Carry Wisely

imported post

I have always wanted toUOC in public inCA, knew/know it is legal, but choose not to do so because people are naive of the law andfromreading about apparent illegal arrests,so are some law enforcement officers. I am a gun owner, hunter, gun owner advocate andNRA member. Though as CA gun owners we need to question the messages that actively participating inUOC in allpublic situations which are legal to UOC are actuallysending to the majority of veryliberal people. Criminals are a minority, just as we gun owners are also. Would I walk around Target wearing a speedo and holding a baseball bat or a bow and arrows on my shoulder. No.It would call attention to myself. Though I dohave the right to do so.Would I personally feel safer participating inUOC, and or knowinghonest law abiding citizens are also participating inUOCin public. Yes, but then again, I am the minority. Yet, giving it some thought. If I weren'tparticipating in UOC. I would also question the intent ofpersons participating in UOC and how do I know that these individuals participating in UOC are not criminals or futurecriminals participating in UOC planninga crime. Then I would surelyparticipate in UOC to level the playing fields odds, as if others are packing firearms then so will I, but then again, I am the gun owning minority and unfortunately they (liberal majority) do not think the same way as we do.

Sometimes we need tostep back and view it fromanothers perspective.Particularly a non gun owning liberals perspective. I would guess that my wife wouldfreak outif she saw someoneparticipating inUOC at a local store. She is not a gun hating liberal, she is indeed the opposite, and shehas been around guns her entire life since her father and I are avid hunters. I know I would get an immediatecall from her saying you won't believe what I just saw and Iwould have to explain to her that it is our right to participate inUOC.

I am as fed up with the State of California's screwed up gun/ammunition legislation and policies as anyone. Possibly more than most people because more anti gun laws affect my choice to hunt, which is my passion. Rest assured that the messed up anti-gunners (IE: Brady Bunch) may most likely usesome rare publicized UOC occurancesthat may be also beportrayed as a blatantUOC'spublic action to make more messed up gun laws even sooner. Rest assured that the liberal majority of CALawmakers can and will make more restrictive firearm/ammunition laws whether it applies to UOC or not, as they have and will continue to do...IE: Carrying a handgun in a locked case/separate compartment... was not a CA law, before they made it a law...does that law infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights...No, not really. We can still legally own agun, but now we have to also purchase a locking case to legally transporta handgun and also jump through the hoops on where to put it in the vehicle, etc....I do hope this grassroots gun movement will indeed bring about positive change for the betterment of CA gun ownership. All in all,"Carry On", butfor the sake of us all, please Carry Wisely....

imported post

dukbukhunt wrote:

...Would I walk around Target wearing a speedo and holding a baseball bat or a bow and arrows on my shoulder. No.It would call attention to myself. Though I dohave the right to do so...

Click to expand...

False analogy. Wearing a speedo while carrying a bow and arrow is an historically unheard of act, and serves no general purpose. Carrying arms (swords, knives, and eventually firearms) is historically common (even in the last century), and is in no way bizarrely poinless like going about in a speedo. As for the bow & arrow... there's been a lot of technological advances that bring us far better tools for personal defense; that tool hasn't been carried for self defense in many centuries (if ever - as it's only a good defensive tool when in your castle/fortress/home/other fortified position).

And I disagree with your assumption that gun owners are in the minority. Please provide a citation if you want to convince me that the majority of Californians do NOT own a firearm.

imported post

CA_Libertarian, I Didn't mean to rattle your cage. I am not an anti-gunner and I am not the enemy here. Pretty sure I tried to make that clear...I amproposing that is for those whochoose toproceedwith UOC, that they do soprudently and with discretion (not that they aren't). Sonot to have an opposite affect of what they intend to promote. Yet upon contemplation I am alsotrying to also see it from the majoritynon gun owning liberals possibleperspective and possibly enlighten others high strung to carry their gun(s) UOC without taking due precautions tounderstand what they will be portraying to the general public, getting in over their heads and bringing downgun rights rather than promoting such, as well as to know their CA Firearms Laws in some of my other posts.

Ok, how about Icarry asword in a store wearing a Scottish kilt, as that is part of my heritage and is historically correct. Speedo's wasn't my point. Historically or whatever. Come on. My point was, just because I can do it, have the right to do it, should I just do it without discretion.On another note. A weapon is a weapon. baseball bat, golf club, kitchen knife, etc.could all be used as a lethal weapons and could be used as such. They don't have to be Rambo to use such as a weapon. For instance I could use a bow & arrowasa lethal weapon and the assailant wouldn't even know what hit them until it did.Granted the average citizen may not have that capablility with a bow, but I do. Sling shot too....My preferred weapon is a shotgun.How about Ilegally carrymy Camo12 Guage Benelli Super Black Eagle2slung over my shoulder with a belt full of shotgun shells containing buckshot. Now that'sstate of the art firearm technology and that oughta make a statement to the general public.As far as bows not being used as weapons forcenturies...that's another absurd argument not meant for usbrethren CAgun owners.

You want me to Cite something about CA gun ownership percentages. Check out the graph in the link below. According to this graph only 21.3 percent of the CA population owns a gun. Even if this data is in error by 20 to 25 percent, thenwe gun owners are stillthe minority at 46.3 percent if such datais off by 25 percent. I wish it were not so, but let'sbe realistic and rational. I personally know of few people outside of my hunting buddies that own firearms that are not willing to part with their firearms...much less put up a fight to keep them...If we were truly in the majority, then why isn't there more pressure on our government officialsnot to enact new firearms and their componentslegislation/laws? If we gun owners are truly the majority. Then how did these people get elected in the first place... How do renown anti gunner Federal Senator's Feinstein & Boxer stay in office year after year since the early 90's..... Hello! Are we gun owners all asleep? I think not....

http://old.swivel.com/graphs/show/26466731?limit_modifier=all&graph%5Blimit%5D=51&commit=%3E

Please act wisely, prudently andcarefully with UOC.

imported post

My cage isn't rattled at all - (though I'm curious how you found out I'm kept in a cage to begin with...) :lol:

I didn't mean to come off as confrontational, just a friendly challenge in hopes you would see the error of your thinking.

Again, your comparison of wearing a kilt and sword is a bit of a false analogy. In our nation's RECENT history it wasn't common practice. A better comparison would be a pocket knife, or even a fixed blade belt knife. Both of these are becoming less common today, but are still generally accepted in most of US culture.

As for the citation - I'm skeptical of the source. The source is a NC state agency for health care, which the first thing I wondered is, "why would a health care agency be doing this research for?" It could be anything from alegitamite statutory obligation to some bureaucrat's pork-barrel, agenda-driven attempt to link gun ownership with "gun violence." The source even disclaims, "Percentages are weighted to population characteristics." I'm not sure exactly what this means, but "weighted" means they tweaked the numbers. Sounds to me like the author may have simply decided, "well 55% is WAY too high because I know 20 people that live in LA or SF and none of them are gun owners, so..."

The agency's website is curiously lacking in further information about the study, which enhances my skepticism. Also, most conservatives reasonably fear the government may some day try to outright ban firearms, so they may be wary about answering questions about firearm ownership. If I were called, I would tell them, "it's none of your damn business if I own a gun or not." Did this study count this type of response as a "no" response?

In the world of "scientific" research, a simple survey is not enough. Methods must be readily availabe so they can be reviewed, and so the survey can be duplicated. If the research is duplicated and the results are the same/similar each time, then it's scientific worth increases.

All this doesn't mean the data is incorrect, it simply means we have significant cause to approach it with skepticism. As we see VERY often, statistical data is often manipulated to serve the purposes of the author. This is true in politics especially.

Finally, your anecdotal evidence that you know few gun owners is irrelevant. I know only 1 or 2 people who don't own firearms! And among all of them I only know 2 or 3 that hunt. I'd even say that roughly 40% of them are not even Republicans. Don't fall for the false assumption that only Republicans own guns! I know many Dems that vote "D" down the line, but they own unregistered firearms that they'll "lose on a fishing trip" before handing them over to the same people they elect.

I understand that you're just trying to get people to think about what they're doing, and I agree with your motive. I'm simply challenging you and anybody else reading this thread to consider this subject in a reasonable and logical fashion.

imported post

duk, it's not really clear what your point is. Maybe that UOC is bad because it is unusual and will scare people? To that I would like to point out that one of our goals is to renormalize the appearance of firearms with the general public. People tend to fear that which they are not familiar with. The more they see something, and nothing bad happens associated with that something, the more comfortable they become with it.

As to the effectiveness of OC as a crime deterrent, I recommend the following article:

The Open Carry Argument