BF2S Forums Open Carry

mcminty wrote:

Just cause Americans spell weirdly..

Still doesn't change the fact that it is a straw man argument.  Get back to the OP.

mcminty wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Good thing they had guns.

I thought the same thing about those 4 cops that were shot in Washington State.

Oh wait..

Well a bit more to topic, but your lack of human compassion is showing.  Pretty fucking tasteless.  That was an assassination and you know it. Maybe if there were more armed citizens the outcome might have been different -or the event may never have happened.  I guess I could start posting shock stories of where firearms saved the day...

*edit:
Meh, you're right.  Guns make no difference.  I guess if I'm ever put in that situation, I just sit there and wait my turn to be executed.

On a more factual note:  Read up

Among one of the reviews

Acute Observer wrote:

Kleck is a professor at Florida State University, Kates is a partner of a national law firm. The 'Introduction' says they want to present the findings from scholarly journals to contradict the propaganda in the corporate media (p.14). Concealed handgun carry resulted in a reduction of violent crimes (p.17). This fact is censored from the corporate media, even though thousands of lives could be saved. The corporate media portrays gun owners as subhumans, but exempts the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, and the publisher of the 'New York Times' (p.18). This is just bigotry.

Hmmm.  You guys buy into part of the mold there.  Quick chug the Kool-Ade, and go find another senseless act of violence perpetuated toward armed personnel, to make your point.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-12-01 17:42:33)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

elieve those caps were unintentional? As for spelling? Mmm. Where?

"Capitalisations".  Way to go buddy,  and here's why you FAIL.  You set up a straw man argument.  Attack the sentence structure and "capitalisations" instead of addressing my points?  Yes, you are quite the funny man.

Hakei wrote:

Wouldn't it be more wise to move to a less dangerous country than to wield a dangerous weapon?

Serious question, if it's for your loved ones and all that.

AHHH! Run away.  Yea.  Have fun with that.

I stated I'm English in a previous post. Ergo, I'll use English spelling for words. ;o

I'm sorry? How was my argument one of a straw man consistency? You failed, for the third time, to note the discussion was about ethics and not law. Either way, my post was 90% based on trying to make you understand your lack of comprehension for this.

The only straw man argument is you misrepresenting what the majority of my post was about and then flaming me for it.

Hypocrisy in its purest form.

Hakei wrote:

I'm sorry? How was my argument one of a straw man consistency? You failed, for the third time, to note the discussion was about ethics and not law.

To try to get this on a debate footing (vs. the flame war this is becomming)...

I wrote:

1. What ethical basis are you arguing from?
2. What are the ethical considerations for carrying a potentially lethal machine.
3. Does carrying them openly or concealed make an ethical difference?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-12-02 18:38:53)

1) I was asking if you were arguing from a utilitarian view, a human-rights view, etc.
2) (Sounds like you view this as utilitarian...)  While I don't want to impose fear, the unfounded potential fears of others is pretty hard to measure.  Secondly, the fear from others vs. personal comfort is not the only aspect to consider (especially for a utilitarian approach).  Take the idea that an armed population deters criminals.  Actual harm would be reduced via carry, and people would have less to reasonably fear. 
In the end, I think the possibility of someone being nervous because another has a holstered pistol (and is not behaving in a threatening manner) should not override the carrier's option to have a defensive weapon available (for actual needs or percieved safety).  One presents potentially life preserving options, while the other silences a potential fear (often unfounded).

3) That is a VERY marginal argument, still based off the idea that the potential to cause fear by seeing someone with a gun overrides other concerns (an idea that I do not agree with).

To your scenarios:
The robbery: the specifics would determine the outcome and moral/legal issues.  It is possible that a (stupid) "good guy" could make the situation worse.  It is also possible that they would mitigate a slaughter.  Most news articles I've seen seem to indicate the carrier did not make the criminal go from a threatening robbery to a murderous one.  (Of course, that is only based on an incomplete sample size.)
The train: if I see anyone carrying a weapon (knife, club, pistol, whatever), I evaluate their demeanor very carefully.  (Yes, I believe a certain amount of profiling is useful.)  If 10 black men got on a train wearing baggy clothing and had pistols hanging out of their pants, I would be concerned (I'd be concerned if they didn't have weapons, but that addition makes them more of a concern.)  If they were dressed in a manner not typical of gang members and had proper holsters, I would observe their behavior.  If they did not act threateningly, I would not be concerned.
If they were wearing uniforms, I would think it odd that so many police were traveling together, and probably start looking around for potential trouble!

Edit:
"Negroes" is a rather out of use term generally associated with strong overtones of racism.  You might want to be careful about how you use it.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-12-02 21:37:42)

Hakei wrote:

1. Rephrase the question please.

2. Those around you may not feel 'safe', and seeing as the point of open carry is to make yourself feel 'safer', that shouldn't come at the expense of others.

3. Yes, the chances of someone spotting a concealed weapon are much lower than that of an open carried weapon.

I pose my question again. Who here would feel safe if 10 Negroes boarded a train with pistols on their person?

Another point; if I'm about to Rob a store and some hero comes rushing in with a pistol and is aiming it at me, chances are I'm going to be pulling my trigger as quickly as I can. Having a weapon on you makes you much more of a target, which is another ethical consideration all together - once you've killed one, a few more isn't going to sound so bad.

1.  Why?  It's pretty straight forward.
2.  Your "feelings" don't trump mine or the law.
3.  Who cares?

Racist.

Last point made:
Please.  Let's say that every one is open carrying.  You still think the criminal is going to walk in and start shooting?  Oh, randomly capitalizing words throughout sentences does not make you appear cleaver.

Hakei wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

1. Rephrase the question please.

2. Those around you may not feel 'safe', and seeing as the point of open carry is to make yourself feel 'safer', that shouldn't come at the expense of others.

3. Yes, the chances of someone spotting a concealed weapon are much lower than that of an open carried weapon.

I pose my question again. Who here would feel safe if 10 Negroes boarded a train with pistols on their person?

Another point; if I'm about to Rob a store and some hero comes rushing in with a pistol and is aiming it at me, chances are I'm going to be pulling my trigger as quickly as I can. Having a weapon on you makes you much more of a target, which is another ethical consideration all together - once you've killed one, a few more isn't going to sound so bad.

1.  Why?  It's pretty straight forward.
2.  Your "feelings" don't trump mine or the law.
3.  Who cares?

Racist.

Last point made:
Please.  Let's say that every one is open carrying.  You still think the criminal is going to walk in and start shooting?  Oh, randomly capitalizing words throughout sentences does not make you appear cleaver.

You've bought nothing to this debate with this post. Either follow what's being said or don't bother posting - simple.

Exactly.  Your posts are nothing more that an emotional argument that fails hard.  Nothing more.

SEREMAKER wrote:

I start with bearmode .............. then if they doesn't work ......... glock 26 ............ its subtly but makes a bold statement

You like that 26?  I got a buddy that has one on the way.

Thought I might go back through the thread.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

First.  A gun is not a dangerous weapon.  It is a tool.  Like all tools, if misused consequences can be disasterious.

Oh lord. Yes, a gun is a tool. A tool whose express purpose is to serve as a platform to propel a projectile in order to harm or kill someone. That is it. It serves no other purpose. To claim a gun is not dangerous is to deny its core function.

DBBrinson, I respect your right to "bear arms" as legally allowed.. but, as I've stated previously in this thread, you and your country have this asinine obsession with holding on to "gun rights" that were deemed necessary 218 years ago. 218 years. A completely different time and situation to today's world. The level to which this gun culture is ingrained in your national psyche is absurd, and it seems that whenever people talk about it they might as well be holding a copy of the Bill of Rights while foaming at the mouth.


I'm interested by your first post in the thread:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Thread it too long, and I'm not going to read the whole thing.

But this whole "Open Carry" thing - the guy is in the middle of the fucking suburbs. What the hell does he think is going to happen?

Nothing.  That's probably why it's unloaded.  But it's his and his right.  However what if he did need it?  Shit happens.  meh' fuck that.  Life happens.  Either you're prepared or your not.  Just stay behind me and it will all be ok.

Honestly, that sounds like a hero mentality. Again I'll say, the average gun owning citizen shouldn't become a de-facto law enforcement agent (for the purposes of "stopping a crime") by virtue of carrying a weapon in public. They aren't trained for it.



And I didn't get a satisfactory answer in response to this:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Just curious here but what are the statistics on armed civilians, either CCW or open carry, stopping a crime in progress?

here are the stats for Florida

I find it telling that of the roughly 1.7 MILLION permits issued since 1987 -there's only been just over 4 thousand infractions.  That's less than 1%... Actually .2%. .

I don't want to know the number of people who have had their CCW permit revoked. 

I want to know the number of crimes, where the perpetrator has used a firearm, that have been stopped due to a citizen using their CCW firearm.

SEREMAKER wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

I start with bearmode .............. then if they doesn't work ......... glock 26 ............ its subtly but makes a bold statement

You like that 26?  I got a buddy that has one on the way.

well I actually switch between the 26 and walter PPS ....... if I'm wearing a jac or polo or something a little looser then 26 .... if I'm wearing a t-shirt then my PPS all the way


both loaded with black talons

Black talons?  Really?  Being a subcompact, slimline -how the recoil?  I had a 30 (.45 subcompact), and it was a bit of a handful. I'm using Mag Safe & still carrying the seecamp everywhere.  Every now and then, I'll grab the kimber or hk.


edit:

Amra wrote:

Mick, nothing has changed.

We need guns today more than ever because the politicians are a bigger threat than ever.

Our right to bear arms assures one thing; that we have the tools to sack, overthrow, dispose of and if needed kill the people who are attacking our country.

But we're scaring the children with our evil guns...sigh*

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-12-03 07:46:39)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

You like that 26?  I got a buddy that has one on the way.

well I actually switch between the 26 and walter PPS ....... if I'm wearing a jac or polo or something a little looser then 26 .... if I'm wearing a t-shirt then my PPS all the way


both loaded with black talons

Black talons?  Really?  Being a subcompact, slimline -how the recoil?  I had a 30 (.45 subcompact), and it was a bit of a handful. I'm using Mag Safe & still carrying the seecamp everywhere.  Every now and then, I'll grab the kimber or hk.

bought that ammo before it went on the ban list -- they have changed names but they just don't have the power that they use too

the recoil on both aren't bad ... espically the PPS ( bought the wife one also )

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

2) (Sounds like you view this as utilitarian...)  While I don't want to impose fear, the unfounded potential fears of others is pretty hard to measure.

But still exists.

It does, but I don't feel one person's fear trumps another's choice.  I think it comes down to the idea that people fear those with guns because they have more capability to inflict harm.  If the person has the capability to inflict harm, but has no intention to attack others, why should they be feared?

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Secondly, the fear from others vs. personal comfort is not the only aspect to consider (especially for a utilitarian approach).

I never said it was.

...but you never mentioned those other factors in your discussion.

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Take the idea that an armed population deters criminals.  Actual harm would be reduced via carry, and people would have less to reasonably fear.

Conjecture, but okay.

There are plenty of studies that show correlation, and convicted felons have commented on being more afraid of armed victims than being caught by the police.

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

In the end, I think the possibility of someone being nervous because another has a holstered pistol (and is not behaving in a threatening manner) should not override the carrier's option to have a defensive weapon available (for actual needs or percieved safety).

Once again, the issue is not whether or not people should be allowed to open carry. The issue is the ethical implications it has on the community.

Most people connect ethical and legal issues at some point. 
Even from the utilitarian stance, I don't see the potential for fear to outweight the potential good.  Let's say one person's fear is countered by another's reassurance, plus some crimes are stopped and others detered.  The "good" outweighs the "bad."

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

One presents potentially life preserving options, while the other silences a potential fear (often unfounded).

As I said previously. If you're in an area where you think your gun is going to save your life at some point you should move.

Clearly a  wise option in high risk areas...but bad things happen everywhere.  I don't consider churches to be dangerous, but an active shooter attacked a church not 10 miles from where I sit.  I don't consider Northern Illinois University to be particularly dangerous, but one of my friends was murdered there.

Hakei wrote:

[

RAIMIUS wrote:

It is also possible that they would mitigate a slaughter.  Most news articles I've seen seem to indicate the carrier did not make the criminal go from a threatening robbery to a murderous one.  (Of course, that is only based on an incomplete sample size.)

And conjecture again, but we'll leave that one.

Want to show some hard evidence?
(I'll admit that argument is not very strong, but it is my observation.)

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

The train: if I see anyone carrying a weapon (knife, club, pistol, whatever), I evaluate their demeanor very carefully.  (Yes, I believe a certain amount of profiling is useful.)  If 10 black men got on a train wearing baggy clothing and had pistols hanging out of their pants, I would be concerned (I'd be concerned if they didn't have weapons, but that addition makes them more of a concern.)

So you agree that you see someone as more of a threat when they carry a weapon?

Sort of.  I see a threatening person as a more capable threat when they have a weapon.  I don't view the simple possession of a weapon as a threat.

Hakei wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

If they were dressed in a manner not typical of gang members and had proper holsters, I would observe their behavior.  If they did not act threateningly, I would not be concerned.

Then you're one tough bastard, I'd be shitting myself.

No, I'm just more used to the idea.  A couple years ago, I would have left in a hurry!

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-12-03 20:36:47)

Vilham wrote:

Its cool that everyone in America can read minds.

K. Thanks for stopping by.