"The Wild West"

imported post

People on the anti sidekeep stating,“this isn’t the Wild West” or “we don’t need another Wild West”, as if the mentality is “guns a ‘blazin” and “shoot first, ask questions second.”

I always get a kick out of this and take it as another opportunity for a little education.

The whole “Wild West” people are referring to has no resemblance with reality or history. Contrary to Hollywood depiction, people in the Wild West were actually extremely calm and polite. And people on this site can completely empathize with this position: If you saw another man armed with a sidearm, does that make you feel the need to pull yours out and blast him with yours? Does it make you angry that he is armed….too?

It comes back to the old statement, “an armed society is a polite society.” The same applied to the Ol’ West. People were polite to each to each other – who wants to start trouble in a room with a bunch of armed people? And if that person does, most likely, Darwin is coming to town to pay that person a visit.

So, the next time someone says something to you around “the Wild West” – you can use this as an opportunity to share with them, “just like in the Ol’ West, you are safer because of law abiding citizens willing to protect themselves and others from harm.”

imported post

While I completely agree, we need to be able to back up our assertions with a little factual history... without it... we're just spouting opinion and they'll believe the Hollywood depiction over ours.

Does anyone have stats on crime per capita? How about murder rate (per capita of course)?

The problem with just stating that the supposed "Wild West" was safer and more polite is that no one will believe us. What good does telling the truth do when everyone believes the lie?

imported post

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minn...009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West

imported post

bcp wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West

Click to expand...

Those comments have a point - it's interesting data, but waaaay too skimpy and vague to draw any usable conclusions from it.

imported post

How about logic? I brought this up not from a "factual" perspective, but from a logical one. I bet there are facts out there if someone is willing to do the research (obviously I am not).

It is like anything. If you are driving a yugo down the street, logic would dictate that you probably are not going to challenge a 18 wheel semi in seeing who get's what lane.

If you are playing football and you are a 200 lbs running back, logic would dictate that you probably are not going to take a 370 lbs linemen on full force, but instead you will run around him.

If you are in a bar and you bump into a6'6" inch hulk of muscle, logic would dictate that you would probably say, "sorry dude" before telling him to "F*ck off."

If you are walking down the street and see someone wearing a side-arm openly, do you mess with them, or do you watch your P's and Q's and be respectful if you come in contact with them?

imported post

Logic only works on people who are capable of using it. The antis have already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't fall into that category. Hence their battle cry "We have a right not feel afraid", as if THAT makes any sense.

imported post

HeesBonafide wrote:

How about logic? I brought this up not from a "factual" perspective, but from a logical one. I bet there are facts out there if someone is willing to do the research (obviously I am not).

It is like anything. If you are driving a yugo down the street, logic would dictate that you probably are not going to challenge a 18 wheel semi in seeing who get's what lane.

If you are playing football and you are a 200 lbs running back, logic would dictate that you probably are not going to take a 370 lbs linemen on full force, but instead you will run around him.

If you are in a bar and you bump into a6'6" inch hulk of muscle, logic would dictate that you would probably say, "sorry dude" before telling him to "F*ck off."

If you are walking down the street and see someone wearing a side-arm openly, do you mess with them, or do you watch your P's and Q's and be respectful if you come in contact with them?

Click to expand...

While I agree that logical inference is a useful tool, you also have to realize that you're talking about what YOU or I would do when coming in contact with someone carrying.

That logic may not hold in a society with different historical precedents, different customs, and different day-to-day lives. By the same logic, you could say that the culture of shakespearean times was safer than ours, because everybody carried a sword, and everyone knows that you're polite and respectful to someone carrying a sword. In reality, however, it bred a duel-centric honor system where the slightest insult, perceived or real, would require a duel to the death.

Nowadays, that sort of thing isn't likely to happen, but you can't take our societal customs and views and assign them to people in an entirely different culture and time.

Logic is good, but logic can also be full of holes. Think about the assumptions you're making, and realize that you can't just assume something is true because it's common sense for us in the here and now. The only way to make arguments like this work is to stick to the cold hard facts.

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

........

Logic is good, but logic can also be full of holes. Think about the assumptions you're making, and realize that you can't just assume something is true because it's common sense for us in the here and now. The only way to make arguments like this work is to stick to the cold hard facts.

Click to expand...

You mean of-course, the cold, hard, universally known facts?

They are just as subjective as the rest of of the statistics for someone who wants to deny reality to maintain their own blissful, insane ignorance.

The only real truth is the test of history, for the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

imported post

Bookman wrote:

Logic only works on people who are capable of using it.

Click to expand...

QED.

In my world that is very hit and miss. It basicallymeans:
5% of employees
36% of unemployed
2% of women
35% of men
60% of patrons

Hell half of my local friends don't even know what to think when they see a non-LEO carrying a sidearm. Their first thoughts are to call the police. The only change of guidance is when they see I don't pay them any mind. I ask them if I were the one open carrying if they would do any different. That shuts them down. I guess the issue people seem to have is trust. They don't realize that anyone can ask you to present a CPL and no one ever does. They just skip the complaining and tell them to cover it up. The only good news to this is that your world is very different(unless of course you're G.U.N.). You have made this activity a socially acceptable thing like paying with a card or shopping with the kids or driving around while your cup holder sits in the passenger seat wearing a poodle skirt. You are the one that molds how your world functions and you have yourself to thank for that. Now if we could just get people to question everything like they used to, things would be slightly more tolerable.

I would try to write this out better but now I have someone bugging me about CentOS. Later. :celebrate