Eeyore
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry for the long post, but I had an epiphany the other day.
There are a lot of theories about why some people are afraid of guns in general: ignorance, transference, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. I have a new theory about why some people react so badly when they see someone open carrying. (Well, maybe it's not really new, but it's new to me.)
I came to this realization while driving down a Mississippi highway, still shaking from the adrenaline rush of a near-miss when some idiot pulled out in front of me and then decided to make an abrupt left turn from the right lane. (It goes without saying that he didn’t check his side mirror or use his turn signal, either.) I said to myself, “That #@*% almost killed me!” Hmmmm. Although I often carry a gun for self defense, the gun couldn’t have saved my life in this case. I was dependent on other drivers not to be incompetent halfwits.
Although we don’t think about it often, to some degree or other, our lives are constantly in the hands of others. Sometimes that dependence is complete and direct (we must trust an airline captain to not crash and kill us), and sometimes it is incomplete and less direct (we have a large degree of control when we’re driving, but we still must trust the driver of an oncoming car to stay in his lane…or use a turn signal….or, I dunno, USE THE LEFT TURN LANE WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN!! :cuss
. Let’s face it: considering that our lives and safety are constantly dependent on someone else’s behavior—that we are at their mercy--is a rather uncomfortable thought. After all, these are complete strangers we’re talking about. And a lot of these complete strangers are morons. Especially in Mississippi.
For most of us on this board, the realization that we are dependent on someone else to not kill us can have a constructive effect: we will take steps to change things as much as we can so we are not at someone else's mercy (or at least, not completely). After all, every one of us has already decided to take control of our own defense rather than be dependent of the goodwill of our fellow man and the diligence (or deterrence) of law enforcement. It’s reasonable to assume that that attitude would be reflected in other areas of our lives. I know I've altered my driving habits since I moved here, to accomodate the particular flavors of incompetence commonly demonstrated by drivers down here.
For others, usually sheeple who have led a sheltered existence, the forced realization that they are constantly depending on others to not kill them is a shock, an uncomfortable feeling, and they do not like feeling uncomfortable. “Nobody has the right to make me uncomfortable!”:shock: So they lash out or become hysterical until the threat (or perception of it) is removed. Once they no longer perceive a threat, they aren’t forced to think about it any more.
This is why people are more comfortable with concealed carry than open carry: as long as they don’t see a gun, they aren’t forced to acknowledge that they are literally at the mercy of the armed person. Of course, the reality hasn’t changed—the guns are still there—but the perception is what really impacts them. They don’t like being reminded that their continued existence depends on the behavior of someone else. As long as they can avoid considering the issue, they can be comfortably oblivious. But seeing someone OCing forces the issue upon them.
This may also be the reason why anti’s can’t acknowledge the argument that guns kill a relatively small number of people every year compared to the tens of thousands killed in motor vehicle accidents. After all, vehicles are a mode of transportation—they provide a useful service for which the death of thousands is just an unfortunate side effect—so they can easily suppress the fact that they are at the mercy of other drivers every day (“Accidents only happened to other people.”) On the other hand, “guns have no purpose other than killing,” so guns emphasize to them that, since they are unequipped to defend themselves, their continued ability to draw breath depends very directly on the people who carry one.
Maybe in time we can make sheeple almost as accepting of the "hazard" posed by guns as they are about the hazards of driving. But I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.
Sorry for the long post, but I had an epiphany the other day.
There are a lot of theories about why some people are afraid of guns in general: ignorance, transference, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. I have a new theory about why some people react so badly when they see someone open carrying. (Well, maybe it's not really new, but it's new to me.)
I came to this realization while driving down a Mississippi highway, still shaking from the adrenaline rush of a near-miss when some idiot pulled out in front of me and then decided to make an abrupt left turn from the right lane. (It goes without saying that he didn’t check his side mirror or use his turn signal, either.) I said to myself, “That #@*% almost killed me!” Hmmmm. Although I often carry a gun for self defense, the gun couldn’t have saved my life in this case. I was dependent on other drivers not to be incompetent halfwits.
Although we don’t think about it often, to some degree or other, our lives are constantly in the hands of others. Sometimes that dependence is complete and direct (we must trust an airline captain to not crash and kill us), and sometimes it is incomplete and less direct (we have a large degree of control when we’re driving, but we still must trust the driver of an oncoming car to stay in his lane…or use a turn signal….or, I dunno, USE THE LEFT TURN LANE WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN!! :cuss
. Let’s face it: considering that our lives and safety are constantly dependent on someone else’s behavior—that we are at their mercy--is a rather uncomfortable thought. After all, these are complete strangers we’re talking about. And a lot of these complete strangers are morons. Especially in Mississippi. For most of us on this board, the realization that we are dependent on someone else to not kill us can have a constructive effect: we will take steps to change things as much as we can so we are not at someone else's mercy (or at least, not completely). After all, every one of us has already decided to take control of our own defense rather than be dependent of the goodwill of our fellow man and the diligence (or deterrence) of law enforcement. It’s reasonable to assume that that attitude would be reflected in other areas of our lives. I know I've altered my driving habits since I moved here, to accomodate the particular flavors of incompetence commonly demonstrated by drivers down here.
For others, usually sheeple who have led a sheltered existence, the forced realization that they are constantly depending on others to not kill them is a shock, an uncomfortable feeling, and they do not like feeling uncomfortable. “Nobody has the right to make me uncomfortable!”:shock: So they lash out or become hysterical until the threat (or perception of it) is removed. Once they no longer perceive a threat, they aren’t forced to think about it any more.
This is why people are more comfortable with concealed carry than open carry: as long as they don’t see a gun, they aren’t forced to acknowledge that they are literally at the mercy of the armed person. Of course, the reality hasn’t changed—the guns are still there—but the perception is what really impacts them. They don’t like being reminded that their continued existence depends on the behavior of someone else. As long as they can avoid considering the issue, they can be comfortably oblivious. But seeing someone OCing forces the issue upon them.
This may also be the reason why anti’s can’t acknowledge the argument that guns kill a relatively small number of people every year compared to the tens of thousands killed in motor vehicle accidents. After all, vehicles are a mode of transportation—they provide a useful service for which the death of thousands is just an unfortunate side effect—so they can easily suppress the fact that they are at the mercy of other drivers every day (“Accidents only happened to other people.”) On the other hand, “guns have no purpose other than killing,” so guns emphasize to them that, since they are unequipped to defend themselves, their continued ability to draw breath depends very directly on the people who carry one.
Maybe in time we can make sheeple almost as accepting of the "hazard" posed by guns as they are about the hazards of driving. But I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.
