Perhaps true, perhaps not, but it’s not really about shock. It’s about basic safety and not trusting the intentions of unknowns with firearms. Further, lots of people openly wandering around with firearms does not of itself make anyplace safer, or even more polite (despite the bumper sticker).
I’ve lived and worked in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is considerable open carrying of firearms in all three countries (both pistol and long gun). They are not in any way safer than the US, Italy or Japan. When at a cafe in Lahore, Herat or Basrah, if you see someone with a pistol you immediately make sure you have cover if needed and/or an exit plan.
I don’t really want to have to have an exit plan for a Starbucks or a Mickey D’s in Virginia Beach or San Diego. I don’t trust you (or any other patron) to be a swat trained CQB marksman and I don’t trust the mental thought processes of anyone bringing a loaded firearm into an establishment where they are not known, especially if there are children present. It smacks of someone who is either desiring a confrontation (with the ultimate penis in a holster on their side) or playing a wanna-be hero/cop.
In either case, if you want my respect, go put the firearm away and become a volunteer firefighter. Those guys are bad ass and get mad lovin’ from the ladies.
It’s rather disturbing that my wife’s gun is a penis in a holster.
Well, you’re more than welcome to trust, or not trust, as you see fit.
But I am welcome to disregard your fear as irrational, just as I would regard your fear if you panicked at the sight of a voodoo doll.
And as long as I remain compliant with the law, I can point out that I am acting with the approval of the people of whatever state I’m in, as expressed through their elected officials.
You really are a fucking idiot aren’t you. I don’t have guys. I already said these guys are idiots. I simply follow certain military pages that tend to have people who believe in the 2nd amendment. The purpose of the pages I read are military topics which I am interested in as someone who has worn the uniform for 26 years. There happens to be some overlap between the two communities. I found it interesting that there has been a lot of blow back from those that OCT would probably count as being on their side. Its not working.
There point is that it should be legal to open carry. I never said it was a good point. I never said it was my point. Trying reading a bit more carefully.
True enough. However their press release also says they will no longer go into businesses unless they are invited and will announce all rallies to include notifying the police and carrying signs stating what they are doing. It seems they are actually learning that their old tactics were hurting their cause. At least the leadership anyway.
This of course applies both ways in that I am welcome to disregard your fear of walking into a fast food restaurant unarmed because you are panicked by the sight of random strangers due to statistically unfounded paranoia.
No, I honestly don’t think it ever would. Especially in our ever more populated and anonymous world. And double-especially if it becomes commonplace. Statistically, if you arm more people, you’re going to end up with more unhinged people armed.
I think there are significant drawbacks to just assuming all the armed people aren’t a danger. You don’t know if guy A is slightly crazy. Maybe he’s not trained and likely to cause more harm that good. Maybe he’s in a bad mood and a fight with guy B escalates out of control too quickly. Too many variables with people. I don’t trust 10% of the people I come across that are unarmed. Give them a gun and I have to increase my vigilance.
If I were to pick any ten random people and arm them. How many competent people out of those 10 will be in a position mentally and emotionally to stop a would-be massacre? Without endangering people further, of course. Without decent training, it’s probably a good 25% chance you’ll be in a position to do more harm than good. Even officers injure bystanders occasionally.
(Note: I’m pro-concealed carry. I think guns should be restricted until the bearer is significantly trained. Much more so than current requirements.)
You could have simply *said *that they offer no solution. You could have then offered your own, as a way of showing your responsibility in contrast with those “idiots”. Except you have offered nothing but vitriol, of the same nature as their own.
So, here’s another chance: Ya got somethin’ or don’tcha? :dubious:
Is that the point that is actually being received? Or do they even care about that?
Please note that your sole example, that your state is completely open-carry and that it still evokes a negative reaction, is *contrary *to your assertion. Typically one is better served by arguing *with *the evidence, not by inventing fantasies contrary to it.
Here’s the thing: The natural reaction to seeing someone brandishing their strap-on is to think “If that guy’s enough of an asshole to carry that thing, he’s enough of an asshole to use it too”. Call that “irrational” if it gives you reassurance of your *own *assholeness, but you’ll only be as convincing as drunky smurf.
Shrug, it’s a presentation of personal power and the ability to take a life. In other words, a peen. Or a really mean vag if you prefer.
Only it’s not irrational, it’s basic awareness of the threat matrix. When one brings lethal force level equipment into a common area shared by many people who do not know each other, it is simply basic sense that the threat level is now elevated (not lowered as you think it should be (apparently)) and that it is prudent to either vacate the area or have a plan to escape. The equipment itself isn’t the issue. The issue would be the same if you were wielding a chainsaw in a Starbucks. Or a flame thrower. I mean, if it’s irrational to fear someone in an enclosed commercial space with one piece of lethal equipment (a firearm), then it’s just as irrational to fear someone in that same environment with another piece of lethal equipment (a flame thrower).
Right? That is analogous to your argument.
Or maybe it’s not irrational at all to not trust you and your children’s lives to the good intentions of random people who bring lethal equipment into commercial spaces. And maybe that’s why most stores don’t let you or I carry a flame thrower in them. Or a firearm.
Never said it was illegal. Just don’t expect people to risk their children’s lives so you can express your viewpoint. And don’t expect corporations to drive away probably 90% of their business to satisfy the 10% who feel some need/desire to openly carry an M4 into a fast food restaurant. It was and is a business decision, modeled on A) who has more money and B) who is less of a threat to other customers. And the answer to both is: Not you.
Then lets not pretend that safety devices in cars are in any way comparable to weapons, like the esteemed **jtgain **tried to pull off; which, was the point to my sarcasm, which you glossed over just to reanimate the whole, “oh yeah, then why don’t we make cars illegal,” bullshit.
I think this is a stretch. I think it’s more accurate to say you have the approval of a vocal and well funded minority that terrorizes elected officials into doing their bidding.
They’re have an established threat profile. I’m aware that they’re trained with their weapon as well as having tactical training. Additionally, I know the rules they operate under and have an expected behavior pattern in mind. Should they deviate from this, then they warrent additional concern.
So would you say that the behavior pattern of the police has been normalized for you? Do you think that the police entering a restaurant does or does not raise the threat assessment? If it does, does it rise enough for you to alter your behavior in a meaningful way?
In does not raise the threat assessment, and if anything they lower the threat assessment. But it’s not due to the gun on their hip, rather it’s due to their role as law enforcement. People are usually less likely to break laws in front of the people that enforce them.