Some Psychological Reasons People may oppose OC

This is easy>

Number 1. Ignorance

Number 2. Stupidity.

It is a right and I will never make excuses for my carry. Also I will never accept some Psycho-Babble for some jerk trying to take my rights from me. Frankly this is a dangerous game giving the anti's some pretend-a-reason to suppress our rights. There is NO reason to fear, pretend to fear, or have any issue with me rights PERIOD!

I wonder if we started to go after the LIB-Tards favorite rights what would happen... It would be a screaming tantrum! Most likely with violence from them and all kinds of public displays of insanity, riots, looting and the normal leftist response to their rights being touched or even discussed.

I strongly disagree with a thread validating their stupidity and giving them excuses to trample on my rights.

TheQ said:

I work in the IT Industry. I have been a student of IT Security for many years. I have followed many of the writings of Bruce Schneier. Mr. Schneier often points out the things people do to improve security only make them feel more secure, without actually making them more secure. His website and blog can provide many examples of this.

Following that line of thought, let's examine OC. What follows is only thoughts of mine I am putting forth as possible explanations and theories. Please (even if stated as such for the sake of explanation) do not take these items as fact and start flaming me

1. If people see fewer firearms, then less guns must exist, or at least fewer firearms are being carried. If fewer firearms are carried, there is less potential they will be used or used violently. None of this is true, of course, because many guns that are legally and illegally used are carried concealed. BUT the old adage of "out of sight, out of mind" applies here and causes people to feel more secure.
2. People would like to think society is filled with good people; it makes them feel safer. Seeing guns openly being carried contradicts this. If people are carrying a gun they mean to do one of two things: 1) Protect themselves 2) Attack someone else. Both of these items runs counter to what they'd like to think/feel about society and being safe. Ergo, they reject OC.

Thoughts? Comments? Other ramblings (like mine)?

Click to expand...

Bailenforcer said:

This is easy>
I strongly disagree with a thread validating their stupidity and giving them excuses to trample on my rights.

Click to expand...

With every post of yours I understand more why Fozzy put you on ignore.

There is a huge difference between validating and understanding. By understanding, we can aim to overcome the fears and help people put them aside. By validating, we accept their fears.

Only an ignorant person worthy of being ignored wouldn't understand the difference.

TheQ said:

With every post of yours I understand more why Fozzy put you on ignore.

There is a huge difference between validating and understanding. By understanding, we can aim to overcome the fears and help people put them aside. By validating, we accept their fears.

Only an ignorant person worthy of being ignored wouldn't understand the difference.

Click to expand...

People can choose to not carry a pistol... and I am sure some just feel that there is no need. Just as I will not mandate they carry, I feel that they have no right to mandate that I don't. Makes the whole issue much easier.

DrTodd said:

People can choose to not carry a pistol... and I am sure some just feel that there is no need. Just as I will not mandate they carry, I feel that they have no right to mandate that I don't. Makes the whole issue much easier.

Click to expand...

You know, this is a very good point. Its not like pro-gunners are demanding everyone carry a gun.


-----------


Hmmmmmm. Maybe we should start demanding that, socially rather than legally. Some rhetorical practice:

"I'm tired of people getting away easy while I take on the additional burden of owning a firearm and carrying it in public, the expense of training with it--range fees, ammunition, etc. Non-carriers are shirking their duty to help protect society, just hiding behind the mantle of protection I afford through the uncertainty I create for criminals about who is and isn't armed."

"Where's your gun, sir? How dare you not carry and make the environment that much safer for criminals, exposing both of us to a greater possibility of assault. Real good, there sport, encourage the criminals. Why don't you just hang up a sign, 'I'm not doing anything to protect myself, friends, family, or society."

In this case we are not defending; we are demanding--suddenly the initiative shifts.

Citizen said:

You know, this is a very good point. Its not like pro-gunners are demanding everyone carry a gun.


-----------


Hmmmmmm. Maybe we should start demanding that, socially rather than legally. Some rhetorical practice:

"I'm tired of people getting away easy while I take on the additional burden of owning a firearm and carrying it in public, the expense of training with it--range fees, ammunition, etc. Non-carriers are shirking their duty to help protect society, just hiding behind the mantle of protection I afford through the uncertainty I create for criminals about who is and isn't armed."

"Where's your gun, sir? How dare you not carry and make the environment that much safer for criminals, exposing both of us to a greater possibility of assault. Real good, there sport, encourage the criminals. Why don't you just hang up a sign, 'I'm not doing anything to protect myself, friends, family, or society."

In this case we are not defending; we are demanding--suddenly the initiative shifts.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they would see our point? Oh well, probably not. I do like the "defensive" position that they would have to assume, though. Perhaps we could push for some economic largess be constructed to assist us in purchasing our "tools of the trade". Sort of a "Piece Corps"/Gun Welfare program making the payment to us mandatory...oops, "voluntary"-- sort of like the income tax. Putting the whole constitutional issue aside, as "they" don't seem to worry about that old document much anyway, I rather like the idea! Just to cover our costs, though. (I promise) :lol::lol::lol:

DrTodd said:

SNIP I do like the "defensive" position that they would have to assume, though.

Click to expand...

You know, we probably could use this profitably against the anti-gunners. Some people get angry with others who do not live up to their responsibility. The socialists have the guilt-trip attack down to a science.

We've already connected anti-gunners with crime. They support rapists, robbers, and murderers with their policies. Why not take it just one step further, and attack them for shirking their responsibility to contribute to safe society?

Chat forums, the comments sections of news stories, anywhere we see them or their ideas.

We would just need to work out the angles and phrasings. Then "open fire". Full broadsides.

Just let even one of them squeak that cops are for societal protection. Blast it down with the immorality of demanding someone else risk his life to protect them, "But, we already know you do that from your stance against taking personal responsibility in this very thread. You got any other immoral or unethical tendencies we should know about? Are you such a whiny-brat weasel that you not only can't take responsibility for yourself, you demand others do it for you. Want society to wipe your a$$ for you, too?"

I betcha more than a few readers would get the idea.

+1 If they don't have the stones to take on the responsibility, then they have no right to complain about those of us that do!

Citizen said:

I could almost swear I have read a print version where Snyder wrote that it is immoral to expect another to endanger his life to protect yours. As in, it is immoral to demand that police risk their lives to protect you.

Click to expand...

I've used that same reasoning many many times when posting responses to news articles, 'discussing' with the sheeple why their position doesn't make sense.

"How arrogant & self-centered you are, expecting an officer to risk his/her life for you when you refuse to do anything to protect yourself!"

MKEgal said:

I've used that same reasoning many many times when posting responses to news articles, 'discussing' with the sheeple why their position doesn't make sense.

"How arrogant & self-centered you are, expecting an officer to risk his/her life for you when you refuse to do anything to protect yourself!"

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that if one worked at it, a person could come up with all sorts of angles on this.

For example, if you were talking with some enviro-bat, you could say that demanding the police protect everybody is very anti-green. Look at all the fuel wasted on patrol cars driving around. Think of the huge carbon footprint of 900,000 law enforcement officers in the US. "Christ, your little irresponsibility streak is helping poison the air and warm the planet."

Wouldn't that be a fun spat to watch? "Greens against Blues."

I will do you the favor and place you on ignore just like I did the one you talked about, I am tired of whiners pretending to be men. A right is a right and people need to start dealing with reality and stop making inane excuses for what is entirely bad behavior. I used to travel in the liberal arena and I used to sit at those tables and listen to them design reasons and excuses to create hysteria and fear in the public and the body politic. You call me ignorant yet you have not a clue what the liberals do and how they manage public opinion. Fear is an excuse. What next we level anything over one story because we need to make people who have a fear of heights feel better? This fear silliness is just an excuse to take your and my rights away. That's perfectly fine of you want to surrender your rights to public opinion, but don't surrender mine in the process. I am tired of jumping through the fake hoops of the left wing Marxists.

Frankly our society is falling apart we have people who are afraid to leave the house and get paid social security disability? Am I the only one who see's our entire nation is becoming a bunch of whiners? I am tired of being sensitive to everyone who wishes to make me a virtual slave because somehow my existence and rights offend them. We need to grow up fast or we will loose this nation. It's no wonder we have become the target of every little tin horn dick-tator. We have telegraphed to the world that we are a society with no spine, unwilling to do what is right and unwilling to preserve what millions died for, so that we would have these rights. Now all I hear is we need to be Uber sensitive while people tell us we offend them because we choose to exercise those rights so many died for. if they live in fear they need to see a Psychiatrist and get over their irrational fears. maybe I should stay home today because Sky Lab might fall on me....

TheQ said:

With every post of yours I understand more why Fozzy put you on ignore.

There is a huge difference between validating and understanding. By understanding, we can aim to overcome the fears and help people put them aside. By validating, we accept their fears.

Only an ignorant person worthy of being ignored wouldn't understand the difference.

Click to expand...

I should be able to deduct my gun purchases, ammo and supplies off my income tax. Since I am ready to defend my country and spend so much money maybe it should be tax deductible. lol

DrTodd said:

Perhaps they would see our point? Oh well, probably not. I do like the "defensive" position that they would have to assume, though. Perhaps we could push for some economic largess be constructed to assist us in purchasing our "tools of the trade". Sort of a "Piece Corps"/Gun Welfare program making the payment to us mandatory...oops, "voluntary"-- sort of like the income tax. Putting the whole constitutional issue aside, as "they" don't seem to worry about that old document much anyway, I rather like the idea! Just to cover our costs, though. (I promise) :lol::lol::lol:

Click to expand...

Bailenforcer said:

I should be able to deduct my gun purchases, ammo and supplies off my income tax. Since I am ready to defend my country and spend so much money maybe it should be tax deductible. lol

Click to expand...

Yes, you should. Here is the justification from MI Law:

MI Law That Establishes The Unorganized Militia:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-509

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

Click to expand...

MI Law That Allows The Governor To Call Into Service The Unorganized Militia:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-555

The governor may order into the defense force any members of the unorganized militia in case of riot, tumult, breach of the peace, resistance of process, or for service in aid of civil authority, whether state or federal, or in time of public danger, disaster, crisis, catastrophe or other public emergency within this state.

Click to expand...

Since we are able to be called at any time, then we must be ready at any time. This means that we would have to have our own arms and train with them to ensure that the "deployment" of unorganized militia is successful. This would beg the question that there should be some sort of "tax break" for US helping out the GOVERNMENT.

Take a slurp on that, latte liberals!

Very Good find. Yes that was the premise I was operating under. It was very late and I was to tired to look it up so thank you for listing this cite. If I am required my law to defend my country then I should be allowed by law to deduct my expenses and training costs.

I remember in Detroit during the 1967 riots we had on every street corner in our neighborhood groups of armed men from the neighborhood. What is interesting we were extremely close to all the action, at Mack and Connors. The rioters saw these men and fled, yet they would mess with the cops and that didn't go well too often. I find it interesting the rioting scum knew who to not mess with. And for those whop want to play the race card be careful the 1976 Detroit riots had NOTHING to do with race. It was over a Blind Pig that the police kept shutting down, and the neighborhood complained incessantly about the blind pig, yet rioted when it was finally closed. The Media today, portrayed it as a race riot. Many of those street corners with armed citizens also had many decent black men who were also fathers defending their homes and families. What I find interesting is back then the cops didn't blink at the sight of a dozen armed men unlike today where some cops would pee their pants and start screaming MWAG on the radio, not to mention a few citizens having panic attacks. Some of the guns I remembered the men on our street had were M1 Garrand's and M1 carbines. I fell in love with the M-1 carbines lol and when I turned 18 I went out and bought one. Today I replaced it with my H&K 91.

We need in this time of so called terrorism to start thinking this way again. Imagine some Mall shooter being engaged by a half dozen OC and or CC citizens.....

PDinDetroit said:

Yes, you should. Here is the justification from MI Law:

MI Law That Establishes The Unorganized Militia:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-509




MI Law That Allows The Governor To Call Into Service The Unorganized Militia:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-32-555




Since we are able to be called at any time, then we must be ready at any time. This means that we would have to have our own arms and train with them to ensure that the "deployment" of unorganized militia is successful. This would beg the question that there should be some sort of "tax break" for US helping out the GOVERNMENT.

Take a slurp on that, latte liberals!

Click to expand...