bikemutt
Regular Member
I disagree. He merely states his opinion. Furthermore, it's largely unqualified and contrary to well-known and established fact.
As I went on to say, there's always the other side, which you eloquently presented.
I disagree. He merely states his opinion. Furthermore, it's largely unqualified and contrary to well-known and established fact.
As I went on to say, there's always the other side, which you eloquently presented.
When the fan blades turn brown...
. Shall we not "offend" foreign tourists ? We are supposed to subordinate our law to their standards ? No thank you.
Open carry will make it more difficult for law enforcement to determine who may be legally carrying and who may be carrying illegally.
This I have to disagree with. Most common criminals will not open carry a weapon. They are going to keep their weapon concealed because they don't want to attract any attention from the police. They know they are going to break the law and don't want to put themselves on display.
+1This I have to disagree with. Most common criminals will not open carry a weapon. They are going to keep their weapon concealed because they don't want to attract any attention from the police. They know they are going to break the law and don't want to put themselves on display.
If I might tweak what you are saying: Bad guys operate in one of two modes: (1)concealed carry (usually unlawful) and (2) brandish. I am not saying it has never happened, but I know of no case where the bad guy came upon the scene of his crime with a properly holstered, openly carried weapon. If it has ever happened, it is so rare that officers should assume that a properly holstered, openly carried firearm is a sign of a good guy.
"Or maybe he's trying for the other argument - that OCers have an unfair advantage because the BGs will not pick them as victims, thus increasing te chances that everybody else will be picked as a victim?"
Strange as it may seem, this idea is sometimes advanced by those on the other side of the political fence. Some years ago, I had an on-going email debate with an editor of Slate Magazine (a very left-leaning organ) about my using the "Club" on my car... of all things. I had mentioned that most BG's who see this just move on to someone's else's car that looks promising. He felt that this was somehow not fair and that I should feel a little shame for maybe steering a thief to another victim. After I got over my fit of laughing, I wrote that perhaps other victims might reduce their chances at victimhood if they also took measures to better protect their property.
So I suppose I should now partially hide my sidearm (remember, my knees) in an effort to level the playing field. Interesting.
ROTFLMAO!!! That's the dumbest analogy I've EVER heard! I'm an un-fair, shameful, gun-toting individual that just might have to protect a libtard one day. Or maybe NOT! LOL
I generally CC in businesses but often it imprints and gets noticed. I tend to OC when riding the motorcycle (and awaiting the day an officer pulls me over to inquire). I recently had two ladies notice I was CC'ing with my little ones. As we walked by, one of them just said, "That's a gun right there". They smiled and nodded as I smiled and spoke to them.
I'm going to assume you meant his analogy, not my example. 'Cause I KNOW you didn't direct your first sentence comment at me.
You live in a county named after a British ruler?
As supported by these facts:
Fact:
Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
Fact:
59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.