

    By ToddG on Sep 30, 2013

  475. And while slightly condescending, atleast I didnt call someone stupid like a little kid because I didnt get me way

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  476. While slightly condescending, at least I didn’t whine that other people were being condescending before being condescending. There’s a word for that…

    Also, I never said you were “stupid like a little kid.” I said idiot, but I meant an adult idiot. Hopefully, that will make things better.

    By ToddG on Sep 30, 2013

  477. Never stated that I pranced around a Starbucks with my gun until people got uncomfortable and the company changed its policy, whats that they say about assumptions? Something about making an asshole out of yourself? oh no that was Michael Clark Duncan, still fits though

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  478. You’re saying I made Michael Clark Duncan out of myself? Seriously I am having a hard time understanding you.

    By ToddG on Sep 30, 2013

  479. Look boss da plane, right over your head..

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  480. A double action plane? Come on, now you’re just purposely trying to be weird…

    By ToddG on Sep 30, 2013

  481. O.o really? The Fantasy Island reference to going over someones head, went over your head? Hahaha what a joke, goodnight and thanks for the laugh

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

  482. As a firm believer in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, it deeply bothers me how negative, condescending, and outright rude you Concealed Carry Only folks are towards your Patriot brethren.. As someone who sees pros and cons withwith both sides of the argument, it disgusts me that supposedly professional people would call others that want the same goals accomplished “idiots” for exercising their rights within the law. I open carry everyday as my job requires it, but I talk to many CCW carriers as well, and never are we so vile to each other over such a common debate. Btw I have open carried AKs and I got a 90% plus positive feedback from my community, even the police were supportive or atleast nonaggressive, and no one got hurt and I can still OC in the same businesses as before, all it did was educate the public and build rapport for our side, I was personally thanked by active duty military and many veterans, nothing but positivity, and thats what wins hearts and minds, not calling your brothers in arms idiots because you dont support the 2nd in the same spirit we do.. Next time dont open your big mouth with negative shit and expect everyone to agree, if anything you all have convinced me further why I need to continue OCing, because if its up to you NRA apologist compromisers my generation will be the last to own guns in this country, its all or nothing folks

    By Ryan on Sep 30, 2013

    Ryan: your opinion:

    OC has deterrent value: CCW has none.

    (that is : the individual actuallycarrying a concealed weapon, has no deterrent value (appears to be unarmed) and NOT the adoption of the law statewide)

    Your opinion?

    By hippydippy on Oct 2, 2013

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.