Let's try to get this back on track and focus on the issues with the poster.
But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted. The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.
When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.
When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.
And for those who are "shocked" by my comparing equal opportunity and equal accommodation to open carry, may I remind you that both principles are enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact that a portion of the public doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad.
I certainly can make the comparison.Wow
>completely ignoring the fact police often have backup/a partner
>Usually don't patrole the worst of the gang neighbor hoods on foot
>Wear body armor
>have a cb radio
>are seen as more of a nuisance
>are not usually the victims of armed robbery either
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470871
http://icarry.org/ftopict-3299.html
You cannot compare law enforcement to the average citizen. Don't be willfully dense.
You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.I certainly can make the comparison.
So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/teen-homicide-suspects-have-criminal-histories/article_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.
Reality trumps imagination.
.Quote:
I certainly can make the comparison
It's better than sheer imagination.You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.
Quote:
If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.
Reality trumps imagination.
So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/te...a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.
If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination. Something that has been demonstrated to occur in reality is not some kind of fantasy. Wishing it were will not change this.It's better than sheer imagination.
Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him. He didn't get killed, but he might well have been if he had resisted like the victim in the story from Richmond. And here's yet another story about an attempt at snatching a gun out of the holster of an open carrier: http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/unarmed-man-attempts-to-rob-emu-student-carrying-holstered-gun/A single anecdote refutes millions of open carrying cops?
It's still anecdotal.If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination.
Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him.
And as for millions of cops carrying openly. Yeah, they do, and guess what, every year a significant percentage of them who are killed in the line of duty are shot and killed with their own guns. Cops are trained to be alert, they often work with partners, and they have the best retention holsters available and are trained in weapon retention. Yet they still get their guns taken from them! You think you can do better if a bad guy comes up behind you and tried to take your gun? Most armed citizens have “level zero” retention holsters, and no training in weapon retention.
And marking yourself out for his notice increases your likelihood of this happening. Each of the three victims in the news stories I have cited would almost certainly never have been victimized if they had been carrying concealed instead of openly. Their assailants would not even have known they were armed. But they still would have been able to defend themselves, and perhaps would have been better able to do so by virtue of possessing a defensive capability their assailants were unaware of, and which they could then deploy with the element of surprise on their side.
Yes.Significant percentage? Really?
From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
"Pontificate?" That's one word to use, I suppose. But to argue strongly for the disadvantages of a certain practice can also be described in less loaded terminology, I think. And if you're going to carry a gun for self protection, it's certainly something that bears thinking about realistically.And how many OC'er were never assaulted in the first place because the bad guy decided to find a softer target? (that's a rhetorical question because the answer is unknowable) If a bad guy targets you *because* you have a gun instead of avoiding you because you have a gun, you're probably screwed. That's a tradeoff the individual has to weigh, not really something to pontificate about.
It's all related to open carry. Some people do it in preference to concealed, as much to make a statement as for self protection, and they justify the practice partly on the basis of deterring crime, so this bears discussion as well.I tend to think most criminals are cowards... but I CC most of the time anyway. I also don't see where this has anything to do with the OP's poster.
There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted.
You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.
First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.It's still anecdotal.
Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.
And I notice you have no response to the fact that some of them get their own guns taken from them, despite having better gear and better training than most armed citizens ever have. Nor does that address the apples and oranges aspect of comparing sworn police to armed citizens, despite the vast differences between them.On the other hand, cops carry openly by the millions -- and a few anecdotes don't cancel out evidence like that.
Quote:
But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quart...-R-I-Policies/
And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.
Yes. I will. Because I, at least, always try to back up my assertions with some kind of supporting evidence, instead of simply asserting something baldly. And I will use news stories, statistics, training, experience, and whatever other tools will enable me to provide that supporting evidence.And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
This is what denial looks like.There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.
Yes, but notice what they asked people to do? They asked people to leave the guns at home. They took no position before, but now they have taken one, and it's not pro-gun. Let the OC activists continue their ostentatious carry, however, and they may provoke yet another backlash, stronger next time.You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.
Quote:
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
That pretty much ends the discussion.Yes. I will
Since you are unwilling to use intellectually honest debate tactics, I suppose it does.That pretty much ends the discussion.
Oh, and I missed this. I might as well address it, since I did say I try to respond to all an opponent's points.And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?