Sure, but “I might need it,” is exactly why police officers carry firearms, too.
Of course, that’s a somewhat dismissive characterization, but it’s correct: when I carry, it’s because I have weighed the competing risks and rewards and made a prudential determination that the balance falls on the side of carrying.
That’s not quite the way it works in Virginia. In Virginia, a “No Firearms,” sign operates like a No Trespassing sign: if you see it when you enter the private property and and you’re carrying a firearm, you’re trespassing.
And I feel that your characterization of the risks are overblown and laughable. And instead of you proving your case of why you are safer carrying, you default to “Because it’s my right, and I choose to do so” And by “you” I mean the people who choose to carry.
This makes sense. It’s good you admit the problem is more of quantitative than qualitative distinction; however you don’t fully quantify the matter.
What do you think of George Zimmerman, whose “rewards” for carrying a gun are unusually high — it allows him to act as asshole and provoke fights?
Some Americans parade into a pancake house carrying assault rifles because they choose to, because they have that legal right. Do you thank them for their good deed because it “normalizes” the sight of guns and makes it easier for you to carry in self-defense? When asked why you carry a gun, do you respond “Because I choose to, because I have that legal right”?
If you could wave a magic wand and a thousand fewer American children would be hungry, or ISIS suddenly disappear, would you do so if the magic genie insisted that in return you stop carrying a gun? Although invoking magic, this hypothetical approach to quantification goes to the heart of the matter for many of us — our severe puzzlement that many Americans (gays voting for the GOP, union members voting for union busters, etc.) think of nothing but their guns, Guns, GUNS!! when in the polling booth.
I don’t care why police officers carry. I assume it’s their job to carry.
And I believe that your weighing of the risks and rewards is overblown and your determination of the advantages of carrying is flawed. How can you convince me that it is not flawed?
Makes you wonder could a business could refuse service and kick you out for being Muslim. Both are constitutionally protected rights yet I foresee all sorts of trouble coming for a business that does so.
Whew. Thank goodness – your approval remains, as ever, paramount to my decisions and conduct.
I think Zimmerman was a fool. How is this relevant to my decision? I’m not a fool.
Sure. I think it’s a gesture I am unwilling to explore, but if no one does, then the legal right becomes increasingly fragile.
It depends entirely on the context in which the question is asked.
Here, based on a claim that there was some genuine interest in the reasons as opposed to a thinly-veiled precursor to a declaration that I didn’t “need,” to carry after all, I chose to offer my actual reasons. If the latter sentiment were evident, I might well respond more tersely.
I certainly would . . . but I would not impose that policy choice on my fellow citizens in the aggregate.
Didn’t read the whole thread but I must say that the visibility of a firearm makes it more likely that it will be used. Every time I see some old fart open carrying I think about how easy it would be to slam him in the back of the head with something heavy, take his gun and start shooting.
To your knowledge, has this ever happened?
I still you’re missing my point. You and k9 have a very strong IMO implicit assumption that there’s only ‘studies’ and ‘I feel, for no particular factual reason’. I and others have countered that there is an intermediate category of factual reasons but which vary by individual.
The point about seat belts is lack of a credible argument there’s any significant negative to wearing one, or credible argument that the pluses and minuses vary much by person. Therefore ‘studies’ are a good way to determine the answer.
With guns in contrast there is IMO by basic common sense much larger potential in either direction (save your life, cost a life), and thus it’s much more likely the net outcome would vary by person. Unfortunately you’ve countered this just by implicitly characterizing the potential pluses of a gun as equally absurd as worrying about the downside of seat belts or ‘carrying around a first aid kit’ (AFAIK prudent people have one at home and in their car, would carry one on their person hiking far from others, and OTOH unlike a gun one could quickly buy or expect to be lent first aid supplies in a built up area, so all around not a good analogy).
But it’s not at all absurd to think a gun’s big upside might benefit a convenience store owner in a dicey neighborhood, any other worker who has to carry a lot of cash to deposit, and so forth. These kind of variations don’t exist among drivers as to seatbelts. So I wasn’t repeating your point, but a point you’re not getting or acknowledging.
Now does this mean the decision to carry guns is always based on what I’d view as factual individual risk analysis? No. But ‘studies’ is only a killer argument if it’s something relatively homogeneous, something without big downside and upside, and/or where the up/down doesn’t vary much from one person to the next. Seatbelts fit this description. Guns don’t.
OP here again. To really sum up, isn’t it advantageous to actually know who’s carrying?
Advantageous how? to whom?
Let’s assume you had X-ray glasses and could determine who was carrying a concealed weapon. How would you use that information?
I would be bloody careful and polite around him/her and be careful about disagreeing with anything he or she said. That’s how.
Because the CDC has decided that their findings will be that guns are bad and will direct their ‘research’ to support that conclusion.
Are you not that way with everyone you meet?
Fender bender? They are still sitting in their car as you first approach therm and you have no idea as to how they are or anything. You are nasty & mean to a small wimpy looking guy but very polite to big ugly guys? 
or maybe :rolleyes: is better?
Whenever I carry, either concealed or openly, my politeness and conviviality only increases, as does the likelihood that I seek to avoid confrontation. I drive better too.
This for sure.
You still haven’t described how you’d like to quantify “safer”. By what metric would that be? While not driving may ultimately lower your risk of being injured in a vehicular accident, it could be the case that by not driving you would not be able to achieve a certain income level which would limit you in other ways impacting your overall health. In that case, perhaps the increased risk of vehicular accident is outweighed by the increase in standard of living and which on balance would lead to better health outcomes. Risk/reward like that is much more complicated than the seatbelt question, and I would think that over time if you were asked a bajilion times you may eventually fall back on “it’s my right”. Except in the case of driving, it’s not your right.
It’s strange why you wouldn’t care. You’d think it would inform your analysis. An individual officer may have a job to carry, but as departments they’ve made the assessment that overall their officers are safer if they are carrying. You’d think that’d be interesting.
You mistake where the burden of proof lies. No one needs to convince you. In the vast majority of states in the union, if a person wants to carry they are able to, because that is their right. If you think that’s not the way things should be, then it is you who would need to convince the legislatures of those states. Good luck.
That would be the actions of a psychopath. They hardly need an open carrier to carry out those actions if they were interested in them. I recommend Blackhawk retention holsters if carrying visibly.
I’m sure that I’m not the only person who has lost his temper at someone in a parking lot or a traffic jam, or had someone lose their temper at me in the same situation (trust me, this has only happened a few times:) but it has happened). In Canada I can be fairly confident that if that sort of thing happens I won’t get shot.
Or if I inadvertently cut someone off without realizing it and they give me the one finger salute they know that they won’t be shot.