The Open Carry Argument

[38special]

I prefer to conceal carry for my own safety. Everyone's heard some variation of a story where a guy open carried and got mugged unexpectantly. Not a good situation

Guess I'm not everyone

 

[kingnereli]

Actually, I DID post an at-length response to Mainsail's article. Unfortunately for me, this forum logged me out before I was able to post a full point-by-point response. That's on me, as I'm new to the forum, but NOT new to carrying a weapon, having done so virtually daily since 1975.

However, if someone is going to throw at me that I didn't (logging out or otherwise) post a point-by-point debate, I WILL point out that if anyone disagreed THEY were welcome to debate.

No one has, rather they're bashing ME for not making a point-by-point, yet they do not incumber themselves with the same requisites. Sorry, that's simply hypocritical.

And before you throw out accusations, .38 Special, make sure you're aware of your position. I did NOT, in ANY thread, ANYWHERE on this forum or any other, EVER, make a post "to argue that it's a good idea to wear CCW badges".

If that was a "dead thread", I was unaware of it, as it was simply linked in the thread I was responding to, and as the link was there, I responded to that link, wanting to stay on the topic and not hijack another.

And NO, I did NOT say "anyone who carries OC should not carry a gun and have their LTCH revoked". Again, a simple case of SOME people not reading what was written.

What I DID say was that anyone who actually believes that OC'ing provides some "strong deterrent effect" is not only incorrect, but IMO deluded to the point that one must question their judgment in carrying a gun in the first place, and perhaps should have their being issued a LTCH reviewed.

Anyone here think that carrying OC makes them impervious to attack, or that "no bad guy would mess with me because they can see I'm carrying a gun!"

Really? ANYONE here believe that? Someone here thinks that gun on their hip puts an 'S' on their chest? Civilian? LEO? 'Cause that's one deluded individual there, living in La-La Land. And if that's the case, their judgment is greatly in doubt. And THOSE people should be evaluated as to whether they have the appropriate mindset to carry a gun, and be licensed to do so.

I'll get to Mainsail's "article", I promise. In the meantime, if anyone HERE would like to debate the "advantages" to OC, especially anyone staunchly anti-CC (as stated, I'm in favor of the individual's choice), I'll be happy to do so, point-by-point.

And to Joe Williams, careful with that "hatred for the Constitution and American citizen" b.s. I happened to have taken the oath to uphold the Constitution more than once, friend. And I AM an American Citizen. You?

Again, you can't expect us to take you seriously when all your statements are sweeping, emotionally charged, ridiculous, over-stated opinion. We have all made our arguments numerous times. I'm not even sure if anything needs articulated any further then the initial article. If you disagree you should offer counter arguments and any data points your are privy to and we can all move forward from there. Your approach to this topic isn't doing yourself any favors.

I've been on INGO a smidge over a year and I've never seen someone who is "anti-CC." That is a false assumption on your part. That as well as your assumption that OCers fancy their carry piece as a talisman that will ward off evil merely by being visisble. Again, no one has made that argument. While trying to correct .38 special you merely reworded what he claimed you said. As in you don't want OCers to have their LTCH yanked you just said "those people should be evaluated as to whether they have the appropriate mindset to carry a gun, and be licensed to do so." A fail to see a difference. It seems .38 special was correct in his claim.

I also find it laughable that in the same post you specifically claim that you are in favor of an individual's choice and declare that those who choose differently then you should be "evaluated." Regardless of what oaths you took you are aren't portraying yourself as any kind of rights respecting, freedom loving, constitution protecting anything. Your overbearing rhetoric is bad enough. It is most wearisome that we're having to coach you in how to participate in a decent debate.

As far as the forum logging you off. I found that if I don't click the little remember my username box when I log in it does the same to me if I'm on here awhile without posting. So, I pretty much just always stay logged on to INGO. I hope that helps.

The best part of topics like this is that they streamline my decision-making process for additions to my IGNORE list. Now I just need to find a way to circumvent the quoting!

 

[kludge]

As the saying goes "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" but that's the way to bet.

Nobody has claimed that the deterrence factor is a panacea, that it will always work all the time on every possible criminal. Therefore the whole "does not mean the next one will" is a red herring.

It doesn't guarantee that the next one will but one doesn't have to have a guarantee to have the odds improved.


It should be noted that deductive reasoning can never generate "new" truths, therefore all genuine experimentation or empirical research will of necessity involve elements of inductive reasoning.


Since nobody has made this argument, it is again a red herring.

I never said anyone made the argument, only what the conclusion might be if deductive reaoning were used. Red herrings need not apply. I'm not pro-OC or pro-CC, "do what you want to do, it's your right to do it" is my stance.

Please note: I'm not arguing for or against open carry. The ONLY points I was trying to make is that the arguments use inductive logic, and that having a gun is more important than OC or CC.

 

[rhino]

This is starting to remind me of a Swede, a Norsk, and a Dane arguing over who is more Scandanavian.

 

[Joe Williams]

This is starting to remind me of a Swede, a Norsk, and a Dane arguing over who is more Scandanavian.

The Swede.

 

[rhino]

The Swede.

I have two possible responses to that.

The first is the obvious "HOW DARE YOU!" and launch into assault mode.

The second is to ask if you're referring to a Geat or a northern Swede, then launch into "HOW DARE YOU!" regardless of the answer.

 

[jsgolfman]

Aren't all Swedes great?

 

[ATM]

...and for a Scandanavian debate no less.

"HOW DARE YOU!"

Indeed!


*Hey Rhino, how about a nice Diet Mountain Dew?*

 

[Joe Williams]

Geat. All others are obviously mere pretenders to the throne.

And I actually googled geat before just picking one!

 

[rhino]

...and for a Scandanavian debate no less.

I sorry.

"Really," ATM thinks to himself, "is he really sorry?

"No, not really," I reply telepathically. I can do this because I am not Scandanavian. If I were, my skull would be too thick and it would block the mental waves emanating from my brain.

"You suck," ATM thinks back to me, leading me to question whether or not ATM is part Scandanavian, since I can clearly read his thoughts.

Which raises the question, if I'm actually able to communicate telepathically with ATM, why don't I know the details of this ethnicity? How is he hiding this information from me? And more importantly, what sinister motives underlie his obvious deception?

"You suck, and you are odd," he is now thinking at me. Well, he's right that I am odd. Perhaps he's reading my mind more clearly than I am his, which then leads me to suspect that his own mental powers may in fact surpass my own.

If that is indeed true, ATM is a threat to my existence. I must end him. Oops. I probably shouldn't have thought that, because now he knows I'm onto him and he can get me first. That throws us back to square one. I intend to glare at him the next time I see him in town in order to convey my simultaneous suspicion and animosity without revealing more insight into my mental processes. That should take care of him once and for all.

There I go again. Since I just thought it, he knows I'm planning to glare at him. Now I'll have to grin instead, which may throw him off of the track long enough for a follow-up glare, which was my original plan. But now he knows I'm planning trickery of my own.

Is there no end . . . no limits to ATM's psychic powers? Can he also see the future, a future in which I have become a mere pawn in his twisted chess game?

I'm thirsty.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
If that is indeed true, ATM is a threat to my existence. I must end him.

Don't waste time on intricate planning. He knows the details anyway. A direct frontal assault may be best. He will, of course, be expecting it, which complicates matters considerably.

 

[rhino]

Don't waste time on intricate planning. He knows the details anyway. A direct frontal assault may be best. He will, of course, be expecting it, which complicates matters considerably.

I realize the truth in Joe Williams' words far too late. The beginning of my own end has . . . begun. Must envision a brick wall, not unlike the professor from that movie with the evil blonde kids with the mind powers who took over the town and turned out to be aliens. Could ATM be an alien as well? It makes sense, especially with his fondness of open carry. Everyone knows that not only will you get accosted by the police and frighten small children when you carry openly, that all who advocate it are clearly extraterrestrial in origin. Earth people carry concealed because it gives them the advantage of surprise!

Well, now I've gone and done it. My surprise is no longer very surprising.

I am impressed by my ability to steer my stream of consciousness back to the topic of Open Carry Argument, though. You should be too.

 

[infidel]

Rhino, I would suggest wrapping your head in bacon to block your brainwaves from him.

On second thought, that may lead to head consumption by ATM. Attempt at your own risk.

 

[rhino]

Rhino, I would suggest wrapping your head in bacon to block your brainwaves from him.

On second thought, that may lead to head consumption by ATM. Attempt at your own risk.

That is a strategy I dare not consider!

 

[ATM]

*senses tingling*


Somewhere... someone just considered wrapping their head in bacon.



*Mmm... bacon...*

 

[MACHINEGUN]

 

[BloodEclipse]

I wonder if they will still be discussing this 100 years from now?

 

[jsgolfman]

Of course. You did mean bacon, right?

 

[Donnelly]

How about the subject of the speedier draw from OC? Most people that CC give up an extra 1/2 second or so to clear clothing out of the way, longer for deep concealment. I remember a ton of people jumping on me for carrying a Glock without a round in the chamber, saying "why add that extra 1/2 second to chamber a round?", but I am guessing that some of those same people are perfectly OK with the additional draw time associated with CC.

 

[BloodEclipse]

How about the subject of the speedier draw from OC? Most people that CC give up an extra 1/2 second or so to clear clothing out of the way, longer for deep concealment. I remember a ton of people jumping on me for carrying a Glock without a round in the chamber, saying "why add that extra 1/2 second to chamber a round?", but I am guessing that some of those same people are perfectly OK with the additional draw time associated with CC.

Now you did it.

How many of those people will admit it or better yet justify it?