Before going to the forum, you should just read the article.
I think it brings a unique perspective no matter what side of the fence you fall on.
Yeah, you have to register to read the darned thing, but then you had to register to get in here, too.
11 pages of discussion, mostly from the "We prefer to CC because we are smarter than you OC folks" crowd. but there are still some good ideas traded back and forth when you winnow out the mandatory "I'm right and you're wrong" BS.
Why bring it up now, when most of the posts are 6 months old? Because G. Suarez included the base essay in his weekly newsletter which brought it to my attention.
Go see where you finally come down on the question. Even if you change your mind I'm pretty sure most of the folks who tolerate you now will still tolerate you.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
He writes: "This is why I am so vocal on the issue of being the very best that you can be inside of a life threatening encounter. This is why I risk being seen as an “anti-open carry” guy, even though I am not. All I want is for people to get the best information so that they can make the best choices for themselves and their love ones. All I care about is you fulfilling your paramount mission."
That's good to hear, as what I'm doing and why I'm doing it determines whether I OC or CC.
He writes: "On the flip side we need to agree that the presence of the gun may also be the catalyst of the crime that is committed."
Most of this myth oozes from OCing LEOs advancing on a perp who, feeling cornered, lash out. Non-LEO OCers do not advance on perps.
He writes: "But if I am open carrying I am always in the position to be “called.”"
Not true. Even if a perp sees you, it's still not true. There are universal body positions and hand gestures which communicate "I'm not your adversary," even when you might be.
He writes: "open carry individuals may need a higher skill level and tactical understanding than those that carry concealed."
Of this I have little doubt.
He mentions the OODA loop, yet is not allowing for a full range of decisions. According to him, it's either "sneak away" or "draw and fire." There's a whole range of actions between these two extremes that he seems to discount as being viable.
I think it brings a unique perspective no matter what side of the fence you fall on.[/QUOTE]
As I'm not informed on this "second most famous gunfight" please fill me in. In your post you state that they targeted people with guns at the gun range in order to steal their guns (but you didn't say kill the OCers), but as it is a gun range the people could be OCers or CCers as anyone using a gun range is obviously going to have their guns out even if they typically CC. So at least with what you posted I don't see how that has any revelance on the OC vs CC debate. Criminals staked out targets in a place where they knew the people there would have guns, in order to find people to steal guns from. That is all I'm getting from your post, followed by you somehow attaching it to targetting OCers instead of all gun owners in a specific location.
Also I don't see how that really makes for a "well documented" case against OCing unless you mean a single well documented incident as opposed to meaning multiple documented incidents that can be correlated to a pattern in behavior. A single incident doesn't prove a well document pattern in behavior. What Since9 is most likely talking about (as I don't want to put words in his mouth) is that the myth of the gun grab and/or targetting of OCers first comes from police who get targetted and are naturally OCing. Cops aren't targetted because they are OCing (though some people like to attribute it to them OCing), they generally get targetted because they are putting theirselves directly between the criminals and the criminals' freedom. Sure a few cops who let down their SA might get targetted for their gun, or because the guy is flat out crazy, but that is the exception and not the rule. And when one looks at the data from all of those that OC regularly, I'm yet to see even a handful of cases where the OCed weapon was the catalyst for the crime. A citizen will generally work to not self insert theirself into such a hostile situation, but rather react to a situation that they find theirself already a part of.
So far I've seen two cases where the OCed gun itself was potentially the catalyst; and that is such a small number that it can easily be relagated to statistical improbability (one involved a crazy man who was later killed by the cops, and the other was a man who didn't pay attention to his surroundings in a bad part of town). Now I'm willing to admit that the gun "may" be a catalyst, statistically speaking it isn't.
Last edited by Aknazer; 10-17-2011 at 05:30 PM.
The actual shootout had nothing to do with the OCer myth that Since9 was addressing. So I stand by my initial statement that staking out a place that one knows has guns is different than spontaniously targetting an OCer in public. Also given that we're talking about 1986 and Florida, the people that would have been targetted to have their weapons stolen would have been CCers and not OCers as during that time OCing would have been an extreme minority, assuming that it hadn't already been banned in Florida.
One gunfight is a datum of one. One cannot draw a statistical conclusion from 10 points of data, much less 1.Actually this comes from the second most studied gunfight in history (behind the OK Corral) The Miami FBI Shooting where Matix and Platt targeted arm people at gun ranges to steal their guns to commit their crimes. Hardly a myth, it is a well docummented fact.
Then you do not know.I do not know what hand gestures has to do with this.
Correct statement.The streets have their own set of rules and if you do not know the streets then you do not know the rules.
From the article.I have no idea where you get that from.
Good luck on getting those "street rules" to allow you to make an appointment.What I am saying is making the decisions that need to be made at a time of my choosing.
The “Do’s” and “Don’ts” of Open Carry Part II
By Roger Phillips, Suarez International Speicialist and Tier One Instructor
The Mental Aspect of the Fight
Some people may want to call this “mindset” but that term is very vague and does not do justice to the things that you should really know when it comes to open carry. If we can all agree that there are risks to carrying handguns (open or concealed) and that there is a certain responsibility attached to that decision, then it is clear that we need to “get our head right” about what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how to do it best. If you are open carrying for the reasons mention in the first part of this article, then you need to understand that the mind is the ultimate weapon and the handgun is just the tool that the mind uses to be as efficient and effective as you can possibly be inside of the limitations of “just walking through life.” In other words, it is the mind that turns the talisman into a devastating weapon. Without the mind it is just a chunk of metal, wood, and plastic.
Read more here
I have Open Carried for over 40 years. When people who may have wanted to do me harm saw my holstered carry, they ran the other way. Even the guy that jerked open the door of my car, and reached in to drag me out...The gun never left the holster, the guy ran anyway.
My reason to OC is to prevent encounters that may escalate into something very dangerous. I shot and was shot at enough to last a lifetime and then some in Vietnam. If I can do anything that will prevent having to shoot someone, like OC, I will.
Think about nature: The poisonous caterpillers have spectacular colours to warn birds that they are dangerous to the birds health...so they do not get eaten...Right? does that mean none of these poisonous caterpillers ever get eaten? No, but it sure cuts down on the insidences.
Well, that is OC. The weapon is out there in the open for anyone that would do me harm to see. It is to their jeopardy to challenge that OC...would you? I would say that a CC is more deadly, because the BG has not been warned, but I am not looking for deadly, I am looking for safety. Can I shoot my carry? You bet. Would I shoot a BG if necessary? You bet, I do not believe in "warning shots"...the OC is warning enough, if the weapon comes out of it's holster, someone is going get hurt, that is a guarantee.
Last edited by hermannr; 10-30-2011 at 12:29 PM.
I know that this is an old article, but since I wrote it somethings have changed. Both Gabe Suarez and I admit to open carrying on occasions. We are both strongly pro gun, pro rights, and pro freedom. But we are not so extreme in our "rights" thinking that we forget about everything that we know about self defense.......and vice-versa.
These articles are about "moderation" and the balance of "rights" and hard core quality self defense philosophies. This is not a "black or white" issue there are many shades of grey. I am seeing a shift towards "moderation" that can be a very good thing for everyone. Closed minded extremist thinking is never a good idea ......on either side of the debate. If we can mitigate the extremist thinking and the damage that it does we can all benefit from this cause.
We can not dump on "rights" because of "quality long established self defense philosophies." And we came not dump on "quality long established self defense philosophies" because of "rights." The only way to bring the gun community together on this is through education, balance, and moderation.
Gabe sent out Part 1 of this series on the Warrior Talk news letter. It has gotten a lot of attention from both side of the debate. There are many comments on the blog if you like reading such things. I put up Part 2 on the blog yesterday. Here are the links.
Here is what I just submitted as a comment for part 1, hopefully it gets posted and has some actual responses.
Here is what I submitted to part IIYou brought up the Matix and Platt incident on another forum and I posted my comment there only to crickets, so I will post it again here. Matix and Platt staked out known people with guns; these were not spur-of-the-moment crimes. Also their targets had nothing to do with those individuals OCing for protection and everything with the victims being staked out in a known location to have guns.
Also in your example you ignore that the criminals befriended their victims prior to robbing and killing them. OCing or CCing, it wouldn't matter as the criminals set up a specific trap for the gun.
And another few points. You are trying to compare premeditated crime to spur-of-the-moment crime; and the state that this crime happened in is a CC only state, so it isn't even like the victims were truely OCing.
So while you have listed one event that you think is related to OCing, I challenge you to list even ten cases where a no-kidding OCer was targeted for crime AND that the criminal knew of the gun beforehand. I would be shocked and amazed (and willing to pay $10k if I had the money) if you could find 10 instances. It is simply so rare that it is a statistical improbability.
Now with all of that said, I agree that OC vs CC is a personal choice. If one isn't comfortable with a type of carry then they shouldn't carry in that method; or that if they don't have the will to use the gun then they shouldn't carry at all. But all one has to do is look at the statistics and crime reports(or rather, the lack of statistics/crime reports as it simply doesn't happen) to see that the fears of OCers being targeted first during a crime or for a crime are statistically unfounded outside of a few potential outliers (compared to how relatively often we hear about CCers pulling their guns).
I think the reason many OCers see others as "anti-OC" is due to the tone that so many people take, followed by often times opinion spouted as fact. For example, in this article you state that people will take your gun "because they can" but yet this has yet to successfully happen to a person that is actively OCing (so not talking about premeditated crime, though I would be interested in seeing rough numbers for how often a criminal plans ahead to steal an OCer's gun). Not that people should let their SA drop or not pay attention to their soundings since it hasn't happened, but it comes across as stating an opinion as fact w/o any real facts/statistics to back it up.
Note that I'm not saying you are anti-OC, I'm simply attempting to explain how tone, implied meanings, stating things w/o statistics to back up the statement, etc can make one come across as anti even if you aren't. And there is simply a ton of emotions on the subject that simply aren't backed up with real-world data from all of the people who already OC, and stating those fallacies as fact can quickly get the OC crowd riled up much like when anti-gunners state allowing people to have guns will cause OK Corral situations and blood in the streets.
Last edited by Aknazer; 11-10-2011 at 03:24 PM.
I also notice that the term "political activist" is used a ton, but I'm yet to see any examples actually posted of someone who is a clueless political activist. To say that they are out there (and imply that they are in large numbers), but then not give actual examples of what one means is just bleh.
Well, my response to "part I" was approved. His response directed me to the forums where you have to register to see it. I did and the following is both his responses and mine (his should be the bold quotes, the bold quotes are in response to my original comments, and the parts w/o quotes are my responses to his comments). I'm posting this here for anyone curious about it but doesn't want to make an account on their forums to see it. Also apparently whenever you submit a reply it has to be approved by a mod so who knows when/if it will be posted on that board.
You are obviously missing the point. The point is that pre-planned attacks on a known carrier cancel each other out much like in a math equation when you have something happening on both sides of the equation. A pre-planned attack on an OCer is the same as a pre-planned attack on a CCer and neither type of carry is really going to have an advantage because your hostile has already prepared for your weapon.
Also their targets had nothing to do with those individuals OCing for protection and everything with the victims being staked out in a known location to have guns.
So for you to try and somehow relate the preplanned attacks to one type of carry and not the other when it affects both equally (or at least the Matix and Platt incident does as the individuals were staked out at a gun range and not simply walking down the road) is faulty logic.
Whether you accept this fact or not, as an open carry advocate myself and an expert in this field of self defense with a firearm, if you do not start asking the right questions this will always be a lossing debate for the "political activist only." The right question is as simple as this;
"Are people with guns targeted for their guns?"
That is not the correct question. The answer to that question would be a yes, but the correct questions would be "Are people who are openly carrying targeted for crime more often than those concealing their guns?" and "Is crime directed at OCers more or less successful than crime directed at CCers?" Typically when someone is targeted for their guns the criminals break into their house when they aren't home; not attempt to rob the person while knowing they are armed. To give some actual data to back this up, here is some actual info with a cite (info taken from gunfacts.info):
60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. (cite: Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986). Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot (cite: Ibid)
So simply asking if people are targeted for their guns simply doesn't look at the whole picture properly.
Until you accept the question that every open minded self defense advocate is working from you will never advance the cause. It is your obvious manipulation of the scientific data that will always be your down fall. Since the answer to this most fundamental of questions is a irrefutable "yes!" all of the number manipulating in the world will not change this fact. It is the advocation that carrying a gun openly will scare away crimminals that is the very core of the obviously flawed and incorrect stance that the "political activist only" perpetuate. This is either a perpetuation of ignorance or a perpetuation of bad science. Either way it is a danger to those that do not know any better than to listen to somebody that "does not know what they do not know."
Ironic that you would say that I'm twisting scientific data when you choose to ignore data yourself that shows how a good portion of criminals will choose to find an easier target should they know or even think their potential victim is armed.
Also in your example you ignore that the criminals befriended their victims prior to robbing and killing them.
Wow, fancy that.......bad guys using bad guys tricks! This is as common on the street as can possibly be. Why does this even matter, are you saying that open carry guys can not be set up by badguys using one of the oldest tricks in the book? I have zero idea where this statement helps your "political activist only" stance. Were people with guns targeted for their guns? Once again, ask the right questions and quit trying to spin something for a political agenda. You do realize that you are advocating open carry people to not worry about being attacked. Could you please list your training and certifications that substantiates your expertice in the field of self defense. Could you please tell me, with who and where you learned all that you know about attacks on people, with guns, for their guns. There are hundreds if not thousands of cases please tell me of your extensive education on this topic.
Again, those bad tricks are indiscriminate to the type of carry that one chooses. So you can't sit there and try to point to those bad tricks as a knock on OCing because the same thing applies to CCing. If anything, those "bad tricks" are a hit against using and befriending people at gun ranges regardless of your choice of carry. So again you incorrectly attribute it to the type of carry instead of to the activity taken place (using the gun range).
OCing or CCing, it wouldn't matter as the criminals set up a specific trap for the gun.
And that is the point of these articles. It does not matter if you open carry or concealed carry, you have a responsibility to know what you are getting yourself into. "Political activists only" try to get people to open carry by telling them "don't worry about it, the visible gun is a talisman that stops all evil." This is an absolute lie! It is a lie that I will point out at every turn. Whether you open carry or concealed carry, you need to accept that you may have to fight, you need to prepare to be ready to fight, and you need to be able to fight! This ******** that "you will not be targeted" is a lie that can get people killed. This lie is the very core of this debate and until that lie has quit being perpetuated by the "political activist only" this debate will continue and the cause will get nowhere. Break away from the perpetuation of the lie then proceed, on to a winning course.
Except that it isn't a lie. It DOES stop crime and there have been multiple reports of it. One of the recent officially documented ones was where a car full of criminals were going to rob a place (Waffle House? I'm not 100% what place but think that's it), sent in a scout who saw an OCer and chose to wait till the OCers left before robbing it. While waiting a cop noticed the suspicious car, went to invistigate, and busted the people.
Now that said, you will also find that the vast majority of OCers will also state that OCing isn't going to ward off crime 100% of the time and that you need to be willing to use the gun if needed. Which then leads right back into one of the proper questions, "Are people who are openly carrying targeted for crime more often than those concealing their guns?" and the answer is no.
And another few points. You are trying to compare premeditated crime to spur-of-the-moment crime; and the state that this crime happened in is a CC only state, so it isn't even like the victims were truely OCing.
Dude, that is just so weak! Really, is that all that you have? This is a sign of desperation when somebody keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. Learn to ask the right questions, break away from the manipulation of the numbers, accept the fact that a gun is not a talisman, look to get yourself some quality training. I challenge you to become the very best open carry advocate in the world, but that means that you are going to have to open your mind, get some training, get some education, and find a way to bring some common sense and balance into what you do. This is not just about "political activism" it is about "life and death." If you are going to set yourself up to appear to be an expert on "life and death" please post your resume. Mine can be found here.
More generalizations with no actual data to back it up or showing of data followed by stating your hypothesis of what the data means. I'm not sure you understand how the scientific process works in that you show your data and then state your conclusion and how you came to it. Instead you keep waiving your training and resume around and saying "listen to me I know answer, but I'm not going to show my work." Don't worry, I'll post more about myself at the end (though I know it won't be the same as your resume and thus is likely to be brushed aside as nothing).
So while you have listed one event that you think is related to OCing, I challenge you to list even ten cases where a no-kidding OCer was targeted for crime AND that the criminal knew of the gun beforehand. I would be shocked and amazed (and willing to pay $10k if I had the money) if you could find 10 instances.
I care zero about convicing somebody who has closed their mind already. Your constant "towing the the politcal activist line" is all I need to see to know that you have decided to live your life in closed minded ignorance. I write to help "good people" that are looking for something that resembles the truth, people that realize that they do not know much about self defense with a firearm, but would like to know more. I write for people looking for common sense, people looking for something to really believe in. I know that I will never convince someone like you........but then again.......I really do not care! Keep towing that "political activist only" company line and I will continue to point out how little you really know.
Open carry is good.......concealed carry is good, but it is all about context! If you do not have the guts, mindset, knowldege, and skills it is just mental masturbation. A gun is not a talisman that wards off all evil.
More of the same from you in sidestepping the question and refusing to show any data. If you truely cared about changing my mind or showing that I'm wrong you would list actual data and conclusion/thought-train proving it instead of the "the world is flat" or "the world is the center of the universe" arguement (for those that don't know, back in the day those that questioned either of those two statements were immediately disregarded and potentially killed because all of the "smart" people with the "resumes" that showed they "knew" what they were talking about would ignore anyone who would attempt to say or prove otherwise).
It is simply so rare that it is a statistical improbability. Now with all of that said, I agree that OC vs CC is a personal choice. If one isn't comfortable with a type of carry then they shouldn't carry in that method; or that if they don't have the will to use the gun then they shouldn't carry at all. But all one has to do is look at the statistics and crime reports(or rather, the lack of statistics/crime reports as it simply doesn't happen) to see that the fears of OCers being targeted first during a crime or for a crime are statistically unfounded outside of a few potential outliers (compared to how relatively often we hear about CCers pulling their guns).
Caution! You have just read something written by a number manipulator, who refuses to ask the right questions, who does not care about you or your ability to defend yourself, and who only cares about the political agenda that he pushes down everyones throat. This is an extremist attitude that is based on intentional or unintentional ignorance.
More generalization and not backing up of your statement with data. I mean you don't even attempt to explain how the numbers are wrong or manipulated. You simply state that that is the case and because of your training/resume you know best and obviously don't need to prove it.
Ask yourself the real question.
"Are people with guns targeted for their guns?"
Again, this is the wrong question. If one is looking at OC vs CC for them then they need to be looking at which one is better able to deter crime. Even if it doesn't deter crime 100% of the time, if one deters crime more often or more effeciently than another, then that is the more effective means of carrying...So long as the individual is comfortable with carrying in that manner
Then train accordingly.......open or concealed.......but open your mind, use your head, and be very careful who you listen to. If you do this for political reasons.......no problemo......if you do it for self defense, then educate yourself past just listening to those pushing a political agenda.
Both Gabe and I admit to open carrying.....we just do it with the proper knowledge and the proper training. We are as far away from a "political activist only" as you can find.
Training is important, but ironically enough, those that most need to carry are the least likely to be able to afford training. And while this is a bit off-topic, training should not be a requirement to be able to OC or CC. Why? Because it does two things. First is that it puts the ability to defend one's self out of reach of the poor who are in crime infested areas (where, imo, they should CC. But I could probably fill another several paragraphs on where and why I think CC is better than OC and am not going to put that into this post). Second is that by requiring training you are turning a right into a priviledge as who is going to determine the proper amount of training and what qualifies, but the government? Which then leads into requiring a "permission slip" to exercise a right; and last time I checked no other right that is reaffirmed under the Bill of Rights requires a permission slip to exercise (actually I take that back, I have heard of certain cities requiring prior approval to congregate, protest, etc and I feel that is a violation of the First Amendment as well).
The balance of "rights" and "self defense" is the only position that is not an extremist position.
I am curious as to what you mean "the balance of 'rights' and 'self defense'" as I don't see any need to "balance" the two as self defense is a right via the whole "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" bit.
Now that I have responded to all of that, a bit about me. I'm 25 years old. I joined the military at 18 because ever since I was 4 I have felt a strong sense to defend my country. In joining the military the very first part of my oath is "...to defend the Constitution against all enemies..." and as such it isn't about "political activism," but rather about restoring our Constitution.
I also notice that you love to throw around the term "political activist only" as a way to try and discredit people. It reminds me of a saying: "When the facts are against you, argue emotions. When emotions are against you, argue facts. When both facts and emotions are against you, try to discredit your opponent." And that is exactly how you come across. You don't even know me, my training, or any of the research I have personally done on the subject, but yet you instantly try to discredit me as a "political activist only" person. Between my military training and personal training outside of the military I would easily be either a 4 (CCW of the gun) or 5 (entry level tactical training of the gun) on your scale. But I also believe in critical thinking and doing your own research before buying into anything. Indeed I have corrected many "teachers" while growing up as they either didn't know what they were talking about, or tried to push their opinion as "fact" without the data to back it up. And while I would love more training, I can't afford it at this time, but that doesn't mean I can't look at what a person is saying and come to my own conclusions based off of what I already know and what research I've already done.
As such, I again come back asking for your data. If you are going to try and compare OC and CC, or even state thing about just one form of carry, you need to present actual facts (preferably with verifiable cites) followed by your conclusion and how you reached it. You also need to be willing to properly discuss the topic when someone questions your conclusion and not just try to assassinate their character by doing things such as waiving your credentials around as if that's all that is needed.
This isn't a part of my post on the warriortalk forums. Personally I find it kind of funny that he basically called almost every posted on the forums here an "extremist" and yet he wonders why the OC community views him as an anti. So far I've found most of his demeanor to just reek of arrogance and thinking that his training makes his thoughts on the subject beyond reproach. Maybe he will surprise me and enter into actual debate with verifiable facts to back up his statements, but I'm not holding my breath.
I have been asked for a link to this discussion on the warriortalk forums so here it is. Note that you need to make an account to see their forums.
Good stuff Aknazer, keep fighting the good fight for us!
I have learned a great deal from the many points of view available to us all on this subject.
I have also learned a fair amount from my own observations regarding human social (and anti-social) behavior throughout my life.
A rational person always "scans" a potential opponent prior to engaging in physical conflict. This "scanning" process may only involve 2-3 seconds of concious and subconcious "evaulation" of the level of risk posed by a potential opponent, but this process always takes place whether we are concious of it or not. The possible range of options include, but are not limited to deference, disengagement, avoidance , escape, or some level of engagement just to name a few.
I believe we must each evaluate our own presentation - strength, stature, size, physical ability, reflexes, agility, demeanor - in the light of how a potential aggressor may size us up. Anyone who practices impathy is capable of estimating their own deterrent quotient whether armed or unarmed. I am 69 , 6-3, 200 lb - and would estimate my physical ability to be in the 90 percentile of men my age. I certainly am not as young- as quick - or as strong as I was even 15 years ago, but I still know what my strengths ( and weaknesses)are. My wife has significant disabilities, but she can still handle a small revolver well enough to deter, or stop most criminal threats.
There are times, and places where I choose to allow display of my holstered Glock. There are also times, and places where I prefer to either conceal, or obscure same.
I think the most important human perceptual quirk to keep in mind is that the sight of ONE GUN tends to serve notice of the possibility that there may be OTHERS nearby also.
Just as important as location-location-location is presentation-presentation-presentation.
While expressing my respect for Mr. Phillips experience in the realm of firearms instruction, I simultaneously informed him in not so many nice words that his arrogance, presumptuousness, and elitism have lost a paying customer.
Yes, and sincerely, the Mrs. was looking at Suarez International as a gift for me this upcoming spring. (Advanced Pistol Course). He can kiss that money goodbye.
Don't waste your time on this guy to be honest. He is too arrogant to admit error. It's a clear and evident failing of his personality.
Slow, for me it isn't even about him anymore. It is about putting out actual information that people can make an informed decision with rather than having to rely on his overly broad generalizations and lies. If what I post there helps to shine some real light on the subject and helps someone to make a properly informed choice, then it is worth it as it is no skin off my back to simply post the information and to post why I disagree with him.
I understand the purpose for your efforts. It is not lost on me. Thanks for fighting the good fight!
I was watching the conversation for pages and pages just waiting for the guy to start using actual metrics in lieu of labelling and denigrating everybody. 17+ pages on and he hasn't ditched the kindergarten routine.
He then shares an elaborate story about a crime carried out against him and his employees. The purpose of which is obviously to try and label all criminals as this Stevens fellow, who not only don't care if you're carrying, but are so mentally deranged that they intend to off themselves anyways once their crime is under way.
He makes a lot of baseless accusations with emotive undertones, and no basis in reality.
He discusses one point of view, then dismisses the mountains of evidence showing clear unmistakable existence of other important perspectives.
He talks about "street smarts" which is the dumbest crap I have ever heard a "professional" reference. No social model is the same, even those involving large groups of criminal elements.
I had a Professor like him once. If you challenged him in any way, especially when it made sense, he would simply refer back to his years of experience and professional credentials, screaming "I have a PHD!".
He's a joke.
I'm surprised he didn't ban me sooner, but after my last post I was banned for this reason: "Political activist only troll"
Apparently they don't like it when they are called out for being hypocritical and their own arguements used against them to highlight what is wrong with their arguement. I also like how I'm a "political activist ONLY" even though I showed on multiple occasions just what is wrong with that statement and how the "only" part is nothing more than trying to dismiss those who they disagree with.
He is an adult kid with an elitist complex. Nothing more, nothing less.
The constant and repetitive logical fallacies, evasion, cliches and personal hostility you were met with did far more to discredit Phillips' ability to explain or defend a position than if he had more wisely chosen to ignore you completely.
The fan cheering section over there should be embarrassed by the way you were addressed (rather than any of your points) and ultimately dismissed. Rather cult-like IMO.
Last edited by ATM; 11-26-2011 at 11:15 PM.