If you ask nice and say please.
Senor, all the quoting and crap is getting too involved, but you are engaging in cognitive dissonance.
Listen to yourself. “Evaluating if any group if safer than another for no particular definition of safe is a tricky problem in itself.” Come on! We’re talking about orders of magnitude difference in death rates! “Sure - if you’re competant in handling a weapon and have the appropriate training and equipment, why wouldn’t it be?” Because stats bear it out.
Oh, why did I let you get to the logical side of me? I was having fun.
Why? Are the 6 year olds a danger? Are they going to steal the guns? Are people going to see the 6 year olds and be driven to a murderous rage?
Okay. Lots of people - millions - have carried a concealed weapon before, because they perceived a potential danger. And of them, some significant fraction have come to harm through some danger that the gun failed to protect them from, right?
So why not a pit thread for these hundreds of thousands of incidents of irony? What makes her case special?
Clearly the people in this thread are gleeful over it. Laughing at it. There’s a clear element of comeuppance.
Yes, actually, because it changes the entire content of the argument.
Right, because my argument was that if you carried a gun on you, you are immortal, no harm could possibly befall you.
Yes, I know it’s not ironic. That was my point. I’m saying the situation is analogous, and neither are ironic.
This is not evidence. You just said “of course you’re engaging in cognitive dissonance. I am right, and you are wrong. QED!”
There is not an “order of magnitude difference in death rates”. The stats you are looking at are whatever support your conclusion, like the utter bullshit Kellerman study I referrenced above.
Your question was too vague for me to give a simple answer. If you want to establish more clear boundaries, I will answer it.
That depends. The times that you open carried, was it because you were doing something like taking the daily cash from a business to the bank and were at risk of being robbed? Or did you open carry a gun to your niece’s baptism, because, hey, infants!
I’m not hoping Sarah Palin gets shot from a helicopter, but damn, it’d be funny.
And if she got shot by someone who pulled her own gun out of her holster, then it may be ironic. But her husband owning a gun, and using that gun to kill her, does not necesarily have any logical connection to her choice to open carry.
Context! Context matters. If I’m out in the woods hunting and I see a guy wearing orange approaching me with a gun, I’m not going to be worried; he’s just a hunter. If I’m at Ren Faire and I see some guy with a sword, I’m not going to be worried; he’s just a nerd. But if I’m at the grocery store and I see some random schmuck with a gun or sword, at the very least I’m going to think “what the hell is his problem?”, and I’ll definitely walk in a different direction.
If you think that’s what the irony is, no wonder you’re confused. This isn’t just “gun owner killed by gun.” In and of itself, that scenario is not ironic.
This particular case is ironic because the gun she insisted on carrying to protect herself with did nothing to protect her (extra level: as she was shot to death by someone who also owned a gun “for protection”).
Wanted to add this, but missed the edit window due to my browser freezing up:
Irony is based in a contrast between expectations and outcomes. We would expect that the woman is made safer by carrying a handgun. Instead, her handgun is not able to protect her, and she is made less safe by the fact that her husband also carried a handgun. See the tension in the juxtaposition? That’s irony.
Well… I suppose most people assume someone openly carrying a gun has a valid rationale for carrying a weapon capable of deadly force they can employ at a moment’s notice. If someone is in a situation where they have no occupational duty to open carry, but really just like to have a deadly weapon available at a moment’s notice that’s well outside the norm.
Calling people “colossal pussies” because they react with apprehension to the scenario of someone doing something so socially inappropriate it demonstrates not just extremely poor judgement, but possibly an unstable mental state, is absurd.
Open carrying a gun to a kids soccer game is simply not the way normal people behave. If you think it’s the way normal people *should *behave in a suburban, middle class social milieu in the United States you’re living in a fantasy world.
Since a person who would do that is likely a member of the SCA, yeah, “a little unstable” is likely.
Gun supporter darwined by gun crime is some pretty heavy situational irony, but the situation is pretty sad.
Had she survived it would have been hilarious though.
I can’t let this pass by without fanfare. Bravo, sir. Well-played. You win the internet today. 
Gun nuts being gun nuts.
Gun nuts having difficulty recognizing irony.
Both involve a difficulty in seeing things in perspective.
So the expectation is that because she carried a gun openly, she would be immune from being murdered by her husband? And when that expectation was thwarted, we have irony? Is there an expectation that she would at all times be armed and ready to use deadly force against her husband in her own home?
Which of these following scenarios is ironic?
- Gun owner is murdered by someone else with a gun
- Gun rights advocate is murdered by someone with a gun
- Person who is known to carry a gun for personal protection is murdered with a gun
- Person who is known to carry a gun for personal protection is murdered with a knife
- Person who is known to carry a gun for personal protection is murdered by a trusted loved one who they felt they did not need to be on guard against
- Non-gun owner is murdered by family member who owns gun
- A cop who is carrying a gun for personal protection is killed by a gun
Of course. And that’s part of my point. Guns aren’t lumps of uranium that are inherently dangerous. They don’t, as news reports often like to phrase it, just “go off”. If someone I have no reason to suspect intends me harm has a gun, I don’t freak out. On the other hand, someone with the will and intent to hurt me doesn’t require much of a weapon to be a grave threat.
It’s only socially unacceptable and unusual because of people’s irrational fear of guns. It becomes a cycle - people don’t wear guns openly because it makes some people uncomfortable, which leads to it seeming even more unusual, which leads to even more people who won’t wear guns openly, which leads to it being seen as even more unusual, etc.
I’m of the belief that open carry should be legal and socially acceptable amongst people generally, and the only way to reverse this cycle is for good people to show that open carry is nothing to be afraid of by making it part of their daily routine. I can’t say that’s what this woman was doing - she could’ve been a huge cunt for all I know. I don’t like anyone who straps a gun on and walks around trying to act intimidating or thinking they’re bad ass or something.
“My political opponents are simply not as wise to see as clearly as I do that they are wrong” makes you the narrow minded one here. The very fact that you refer to gun rights advocates as “gun nuts” shows the simplicity with which you consider the issue.
When the cops show up at your door, shout “You’ll never get me, ya dirty coppers!” 
That’ll show 'em.
Andf yet courthouses and such have controlled access points with armed police/court officers and metal detectors, while the average public venue does not. And mass shooters (what I judge to be the most likely “OH FUCKING SHIT” scenario to encounter at a kid’s soccer game) like unarmed victims; look at where they typically take place.
But the woman in the OP broke one of the cardinal rules of CC: never let anyone know you are carrying (other than appropriate authorities under proper circumstances, as required by most CC laws).
Being armed via concealed carry is about being prepared; it is a lawful, and so far, Constitutionally protected right. Do some people do it “just because?” I’m certain of it.
Does it then mean we have to get rid of it because of those idiots?
Personally, I think the woman in the OP was a douche for uncovering her carry in public “to make a point.”
Doesn’t mean I’m laughing at a family tragedy, though.
Now if Sarah Brady accidentally shot herself with her concealed carry handgun, that would be funny.
Actually, they show no such thing. Please stop spouting Brady propaganda.
I’d like you to provide some evidence that anyone has ever said that possessing a firearm, ostensibly for personal defense, renders one immune to harm.
Hell, a canny mugger with a length of pipe, striking by surprise from concealment, could easily take down a Steven Segal-type bad-ass strapped to the 9’s with 9’s.
What I do find ironic about the situation is this:
The husband, as a parole officer, is one of those “Law Enforcement Types” which most anti-gun types tell us are one of the few classes of people who ever need to be armed/have access to firearms.
And he’s the one who murdered his spouse before killing himself.
Only if a wolf did it. I’d also laugh if a moose got her.
I was under the impression that she had a CC license, but she was excercising legal open carry at the time. That her CC license was revoked was an inappropriate/irrelevant action on the hands of the sheriff, and she got it back.
Right. Lebanon PA is plauged by attacks at the youth soccer fields.
It’s so prevalent that googling 'soccer shooting’returns 19 million hits (warning: links to graphic videos). :rolleyes:
**
That’s my understanding, as well, as her lawyer argued that open carry was legal w/o a permit outside of a few specific jurisdictions.
I still think it was a silly thing to do, out of the blue, and agree with most other anti-gun types here that it was a foolish thing to do at a kid’s soccer game.
Face it, if open carry is legal, but not commonly practiced, most people (normal, everyday people) are going to react negatively to seeing J. Average Citizen walking around openly strapped. This reaction is going to be exacerbated by the presence of their children.