They are not representative of the majority of gun owners anywhere.
And yet I see some gun owners trying to make the case that we should defend their actions simply because they are gun owners too. That's short-sighted and wrong-headed. If someone does something ill-advised with guns in public, we should not, we can not support their actions. In fact, it's important that we make it clear to everyone (pro-gun, anti-gun) that what has been done is ill-advised and that we don't support it.
Although my comment in the OP about any particular member of a group potentially becoming a
de facto spokesperson, and the danger of rogue members was narrowly focused in the context in which I made it, it also applies more broadly. When a gun owner makes a public statement (either verbally or by his actions) that is harmful to the rest of the gun community, the immediate (and natural) assumption that those outside the firearm community will make is that he speaks for all of us or that his actions are representative.
It's important that the general community moves rapidly to make it clear that is not the case.
Apparently my f/u question is rubbing people the wrong way because it has been ignored to chase these minor points down rabbit holes.
I answered your question in the original post and reiterated the answer in my second post on this thread.
"What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely?" Maybe nothing, maybe something. There might be nothing wrong with it at all, but there might be some contexts in which "going about your business politely" with an openly carried pistol could be considered anything but polite.
That's why it's important to do some serious investigative work to determine how people in your area are likely to react to OC in various circumstances. I provided some loose guidelines for how to do that work and tried to explain why it's so critically important.
"If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence. The alternative is blind trial and error, and it's an understatement to call that a foolish strategy."
For what it's worth, your comment about "going about your business politely" is an example of circular reasoning. Because you start off with the assumption that you are being polite, you exclude the possibility that not everyone will see what you do as polite.
I suspect that the answer "It depends" isn't going to make you happy because it highlights the fact that like so many real-world issues, the question of when OC is prudent and when it's not does not have a strictly black or white answer. Unfortunately many times, in the real world, the actual answer is "It depends on the circumstances."
... from someone in a restricted carry state at that.
This is an
ad hominem fallacy. Where I am does not prove that what I've posted is incorrect. If what I've posted is in error then you should be able to point out the errors. If you can not, attempting to attack the content by attacking the author instead is a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"...a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
I doubt most people have time to read the whole OP, much less go through all that. While it seems like a list of good suggestions, I doubt anyone will ever take it.
I'm optimistic. I doubt that a lot of people will pay attention, but I think some might. I believe that your analysis is probably pretty accurate in the sense that the people who need to read it most probably won't bother to take the time to do so.
This is where people like YOU come in. You did take the time to read it and you seem to understand it. Maybe you, or someone like you who took the time to read this thread and who understands it will get the chance to talk to someone who can benefit from thinking about some of concepts discussed here.
That's why I take the time to post here. Some people probably think that pointing out logical fallacies is some kind of an ego trip for me. The reason I do it is because people who care enough about the issues to spend the time reading and posting here are likely to be the ones who care enough to go out and take action and to talk with friends, neighbors and others in their area.
So I think it's important for them to be able to both spot logical fallacies when others make them and to be able to avoid making them in their own arguments. I point them out hoping people will take note and learn.
That's also why I started this thread. I realize that the worst offenders won't be bothered to pay attention to any opinion other than their own and those that mirror their own. But not everyone is that far gone. I also realize that not everyone who reads what I wrote will agree with everything I've said. But I do hope that it will provide some food for thought.
Thinking is a good thing and I think more people ought to try it. This is my way of trying to help people think.
