Your Reasons

imported post

Did someone leave the troll gate open again...dammit :cuss:.

Getalong little trollies, getalong...Hiya!!!

imported post

projection anyone?

imported post

shootemup wrote:Sir, with all due respect, your fears are irrational, and you are making baseless assertions about the intent of open carriers. Please see the following url:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

imported post

Dude why even respond?

imported post

sonofsy wrote:

Don't give me John Lott; he's been discredited.

Click to expand...

Please cite your reference of discredit.

imported post

t33j wrote:

Dude why even respond?

Click to expand...

Only so that others may learn. It's not about him.

imported post

To the OP:

I OC because I can't CC. I'm a yungin on these boards (<21) and in my state one can not CC until 21.

Further, asking for a permission slip to exercise a right (CC) is offensive to some. They choose to OC instead.

imported post

Of course CC doesn't deter crime. If a bad guy sees a citizen who is CC, he will assume that citizen is a "soft target" just like all the other unarmed citizens walking down the street...

OC, on the other hand, has been proven as a deterrent. Criminals and thugs are lazy and cowardly. They generally don't choose victims that they know to be armed. This has come out in DOJ-sponsored research time and time again--incarcerated felons have stated--in EVERY study done on the topic--that they fear an armed citizen FAR more than they fear the police.

As for John Lott being discredited, please cite your references. I have NEVER seen a reliable academic paper stating that Lott's work is invalid. Every article I've seen attempting to discredit Lott that I know of is either issued by a major gun-control lobbying group, or was published by a biased academic who's "research" was partially or entirely funded by such a group.

And if OC is not a deterrent, then why do police and military personnel OC? Why don't cops and soldiers carry their weapons concealed? Your argument makes no sense...

As for the assertion that a BG will take your gun away from you when you OC, there is simply NO evidence for this. As far as we can determine (and there are about a dozen of us who have been reasearching this seriously for the better part of the last year) there has not been a SINGLE incident of a successful "gun grab" by a BG from a "regular citizen" who was OCingin the last 10 years in the USA. None. Nada. The only OCers who get their guns stoled form them are police, who occasionally lose their guns to BGs during struggles ad when wrestling with a resistant felon during an apprehension. The "OC Gun Grab" is a myth, and has absolutely NO basis in historical evidence.

The only people who routinely attempt to unlawfully take guns from OCers are wearing badges...

imported post

I don't know folks, I think we're all wasting bandwidth on these yahoo's.

imported post

There was a story a week or two ago that the liberals, democrats, were launching a campaign to take to the airwaves, internet, etc...

They were to start calling conservative shows and chatting on conservative blogs. I think they think we don't totally see through their sillyness.

imported post

sonofsy wrote:

I carry concealed, Considering the rest of your post, I'm not conviced. and am intrigued by the passion for open carry. I get the argument about open carry normalizing gun ownership, and the political argument about strengthening the 2A constituency. But from a public policy standpoint, why do we want people walking around with guns? <-- Why do you conceal carry a gun, that is if you actually do? There really aren't any stats on whether gun ownership deters crime. What? :shock:There's plenty of statistics that show that gun ownership deters crime. There's also plenty fo stats to show that handgun carry by LAC, in public,reduces crime as well.(Don't give me John Lott; he's been discredited. The consensus among non-advocate academics, from Kleck on one side to Hemenway on the other, is that concealed carry doesn't appreciably affect crime one way or the other.) Well, obviously, your "non-advocate academics" must all be anti-gun people that have never done a bit of research on the subject. In every state that has adopted "Shall Issue" policies in issuing permits for CC, the violant crime rates have dropped significantly. In DC, a year after the US Supreme Court Heller vs DC rulling that obolished the requirement that guns had to be stored in the home in an inoperable state (dissasembled) and threw outDC's total prohibition of handgun ownership,DC's hoimicide rate droppedsubstantially compared to the same timeperiod (first 9 months of 2009) in the previous year. How about you not giving us anymore Brady Campaign lamerhetorical BS lies? We've heard them all before and know them by heart.Any advantage to open carry, i.e. discouraging crime, is no doubt offset by the disadvantage, What dissadvantages?i.e. guns readily to hand in a road-rage, domestic abuse, or other ugly situation. <-- These are typical projectionist notions that anti-gunners like to throw out as arguments. So let's call that a wash. Aside from the political utility of open carry, what's the public good in open carry?
It's an honest question, and I'd appreciate a civilized answer, The question has already been answered earlier in this thread as well as other numerous threads on this forum. without a lot of the infantile name-calling that typically comes from the anti-gun crowd. <-- I corrected the last part of this sentence. Thanks. You're welcome

Click to expand...

My responses in red.

imported post

Beep...beep...beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee_________________________p.

He's gone, don't bother.

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Of course CC doesn't deter crime. If a bad guy sees a citizen who is CC, he will assume that citizen is a "soft target" just like all the other unarmed citizens walking down the street...

Click to expand...

If I may, I'd like to clear up a slight error in this statement.

CC, as a collective, is indeed a deterrent to crime, particularly in the states that have "Shall issue" policies. It raises the risk to the criminals as they have to guess who is armed and who isn't. It's a gamble that many criminals don't like to take when they know that anyone could be armed

OC, on the other hand, has a direct deterrent effect for the individual carrier. The criminals don't have to guess as to whither an OCer is armed or not. Most criminals will pass on targeting the OCer or anyone in the immediate vicinity of an OCer. Criminals don't like to get shot. :shock:Imagine that.

I might add that there is also another deterrent to crime. Crime rates may also be affected by states adopting "Castle Doctrines" (no obligation to retreat) and annotated statutes that create a defense for use of lethal force to stop a threat of eminent serious bodily injury or death to self or another.

imported post

Just so the forum knows, my "troll" self was directed here from this thread. If you've seen a lot of new trolls lately, I don't doubt that at least part of the cause is the efforts of this one individual.

imported post

I really don't understand how someone can say it's not a right to carry openly (with the implication that it is to carry concealed). My state has the exact opposite position.

Neither the 2nd amendment nor section 13 of the Virginia constitution say "the right to keep and bear arms openly shall not be infringed". They just say it "...shall not be infringed". It's infringed anyway.

imported post

TheSkeptic wrote:

Just so the forum knows, my "troll" self was directed here from this thread. If you've seen a lot of new trolls lately, I don't doubt that at least part of the cause is the efforts of this one individual.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the original posters use of the word "kill" has ruffled some feathers on that forum. It may nterest you to know that we try to avoid using that term in talking about "stopping" a threat.

It might be important to tell you that the use of a firearm to "stop" a threat doesn't always require the discharge of our weapons. It has been estimated that a firearm is used about2.5 milliontimes a year to stop or prevent a crime from ocurring. Of those events, the percentage that require the actual firing of a weaponis about 0.9%.

If we can prevent a crime from being completed without firing our weapons, we'd preffer to do so. But if the criminal forces us to shoot, well, it's on him/her. Most criminals aren't as stupid as we might like to think they are, they know the risks they take.

Which brings me to another important aspect. 60% of convicted felons have admitted ( in studies)to avoiding committing crimes against or in the presence of someone they knew was armed, while 40% admitted they avoided committing criminal activity against or in the presence of some one they thought MIGHT be armed. This tells us that they at least are able to make "Risk vs Reward" assessments. So, logic tells us that if a criminal is looking for an easy target, he/she is most likely going to shy away from the person that's openly carrying a sidearm andwait fora target that doesn't appear to be armed. Mind you, I said "most likely", because there's still that other 40% that didn't admit to avoiding persons they knew were armed. OF those, some may have lied on the survey to boast their "bravado", while others were just plain stupid or psychotic.

Now, Skeptic, if you carry and would rather not have to draw your weapon to defend yourself or another, which mode of carry sounds like it would most likely favor your intent? Open Carry (OC)? or Concealed Carry (CC)?


edited to correct a number

imported post

The amount of paint chips these ant-gun idiots consume is astounding. Those who side with the anti's really have no grasp of reality or real facts of the gun rights movement. When shown facts they throw a hissey fit like a child that is told no by their parent when shopping. The scary part is people like this breed more stupidity and ignorance.

imported post

zack991 wrote:

The amount of paint chips these ant-gun idiots consume is astounding. Those who side with the anti's really have no grasp of reality or real facts of the gun rights movement. When shown facts they throw a hissey fit like a child that is told no by their parent when shopping. The scary part is people like this breed more stupidity and ignorance.

Click to expand...

And alot of them get elected to office to take away our rights.

imported post

Archsgurl wrote:

zack991 wrote:

The amount of paint chips these ant-gun idiots consume is astounding. Those who side with the anti's really have no grasp of reality or real facts of the gun rights movement. When shown facts they throw a hissey fit like a child that is told no by their parent when shopping. The scary part is people like this breed more stupidity and ignorance.

Click to expand...

And alot of them get elected to office to take away our rights.

Click to expand...

Then you have elected officials like NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who slither into office pretending to be one thing, then shedding her skin to morph into something totally different.

imported post

Luckily in my state it isnt so bad, but on the Fed. level for us all, it sucks.