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)
I like using TAM for the subject. 😛
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On a tangential note, I am known to have fairly strong opinions on the dangers of unnecessary gun-fondling.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ah. So you’re ok with criminals having the advantage over the law abiding.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
CCW has NO deterrent value: TRUE.
you cannot get past that.
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?
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
Therefore: “A person is not CCW for deterrent value ALONE” FALSE
A person who is CCW has no deterrent value TRUE.
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.
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.
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.
a person with a holstered and loaded firearm could blow another person’s head off in 5 seconds. TRUE.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
or alternately YOU pose a question or questions.
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.
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?
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
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.
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!
did not like that post at ALL now DID you.
“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.
“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.”
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.
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.