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:
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)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.”
*eyeroll*
Seriously, is your best argument “stop being weird”?
“there is no Constitutional right to own or drive a car.”
– Actually there is. The courts have upheld it repeatedly.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“ 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.
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.
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?
“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?
“ 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…
“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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
“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
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.
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.)
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.
” 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.
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.
hippydippy’s law: (well founded) troll paranoia does not cause everyone making unusual or novel arguments to be a troll.
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]
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
Your right to a gun, as the current interpretation of the constitution by the SCOTUS, is not absolute, and not eternal.
“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.)
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
good to see the OC crowd making sane, rational arguments that will cause us to change our opinion of them.
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,
hippydippy – well done. I think I may use that in the future.
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.