Quantcast
An "Open Carry" poster to think about. - Page 3 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism > Activism Discussion and Planning

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 3, 2014, 11:02 AM   #51
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 39,609
Let's try to get this back on track and focus on the issues with the poster.
__________________
SAF Life Member/NRAILA Contributor
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.
hso is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 11:43 AM   #52
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.

When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.
But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted. The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.

Analogies are never perfect, and comparing civil rights for Blacks to gun ownership is no exception. One of the reason sit ins and marches worked is that it brought national attention to the plight of blacks in a time when much of the rest of the country genuinely didn't know how badly Blacks were treated in the Jim Crow South. People saw on the news how bad it was and they were outraged. Gun owners cannot expect and will not get the same level of sympathy. Being Black is something that you are (or not), and cannot help being (or not being), therefore people were moved to sympathy and outrage seeing how people who could not help being what they were, were being treated abominably simply for being what they were. They were being persecuted for something they had no control over. Non-racist Americans had no difficulty perceiving the fundamental, gross injustice of this.

Carrying firearms is an entirely different kettle of fish, as far as most people are concerned. It is a behavior. It is something you do control. And yes, I know it's a constitutionally protected right. That doesn't for a moment mean most people just don't see it differently. And I promise you, people seeing yahoos like the ones in the poster, with a spooky looking "assault weapon" standing in line at a counter, are not going to be looked at the same way. They're just not.

A better analogy might be the situation with gays, which some people, whether rightly or not, also see as a choice (I'm not inclined to think that it is, for the most part). The in your face gay pride parades were not what really changed the picture on gay rights. Displays of men in drag, men wearing assless chaps in public, gimp masks and so on were not what did it. Those things tended to revolt most people, and reinforce the stereotype of gays as deviant, lascivious perverts and a corrupting influence to be resisted. What changed things was people coming out and the realization among an ever greater number of people that that guy you've worked with for the last five years, or the neighbor two houses over who's always been a decent guy, or dry cleaner who's done your shirts and suits for ages, or the restaurant manager who always greets you kindly and makes sure you have excellent service are, in fact, gay, and they're perfectly ordinary, perfectly decent people.

Last edited by Billy Shears; August 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 01:58 PM   #53
Nom de Forum
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: September 22, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDBoardman View Post
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.

When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.

And for those who are "shocked" by my comparing equal opportunity and equal accommodation to open carry, may I remind you that both principles are enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact that a portion of the public doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad.

In my opinion comparing the struggle for equality that was/is the Civil Rights Movement to promoting/defending OC/CCW will result in the majority of people derisively laughing at you rather than sympathizing with you. Telling that "portion of the public" (a extremely large portion) that "doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad" is likely to result in angering that "portion" to action against our OC/CC. When a strong majority of people support OC/CC then it might be wiser, but still rude, to express such sentiment.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
Nom de Forum is online now  
Old August 3, 2014, 04:18 PM   #54
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
Wow
>completely ignoring the fact police often have backup/a partner
>Usually don't patrole the worst of the gang neighbor hoods on foot
>Wear body armor
>have a cb radio
>are seen as more of a nuisance
>are not usually the victims of armed robbery either

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470871
http://icarry.org/ftopict-3299.html

You cannot compare law enforcement to the average citizen. Don't be willfully dense.
I certainly can make the comparison.

If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 04:32 PM   #55
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
I certainly can make the comparison.
You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.

Quote:
If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.
So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/te...a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 04:38 PM   #56
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
Quote:
I certainly can make the comparison
.

Quote:
You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.
It's better than sheer imagination.

Quote:
Quote:
If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.
Quote:
So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/te...a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.
A single anecdote refutes millions of open carrying cops?

What you're doing is the old anti-gun argument of, "A gun won't do you any good. The bad guy will just take it away from you."
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:01 PM   #57
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
It's better than sheer imagination.
If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination. Something that has been demonstrated to occur in reality is not some kind of fantasy. Wishing it were will not change this.

Quote:
A single anecdote refutes millions of open carrying cops?
Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him. He didn't get killed, but he might well have been if he had resisted like the victim in the story from Richmond. And here's yet another story about an attempt at snatching a gun out of the holster of an open carrier: http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/u...holstered-gun/

This sort of thing may not be commonplace, but it does happen. And the vaunted deterrence of open carry didn't stop it. In fact a very compelling argument can be made that each of these three individuals was targeted precisely because they were carrying openly.

And as for millions of cops carrying openly. Yeah, they do. I'm one of them. And as such I am aware of the dangers. Such as the fact that every year a significant percentage of them who are killed in the line of duty are shot and killed with their own guns. Cops are trained to be alert, they often work with partners, and they have the best retention holsters available and are trained in weapon retention. Yet they still get their guns taken from them! You think you can do better if a bad guy comes up behind you and tried to take your gun? Most armed citizens have “level zero” retention holsters, and no training in weapon retention. Many of the holsters citizens wear openly will rip right off their belts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeKtgkZKmQ), unlike a police duty belt, which is designed to resist someone trying to forcibly wrench the holster off.

The argument that "a gun won't do you any good; the bad guy will just take it away from you," is all too likely to be true if the bad guy gets the drop on you. And marking yourself out for his notice increases your likelihood of this happening. Each of the three victims in the news stories I have cited would almost certainly never have been victimized if they had been carrying concealed instead of openly. Their assailants would not even have known they were armed. But they still would have been able to defend themselves, and perhaps would have been better able to do so by virtue of possessing a defensive capability their assailants were unaware of, and which they could then deploy with the element of surprise on their side.

Last edited by Billy Shears; August 3, 2014 at 05:07 PM.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:12 PM   #58
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination.
It's still anecdotal.
Quote:
Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him.
Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.

On the other hand, cops carry openly by the millions -- and a few anecdotes don't cancel out evidence like that.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:12 PM   #59
zxcvbob
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 15, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,975
What exactly are we supposed to be thinking about? I'm confused.

Quote:
And as for millions of cops carrying openly. Yeah, they do, and guess what, every year a significant percentage of them who are killed in the line of duty are shot and killed with their own guns. Cops are trained to be alert, they often work with partners, and they have the best retention holsters available and are trained in weapon retention. Yet they still get their guns taken from them! You think you can do better if a bad guy comes up behind you and tried to take your gun? Most armed citizens have “level zero” retention holsters, and no training in weapon retention.
Significant percentage? Really?

Quote:
And marking yourself out for his notice increases your likelihood of this happening. Each of the three victims in the news stories I have cited would almost certainly never have been victimized if they had been carrying concealed instead of openly. Their assailants would not even have known they were armed. But they still would have been able to defend themselves, and perhaps would have been better able to do so by virtue of possessing a defensive capability their assailants were unaware of, and which they could then deploy with the element of surprise on their side.
And how many OC'er were never assaulted in the first place because the bad guy decided to find a softer target? (that's a rhetorical question because the answer is unknowable) If a bad guy targets you *because* you have a gun instead of avoiding you because you have a gun, you're probably screwed. That's a tradeoff the individual has to weigh, not really something to pontificate about. I tend to think most criminals are cowards... but I CC most of the time anyway. I also don't see where this has anything to do with the OP's poster.
__________________
"Nobody wins in a Dairy Challenge" —Kenny Rogers
zxcvbob is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:28 PM   #60
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
Significant percentage? Really?
Yes.

Quote:
But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quart...-R-I-Policies/
From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.

Quote:
And how many OC'er were never assaulted in the first place because the bad guy decided to find a softer target? (that's a rhetorical question because the answer is unknowable) If a bad guy targets you *because* you have a gun instead of avoiding you because you have a gun, you're probably screwed. That's a tradeoff the individual has to weigh, not really something to pontificate about.
"Pontificate?" That's one word to use, I suppose. But to argue strongly for the disadvantages of a certain practice can also be described in less loaded terminology, I think. And if you're going to carry a gun for self protection, it's certainly something that bears thinking about realistically.

Quote:
I tend to think most criminals are cowards... but I CC most of the time anyway. I also don't see where this has anything to do with the OP's poster.
It's all related to open carry. Some people do it in preference to concealed, as much to make a statement as for self protection, and they justify the practice partly on the basis of deterring crime, so this bears discussion as well.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:31 PM   #61
Mainsail
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 16, 2005
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Shears View Post
But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted.
There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.

Quote:
The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.
You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.
__________________
"When I cleaned up my diction, I had nothing left to say."
Mainsail is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:31 PM   #62
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
It's still anecdotal.

Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.
First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.

Quote:
On the other hand, cops carry openly by the millions -- and a few anecdotes don't cancel out evidence like that.
And I notice you have no response to the fact that some of them get their own guns taken from them, despite having better gear and better training than most armed citizens ever have. Nor does that address the apples and oranges aspect of comparing sworn police to armed citizens, despite the vast differences between them.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:31 PM   #63
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
Quote:
But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quart...-R-I-Policies/
Quote:
From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.
And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:34 PM   #64
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:38 PM   #65
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
Yes. I will. Because I, at least, always try to back up my assertions with some kind of supporting evidence, instead of simply asserting something baldly. And I will use news stories, statistics, training, experience, and whatever other tools will enable me to provide that supporting evidence.

I will also address all my opponent's points, instead of conveniently ignoring the arguments I have no answer for.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 05:47 PM   #66
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.
This is what denial looks like.

Sure the antis were able to divide gun owners. This facilitated the California ban, to be sure. But it didn't provide the impetus for it. Dividing gun owners against themselves was a tactic, a method, not the reason for taking action. That reason, that impetus was provided by the ill-considered actions of the OC activists who used open carry as an in-your-face tactic that backfired and provoked the antis to greater action.

Quote:
You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.
Yes, but notice what they asked people to do? They asked people to leave the guns at home. They took no position before, but now they have taken one, and it's not pro-gun. Let the OC activists continue their ostentatious carry, however, and they may provoke yet another backlash, stronger next time.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 06:06 PM   #67
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,094
Quote:
Quote:
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
Quote:
Yes. I will
That pretty much ends the discussion.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 06:15 PM   #68
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
That pretty much ends the discussion.
Since you are unwilling to use intellectually honest debate tactics, I suppose it does.

First, you fail to provide any support for your opinions, you simply state them as if they are fact. Second, you accuse those objecting to your points of using "sheer imagination" to come up with reasons for their objections. Third, when they find actual examples that bear their objections out you not only dismiss said examples, unconsidered, you continue to throw the charge of their using "pure imagination." These are real world examples, mind you, but you dismiss them as "pure imagination." This is intellectually dishonest by any standard. Fourth, you simply ignore certain key points of their arguments, responding to a comparison you brought up. And fifth, you quote them selectively. Again, this is intellectually dishonest.

My impression was that "high road" behavior wasn't simply the avoidance of personal insults and other such nastiness, it was also about integrity and honesty, and not intentionally misrepresenting your opponent's statements by leaving out key parts of his explanations.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 06:25 PM   #69
Billy Shears
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 16, 2008
Posts: 907
Quote:
And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?
Oh, and I missed this. I might as well address it, since I did say I try to respond to all an opponent's points.

No. Don't be obtuse.

Police still have to wear uniforms, and carry openly, and accept the risks inherent in doing so, because for them, it is a better tradeoff. Police have to respond to crimes in progress, not seek to avoid them the way a citizen does. Citizens have an actual obligation to retreat from danger in many jurisdictions (and even where there are "stand your ground" laws, and they don't, they can still be locked up if they are found to have been responsible for escalating a confrontation to the point where lethal force was employed). Police, on the other hand, have a duty to respond where citizens are expected to retreat. They need to be uniformed so they can recognize each other and avoid "blue on blue" shootings, among other reasons. It's the better tradeoff, even if that means standing out visibly and sometimes being targeted because of it. Since they already have to be uniformed, and identifiable as police officers, what would be the point of carrying concealed?

None of this is true for a armed citizen. The situation is completely different. A citizen can remain inconspicuous, and need not broadcast his armed status, and is generally better off not doing so.
Billy Shears is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 06:28 PM   #70
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,347
Not sure why an inane, quippy, poster made up by someone with clearly insufficient grasp of the issues, and certainly WITHOUT our best interests at heart, has gotten so much traction here of all places. This deserves less discussion and more of a bemused pat on the head and a gentle, "Run along now, dearie, the adults are talking."

But once more we've tried to plumb the depth of OC -vs.- CC and all we've come up with is the obseravation that some folks like one set of tall tales and anecdotes and logic, and desire to support their own conclusions with them, and that other folks have their own favorite tall tales and anecdotes and logic, and are committed to supporting THEIR own deeply entrenched position with those "data."

It would be sheer folly to expect that there's going to be eventual consensus reached.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 11:16 PM   #71
hso
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: January 3, 2003
Location: 0 hrs east of TN
Posts: 39,609
Closed since members don't want to get back to the original topic and there's no point to allowing arguments take over.
__________________
SAF Life Member/NRAILA Contributor
******************
Please Read The Forum Rules

TheHighRoad exists to provide a higher grade of discussion than is found on some other gun forums so antis and undecideds can see that gun owners and RKBA advocates are not the reckless misanthropes they tell everyone we are. Personal attacks, group stereotyping, macho chest-thumping, and partisan hackery are low road and hurt all of us.

Last edited by hso; August 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM.
hso is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.