PDA

View Full Version : Shooting Involving Open Carry Proponent


Bartholomew Roberts
May 24, 2011, 09:49 AM
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has video of a shooting outside a convenience store in Atlanta (http://www.ajc.com/video?bcpid=97471435001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAFAsZ1c~,8MkVRvW0DmauKT3uAriKKf2yHzTPz5MP&bclid=1716449804&bctid=95645574). Apparently a man who was open carrying felt slighted in some degree after he held a door open for another man and didn't get a "Thank you." he waited for the man to exit the store and followed him - saying something to him. In response, the man turned and shot him. His assailant was off-camera; but you can see the man being shot.

It seems there are several good discussions that arise from this video.

1. It seems to me that this video has a lot to teach about conflict avoidance. The shooting victim made several bad choices in conflict deescalation, leading to him getting shot. He could have improved a great deal on his conflict avoidance techniques.

2. From the shooter's perspective, a man openly carrying a pistol waits for you outside a store and then confronts you in a convenience store parking lot at night. We are only hearing the open carry side of the story here; but I can understand how this might appear threatening to someone, especially if there are a few phrases or sentences that the shooting victim neglected to tell the news crew.

3. Once the open carry guy has been shot, he is in a gunfight where someone is using lethal force against him, yet he never attempts to draw his gun and is slow to realize he has been shot and seek cover. Looking at the video made me think that the shooting victim doesn't have the necessary mindset to be open carrying a pistol; but at the same time, given his actions prior to the shooting, shooting back could have conceivably made his situation even worse.

Brian Pfleuger
May 24, 2011, 10:04 AM
People who are inclined to create conflict should not be armed. Period.

You mention "deescalation" and I get your meaning but the truth is, there was no conflict to "deescalate". Not getting a "Thank You" for holding the door for someone is not a conflict. The OC guy not only didn't deescalate, he actively and intentionally created a conflict.

He who is armed has a greater responsibility to avoid conflict than he who is not armed.

In regards to the shooter, it's hard to imagine how the actually shooting could be justified. You're not allowed to shoot people for acting like idiots, whether they're armed or not, with a direct threat.

TailGator
May 24, 2011, 10:15 AM
How do you pick a good guy here? One guy creates an unnecessary confrontation over a perceived snub while open carrying, and the other guy shoots with no overt threat. I have little use for either type of belligerence. Sounds like bully vs bully.

MLeake
May 24, 2011, 10:18 AM
If we don't know what the OC guy said to the shooter, we can't say there was no overt threat. OP indicated we only have the OC guys' word for what was said.

A guy with a gun who says something threatening has means and opportunity; if he convinces a reasonable person that he has motive, then he has a big problem.

Spats McGee
May 24, 2011, 10:28 AM
Whether or not there was an overt threat to the shooter, it seems to me like the OCer really didn't think this through. Waiting outside an Atlanta convenience store after dark to confront someone while OCing. That's just asking for trouble.

C0untZer0
May 24, 2011, 10:35 AM
These incidents really bug me..

I am wondering if unstable people are predisposed to wanting to carry handguns.

This jackass Jimmy Rodgers is a nutcase. He was LOOKING for trouble, I mean "waiting" for someone to demand that they say thank you - while you're packing a gun? Pursuing someone and instigating a verbal confrontation with someone while you're armed? And honestly, I kind of sense that same weird Bernard Goetz mentality in some members who post here on this forum.

There are fear-based people who are riddled with anxiety, anger and frustration and firearms and fantasy scenarios are how they medicate their anxiety.

I just cringe when things like this happen because it certainly gives "ammo" to people who oppose OC or CC laws.

Jimmy Rodgers is a D-bag.

aarondhgraham
May 24, 2011, 10:39 AM
Waiting outside an Atlanta convenience store after dark to confront someone while OCing. That's just asking for trouble.

If I were confronted in any way by a person openly carrying a handgun,,,
I would feel more threatened at the moment than in a normal confrontation.

I mean any time I can see a weapon,,,
And it being carried by someone confronting me,,,
I'm fairly certain I could convince a DA or a Jury that I felt an imminent threat.

Maybe not,,,
But it goes a long way towards justification.

Many years ago in a land far far away,,,
I had an old man with a cane get in my face and verbally accost me.

He never threatened me by saying "I'm going to hit you with my cane.",,,
But he was waving it around, so I hit him as hard as I could,,,
A storeowner called the cops and I was taken into custody.

I was released an hour later because I was able to convince the watch commander that the man's waving of the cane in my face constituted an immediate threat that I had a right to respond to.

I can't comment on this particular scenario,,,
Because I don't have the details.

But I tend to believe that if you are armed,,,
You have a particular charge to be very polite in public.

JMHO

Aarond

C0untZer0
May 24, 2011, 10:41 AM
My gut reaction is that there should be a law to take guns away from D-bags like Jimmy Rodgers.

Something like - if you instigate a public disturbance, disorderly conduct or something like that, they pull your OC & CCW.

I know anti-gunners will be thinking something similar...

Here is a video of a guy who walks up on an officer's traffic stop. I don't know any police officers who want ANYONE to walk up or drive up on their traffic stop - let alone a jackass with a gun who thinks it's his job to "hold everybody accountable".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BwQQSo9YX4

These OC incidents are bad...

I started a thread a while ago about OC, and I've totally changed my mond about it. Years ago when I was in Arizona and a few guys walked into a coffee shop with sixguns it was no big deal. But, I've seen more evidence of jags doing really stupid things and OC is just way more complicated today than it was a few decades ago in just Arizona.

output
May 24, 2011, 10:52 AM
That is just an all-around bad situation to be in. He held a door for the man, and did not get a thank you…it was not the end of the world. He could have easily lost his life because of his ego.

As mentioned we don’t know any of the dialogue at all. I think this video shows just how important it is to avoid conflict altogether.

MLeake
May 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
C0untZer0, while I understand your point, the thing you have to be careful about when you wish for such things is this: As soon as such a law gets passed, anti's in office will try to pull your OC/CCW for "disorderly conduct" which could include political protests, and other things that the law's drafters probably never intended.

I prefer fewer laws, in general, and like those laws that do pass to be very clear and limited in scope.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
Geez - I was just at a class with Tom Givens, a superb instructor - I remember a comment by him. He quotes George Carlin - with something like this:

You know how stupid the average person is? Remember that half the people are stupider.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2011, 11:18 AM
I am wondering if unstable people are predisposed to wanting to carry handguns.



Absolutely. I think any honest mental health care professional or critical thinker would tell you so, Freudian or not.

It's biological in part, psychological in another, social in a third.

Thats why, under most circumstances, I look askance at some folks who open carry or at least feel my hinkymeter stir.

WildscreechallyouwantthatslifeAlaska ™©2002-2011

youngunz4life
May 24, 2011, 11:28 AM
to those who haven't watched and/or had trouble watching: use OP's link and then click on story 4th from the bottom

I have a serious problem with the way Jimmy Rogers handled himself here. He was the victim and one open carrying. 1st off, you can hold a door but if the man doesn't say thank you then so-be-it. not only did he get verbal with the man, he waited outside to verbally confront him again in a less than nice manner!? That is ridiculous especially since he is wearing a gun. He didn't deserve to be shot, but he made some errors here + his kids and wife almost lost a father & husband after a tim mcgraw concert. To further add, what is this guy a psychic or something?! There could be multiple reasons why the shooter didn't say thank you. Jimmy, you're not that important - don't do someone a favor if you are going to demand recognition.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2011, 11:33 AM
Knowing something about this - there is no evidence that gun ownership in general predicts any mental condition. There is some evidence that the serious and well trained gun owner may be lower in aggressive ideation.

Can a general population of folks generate nuts - sure. Will some be gun owners - sure. Will nuts act inappropriately with guns - sure. Will they act inappropriately with cars - sure - road rage, for example.

Are OC zealots more likely to be aggressive? That's a hypothesis and we don't know. Might there be a subset of those who want to wear an obvious gun to project an aggressive and macho demeanor - it's an hypothesis also.

Make a nice master's thesis for a psych, criminology, sociology, CJ type.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2011, 11:53 AM
it's an hypothesis also.



One borne out by biology, sociology and psychology though :)

This Board would be a wonderful subset of gun owners to analyze. We could set up an anonymous questionaire to analyze aggressive tendencies as well as views on open carry...hmmmm

:D

WilditcouldbeaseminalpieceofresearchAlaska ™©2002-2011

Frank Ettin
May 24, 2011, 12:11 PM
...That's a hypothesis and we don't know. Might there be a subset of those who want to wear an obvious gun to project an aggressive and macho demeanor - it's an hypothesis also.

Make a nice master's thesis for a psych, criminology, sociology, CJ type. Maybe some day you'd be in a position to encourage a promising graduate student in that direction.

Tom Servo
May 24, 2011, 01:11 PM
Imagine I'm the guy in the leather jacket.

It's late at night. I see a shambly-looking guy with a gun hanging off his hip in a crappy holster. He's probably got alcohol on his breath (coming back from a concert), and he's being belligerent. This isn't some paladin of 2nd Amendment activism exercising his rights; this is a dangerous weirdo.

Personally, I'd have stayed in the store and contacted the police.

Jimmy Rogers is an idiot, and he's fortunate to be alive. I'll get heat for this, but many of the people I've known to open carry do so to get some kind of reaction. If Mr. Rogers wasn't accosting people at convenience stores, he'd likely be out there harassing police officers.

There's a certain sort of aggressiveness there that just doesn't belong in the heart of someone carrying a deadly weapon.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 24, 2011, 01:22 PM
Well, I think Jimmy Rodgers should give some thought to not carrying a firearm. I see two big mental preparation issues here:

1. Guy says something to me as I am going in a store and then waits outside for me and begins to follow me? That's fairly predator like behavior, visible weapon or not. I don't think Jimmy Rodgers intended to be predatory; but he seemed to be blissfully unaware how others might perceive those actions or how the gun on his hip might magnify that.

It seems to me that if you are going to open carry, you've got to maintain a very high level of alertness, even higher than a CHL, since you not only must be aware of potential threats; but you must also be aware of how the gun may be causing people to perceive and react to you differently.

2. Mindset. Jimmy Rodgers was carrying a gun, presumably for self-defense, and got into a real, live gunfight. And then he seemed to forget he even had a gun once that happened. It may have worked out better for him in this particular circumstance; but he could have easily been dead with even a mildly more aggressive assailant.

If anything, it seems to me that open carry is more demanding on mindset and awareness issues than concealed carry.

440SAW
May 24, 2011, 02:02 PM
It is/was really not necessary to OC or get into a verbal conflict.
One person's opinion, CCW is far better because you don't stir it up and you do have surprise on your side, as proven by this little situation.
OC is fine when walking in the presence of bears, wolves and such; or if you are a LEO and can manage your personal interactions effectively.
That said, I am not for controlling it, just saying CCW is a better stance.

secret_agent_man
May 24, 2011, 02:02 PM
Jimmy Rodgers had the means, a gun, known to the shooter.

Rodgers had the opportunity, obviously.

Depending on what Rodgers said, he may have had the motivation to shoot the shooter. You know, for dissin' him. That Rodgers followed the shooter implies an ulterior motive besides having a conversation.

Consider if the shooter had been female how it might play out.
Lone armed and concealed female goes into store, guy with gun waits her out, then starts rambling nonsense and follows her. Female fires in self defense. No reasonable jury going to convict on those facts.

Starting to sound more like a justifiable shoot?

Mello2u
May 24, 2011, 02:28 PM
The video shows:
* That the shooter had a vehicle between the shooting victim and himself;
* the shooting victim with his hands in his pockets;
* that the victim made no furtive movement which could be reasonably interpreted as a threat.

Should the shooter be found he may be charged with:

§ 16-5-21. Aggravated assault

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:

(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;

(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; ...

Penalty: imprisonment for 3 to 20 years.

I think this is an opportunity for people to learn that you don't mess with strangers.

Tom Servo
May 24, 2011, 03:14 PM
Should the shooter be found he may be charged with Aggravated assault
He might be charged, but there's good chance he can convince a jury that he felt Rogers represented a threat to his life. Given the Rogers was armed, confrontational, and aggressive, that might not be a very hard sell at all.

It may have worked out better for him in this particular circumstance; but he could have easily been dead with even a mildly more aggressive assailant.
If Rogers had returned fire, resulting in injury or death, he could have ended up facing serious charges. Under Georgia law, it would have been very difficult for Rogers to plead self defense when he was the one instigating the confrontation.

he seemed to forget he even had a gun once that happened
I'm willing to guess Mr. Rogers has little or no training in firearms. That thing on his hip is a talisman or a symbol, not a weapon. He doesn't think of it that way, and it came back to bite him. He's not alone in that.

markj
May 24, 2011, 03:15 PM
he waited for the man to exit the store and followed him - saying something to him

2 wrongs dont make a right, both men were wrong here, jimmy shoulda let it go and left wit hhis family, the other guy shot him cause he was confronted by a guy wit ha gun. Hmmm and cops should not be allowed to pull when confronting open carry folks? LOL

Now I must wonder if gent number 2 would have shot gent number 1 if he had his gun concealed. I bet he didnt have it on his hip at that concert.

I open carry when hunting never when I go into town. I belive this would happen so it goes under cover cause there are idiots out there. Some are armed....

GregInAtl
May 24, 2011, 03:29 PM
To further add, what is this guy a psychic or something?!

Don't you mean psycho. I doubt he was a psychic

Brian Pfleuger
May 24, 2011, 03:29 PM
The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough in my world that this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.

MLeake
May 24, 2011, 03:33 PM
markj, there is a huge difference between lawful open carry, and open carry combined with aggressive, stalker type behavior. You know that, but I guess you can't resist stirring the pot.

Edit: PK, it does look bad if the shooter hasn't contacted LE.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 24, 2011, 03:37 PM
If Rogers had returned fire, resulting in injury or death, he could have ended up facing serious charges. Under Georgia law, it would have been very difficult for Rogers to plead self defense when he was the one instigating the confrontation.

Yes, in this particular scenario, it actually worked out well for him. However, looking at the video, I don't get the impression that a sudden, penetrating insight on Georgia self-defense law was what caused him not to shoot. I think your assessment concering firearms as magic talismans is probably on target.

I've done some goofy things in Force-on-Force training myself; but it still just amazes me to see someone who is in a gunfight and has been shot and has a gun on their hip, yet it never occurs to them to even put their hand on that gun. Also a good illustration of some of Cooper's points on mindset.

old bear
May 24, 2011, 03:45 PM
Mr. Rodgers forgot survival rule #1, Never start a fight you don't know you are going to win. I have no real idea of what happened that night, none of us do, as were not there when the fight happened, but from what little I do know I'm not feeling to sorry for Mr. Rodgers right now.

Brian Pfleuger
May 24, 2011, 04:04 PM
^^^^

I prefer "Never start a fight."

Tom Servo
May 24, 2011, 04:41 PM
I prefer "Never start a fight."
I was once told that the #1 rule for surviving a gunfight was not getting in a gunfight. I was also told early on that one is entitled to a gun or a temper, but not both.

it does look bad if the shooter hasn't contacted LE.
Sage piece of advice #3: always be the first one to present your side of the story to the police. While it doesn't tank the shooter's chance of pleading self-defense, it certainly doesn't help.

markj
May 24, 2011, 04:59 PM
and open carry combined with aggressive, stalker type behavior. You know that, but I guess you can't resist stirring the pot.


I said my piece, if you think it is stirring the pot you are wrong. Dont like my thoughts on this? That is your opinion. The guy oc shopulda left it alone.

Did the shooter shoot cause of OC or just to shoot someone? Got an answer? So far this is unanswered isnt it? We dont really know why he shot or do we?

BGutzman
May 24, 2011, 05:43 PM
For me OC or CC puts me in the same mode, I go the extra distance to be polite and non confrontational. If things even look like it might get heated I would rather leave than escolate.

I dont claim to be some perfect human but I will even ignore stuff that would normally result in at least some minor comment.

Its just not worth losing my right to carry for some crazyness...

Casimer
May 24, 2011, 05:52 PM
I'll get heat for this, but many of the people I've known to open carry do so to get some kind of reaction.

I have the suspicion that the recent evolution in the tactics of the OC 'movement' may be attracting this sort. Because they didn't seem to be as prominent until it became popular to instigate confrontations with the police and public. At least this is what's been evident in PA. When OC advocacy was about educating people in a less confrontational manner, the OC community was relatively low key. There were always a few kooks and zealots, but the OC guys were mostly just people who wanted to be able to open carry without getting hassled. The change in tactics seems to have attracted an element that's more interested in showboating.

What I find funny about these guys is that though they'll tell you that we're living in a police state with storm trooping cops waiting to kill you at the drop of a hat, they never seem prepared for what happens to them when they do provoke a confrontation.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2011, 05:58 PM
I was once told that the #1 rule for surviving a gunfight was not getting in a gunfight. I was also told early on that one is entitled to a gun or a temper, but not both.


Truer words have never been spoken

My "mindset" (god I hate that word) is to run, or beg for my life, or do anything I can to avoid confrontation.:D...

WildijusthadicecreamandthusamhappyAlaska ™©2002-2011

Hook686
May 24, 2011, 06:48 PM
I open carry when hunting never when I go into town. I belive this would happen so it goes under cover cause there are idiots out there. Some are armed....

yup and some open carry while hunting, then conceal when in town. One never knows really who one is crossing paths with ... gotta be careful out there.

Eghad
May 24, 2011, 06:59 PM
There has to be alcohol involved in this for such behavior. As my old Platoon Sgt used to say you go out get drunk smell your breathe and you think its ape crap and you start acting liking Tarzan. Then the trouble begins.

Tom Servo
May 24, 2011, 07:15 PM
The change in tactics seems to have attracted an element that's more interested in showboating.
For awhile, open carry wasn't even called "open carry." Some folks just didn't take pains to cover up their guns in some circumstances. It was never a big deal either way. If you jump back a few years on the forums, you'll see scant mention of the practice.

About three years ago, I noticed the twentysomethings throwing around phrases like "in your face." That's when a lot of local businesses starting banning guns from their premises. It's also when I started hearing a great deal of grumbling from law enforcement, who were finding themselves being baited by the open carry crowd.

I've spoken with two of those guys who've suffered self-inflicted negligent gunshot wounds this year alone. For many of these guys, it's not a weapon; it's an adornment for freaking out the squares.

I'm trying really hard not to hate open carry, but stuff like this makes it very difficult.

MLeake
May 24, 2011, 07:34 PM
Comparing this incident to the Fiorino case in Philadelphia, which some seem to be doing, is ridiculous.

Mr. James
May 24, 2011, 09:28 PM
Thank you, MLeake, well said.

For me OC or CC puts me in the same mode, I go the extra distance to be polite and non confrontational. If things even look like it might get heated I would rather leave than escalate.

Amen, brother. The last thing an OC or CC should want is any kind of confrontation. Hell, I'm with Wild - I'll turn and run and scream like a twelve-year-old girl at a Justin Bieber concert if it'll avoid me having to return fire. I'm willing to take that grief if that's the way it plays, but I'll do everything in my meager powers to avoid it.

This guy's behavior is simply incomprehensible to me. If he lets someone merge in front of him in traffic and doesn't get a thank-you wave, does he follow the guy home and demand an apology? Sheesh. Dude, leave the firearm at home until you get your head right.

Casimer
May 24, 2011, 10:27 PM
This guy's behavior is simply incomprehensible to me.

I have to wonder whether the fact that he was OC'ing is what gave him the 'courage' to press the matter.

Honestly if I were to have come out of that store to find some scruffy guy with a pistol waiting for me, who wants me to thank him, and then follows me to my car with his hands at the ready - I'd probably have assumed that he intended to attack me. I hope that I'd have kept my cool and not shot him. But consider that the shooter was otherwise faced with an approaching threat as he gets into the car and tries to pull away. There was a woman in the car, so her safety is a factor as well. It's not reasonable to expect that someone is going to recognize that this guy is just some idiot poser. His behavior was like a textbook prelude to an attack.

thump_rrr
May 24, 2011, 10:51 PM
I'm glad to see that most people here are logical and rational and see this the same way it appears to me.

secret_agent_man
May 24, 2011, 11:02 PM
The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough...this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.

It doesn't necessarily follow that running away indicates guilt. The guy might have had paper on him, been a formerly convicted felon, etc and didn't want to get caught with a gun. But that does not change the fact he shot in self defense, assuming he did.

Ringolevio
May 25, 2011, 12:42 AM
The very last phase of getting my current CHL was an "interview" with a sheriff's deputy. I got the distinct feeling that it was an informal psychological screening, and that had I exhibited any instability, bad temper, hotdog/vigilante tendencies, or any other indication that I had the wrong motivation for wanting to carry, my application would have been denied.

Similarly, I'll bet that there are those who, while in the CC class, reveal themselves to be psychologically unfit for the heavy responsibility of being armed.

But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse.

Double Naught Spy
May 25, 2011, 07:26 AM
After seeing the video, I have to think that the shootee is an idiot. Demanding compensation (thanks) for a volunteered job not requested is moronic. I have to wonder if he would have done the same thing had he not had the gun on his hip.

3. Once the open carry guy has been shot, he is in a gunfight where someone is using lethal force against him, yet he never attempts to draw his gun and is slow to realize he has been shot and seek cover

I believe the shootee was in a "shooting" and not in a "gunfight" given that a gunfight involves participants on both sides shooting.

People who are inclined to create conflict should not be armed. Period.
Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.

Brian Pfleuger
May 25, 2011, 07:39 AM
Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.

All rights have limits. There are a lot of people who shouldn't carry guns. This guy just found out why. I know a guy who seems civil enough until you disagree with him. He can't have a conversation with anyone on a subject on which they disagree without blowing his top, no matter how polite and calm the other person remains or how insignificant the issue. He has come to blows with folks several times in his life over PERCEIVED slights... "DID YOU JUST ROLL YOUR EYES AT ME?!"

He should NOT carry a gun. Neither should the dude in the video. That situation was one totally of his own creation. People who tend to create violence should not have tools of violence.

Deja vu
May 25, 2011, 08:16 AM
How do you pick a good guy here? One guy creates an unnecessary confrontation over a perceived snub while open carrying, and the other guy shoots with no overt threat. I have little use for either type of belligerence. Sounds like bully vs bully.

I agree if you are armed you should do every thing you can to avoid a conflict... not start one.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 25, 2011, 08:59 AM
But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse.

The problem with such a screening process is that it has historically been abused. Instead of being used to screen out people who shouldn't have a gun, it has been used to generate campaign funds (only those who donate cash to the official in charge of approval turn out to be psychologically stable enough) and deny people who did have a genuine need; but couldn't navigate the byzantine network of laws.

This is one of the major reasons shall-issue concealed carry has been so popular. All of the criteria are objective. If you meet them, you get the license.

Personally, I am of the opinion that as long as there are consequences for bad behavior, lack of regulation is easily the lesser evil of the two.

He should NOT carry a gun. Neither should the dude in the video. That situation was one totally of his own creation. People who tend to create violence should not have tools of violence.

I think that is probably a fair assessment of Jimmy Rodgers. At the same time, I think an occasional Jimmy Rodgers is a smaller overall problem than the previous practice of eliminating the right to self-defense through burdensome regulation. I am also not in favor of solutions that seek to preemptively limit rights based on what you might do instead of what you have actually done.

Personally, I think concealed carry demands a higher level of self-discipline and awareness than unarmed carry. I think that open carry demands an even higher level of discipline and awareness than concealed carry. But if the prospect of imminent death or serious injury isn't enough to get people to take that seriously, I don't think additional regulation will solve the problem.

Brian Pfleuger
May 25, 2011, 09:17 AM
I think that is probably a fair assessment of Jimmy Rodgers. At the same time, I think an occasional Jimmy Rodgers is a smaller overall problem than the previous practice of eliminating the right to self-defense through burdensome regulation. I am also not in favor of solutions that seek to preemptively limit rights based on what you might do instead of what you have actually done.


Absent a criminal record, there's nothing saying he CAN'T carry a gun, he just SHOULDN'T carry a gun. It's a bit of a Catch-22, in that a little personal insight would tell someone that their temper should preclude their carrying a gun, yet the same general mindset that leads to the anger management issues will generally also preclude any real personal insight.

It's the same thing in many areas of life.... the people who are most dangerous to themselves on a motorcycle are the same people who lack the insight to realize that they are dangerous to themselves, so they ride anyway.

Spats McGee
May 25, 2011, 09:17 AM
Interesting perspective on a pro gun forum where folks often consider carrying a gun to be a natural right, God-given right, and/or Constitutional right.
But I think that most of us here recognize that the excercise of that right also carries some responsibilities. I have a right to arm myself, in order to defend against an attack. If I choose to exercise that right, I have a responsibility to take (at least) reasonable measures to avoid exposing the innocent or unwary to the very real risks associated with firearms.

What I find interesting is that there is a solid consensus that the OCer was out of line in the course of action he took. The whole deal could have been avoided if Jimmy Rodgers had simply climbed into his car and gone about his business.

Someone commented on road rage a few posts back. When I first read the OP and watched the video, I was also reminded of road rage incidents where someone was cut off, slighted, what have you. One of my pet peeves is when I let someone in front of me in traffic, but don't get so much as a wave. Would I follow them home to tell them they should have waved? Absolutely not.

BlueTrain
May 25, 2011, 09:21 AM
I agree completely. Think about how voting used to be restricted in the past and sometimes still is. Efforts were made, legally or otherwise, to keep certain people from voting. Same with guns and I suspect those kinds of things started after the Civil War in some states.

It is something of a dilemma. How do you keep people from carrying (or even having) a gun (or voting) who you think are irresponsible, rash, prone to violence, etc., etc., without restricting other people's rights? I don't know and it can be a slippery slope. It isn't a new problem either. Gaylord mentioned it in his book fifty years ago. We sort of go through the same thing with driving with not much to show for it. By the time a teenager is old enough to get their license, they have been sitting beside one of their parents picking up their habits and attitudes for 15 years already. Driver's Ed is hopeless at that point.

Sometimes it is mentioned how difficult it is to get a permit to own a firearm in, say, Germany. Well, it is and moreover, it is very difficult to get a driver's license there, too. But you can start drinking earlier.

Ringolevio
May 25, 2011, 09:44 AM
Bartholomew Roberts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringolevio
"But where OC is permitted by law, there is no such screening process. So there's no way to filter out guys who want to carry because they still have something to prove, or worse."

The problem with such a screening process is that it has historically been abused. Instead of being used to screen out people who shouldn't have a gun, it has been used to generate campaign funds (only those who donate cash to the official in charge of approval turn out to be psychologically stable enough) and deny people who did have a genuine need; but couldn't navigate the byzantine network of laws.

This is one of the major reasons shall-issue concealed carry has been so popular. All of the criteria are objective. If you meet them, you get the license.

Personally, I am of the opinion that as long as there are consequences for bad behavior, lack of regulation is easily the lesser evil of the two.

Thank you, Mr. Roberts, for that perspective. While I wish there were a way to filter out the psychologically unfit, you are correct that it would invite abuse and more regulation. While I fancy myself a Libertarian, I sounded like anything but.

gearhounds
May 25, 2011, 09:45 AM
Gun or no gun, waiting outside to confront someone that didn't thank you for an act of goodwill is not only a bad decision, it defeats the purpose of doing a good deed for the sake of doing it. We've all had it happen at some point or another, and what do a majority of us do? We walk away thinking "jerk", but walk away nonetheless.

secret_agent_man
May 25, 2011, 10:23 AM
Further reflection on this even has caused me to conclude the shootee is probably a sociopath, and the shooter is a psychopath. And the twain did meet, with consequences.

Wildalaska
May 25, 2011, 11:31 AM
It's a bit of a Catch-22, in that a little personal insight would tell someone that their temper should preclude their carrying a gun, yet the same general mindset that leads to the anger management issues will generally also preclude any real personal insight.



And there it is right there. Whats the solution?

With every right comes responsibility. The answer, constitutionally permitted, lies between the screeching of the fringes.

WildimapermitbelieverAlaska ™©2002-2011

Brian Pfleuger
May 25, 2011, 11:37 AM
The solution would be Darwinian, sans the outside interference in the process. ;)

I'm a believer in permitting too but I don't think it's stops this guy or most like him. Even in "repressive" NY, I know plenty of bar-fighting, road raging, tool throwing types who have permits to carry.

Vanya
May 25, 2011, 11:42 AM
I haven't been able to watch the video -- can't get the link to work -- but I've Googled this story, and none of the print stories I've found has mentioned the fact that Mr. Rodgers (his name seems to be Jay, by the way, not "Jimmy") was openly carrying a gun. Without that piece of information, the whole thing plays very differently, and he is clearly seen as a victim, albeit one who behaved very stupidly. (If anyone has a link to a print story in which his carrying a gun is mentioned, I'd be curious to see it.)

So, even for us gun folks, his displaying a holstered gun changes the equation to one in which the man who shot him may have acted in reasonable self-defense.

I do agree with those who've said that leaving the scene and failing to contact police pretty well negates this. But, how interesting: although many of us support, in principle, the idea that OC shouldn't be perceived as threatening, we're quick to recognize that when push comes to shove, it reasonably may be.

Putting on my (tastefully autographed) Miss Manners hat for a moment: Miss M. is always pointing out that it's exceedingly bad form to correct the manners of an adult. I doubt that this is the sort of outcome she had in mind, but she's quite right...
Gun or no gun, waiting outside to confront someone that didn't thank you for an act of goodwill is not only a bad decision, it defeats the purpose of doing a good deed for the sake of doing it. We've all had it happen at some point or another, and what do a majority of us do? We walk away thinking "jerk", but walk away nonetheless.
This, too. There's nothing "courteous" about an act that's performed with the expectation of a return; at best, it's a business transaction, and at worst, it's a form of extortion.

MLeake
May 25, 2011, 11:55 AM
On a personal level, I don't think Rogers should carry, because I think he's an idiot.

But I agree with Bartholomew Roberts. Government restrictions can easily be abused and become onerous. I'm in favor of constitutional carry, but I am also in favor of penalties for stupid behavior.

Mr. Rogers, should he continue this kind of thing, will likely end up facing assault, disturbance of the peace, communicating terroristic threats, etc as future charges. Most of those could impact his continued right to carry, and that's really the way the system should work.

If we could legislate against people we just thought were immature, stupid, or Walter Mitty types owning guns (or driving cars, or flying planes, etc), who would make the determination? I'm sure there are people out there who think I'm an idiot, and most people can probably say the same about others' perceptions of themselves.

Brian Pfleuger
May 25, 2011, 12:01 PM
So, even for us gun folks, his displaying a holstered gun changes the equation to one in which the man who shot him may have acted in reasonable self-defense.... interesting: although many of us support, in principle, the idea that OC shouldn't be perceived as threatening, we're quick to recognize that when push comes to shove, it reasonably may be.

It's all in the context, says I. A man with a holstered gun is no more a threat to me than a man with a shovel is to my lawn....until he starts screaming about digging a hole...

MLeake
May 25, 2011, 12:04 PM
As PK said, as have others: OC requires a calm demeanor, and avoidance of conflict. I don't worry about the guy I see with a holstered weapon; I do worry about the guy with the holstered weapon who is ranting or acting like a lunatic.

Wildalaska
May 25, 2011, 12:13 PM
If we could legislate against people we just thought were immature, stupid, or Walter Mitty types owning guns (or driving cars, or flying planes, etc), who would make the determination? I'm sure there are people out there who think I'm an idiot, and most people can probably say the same about others' perceptions of themselves.

Well arent there indicia of anger problems?

Like...like...hey I know.... DV convictions?:D

WildorotherassualtivebehaviorAlaska ™©2002-2011

Vanya
May 25, 2011, 12:39 PM
As PK said, as have others: OC requires a calm demeanor, and avoidance of conflict. I don't worry about the guy I see with a holstered weapon; I do worry about the guy with the holstered weapon who is ranting or acting like a lunatic.
I absolutely agree. But:
The video shows:
* That the shooter had a vehicle between the shooting victim and himself;
* the shooting victim with his hands in his pockets;
* that the victim made no furtive movement which could be reasonably interpreted as a threat.
By this description, Mr. Rodgers doesn't seem to have been "acting like a lunatic." What he did was stupid, rude, and could easily have been construed as hostile, but it's hard for me to see the behavior described above as a lethal threat, with or without the presence of a holstered gun.

It seems to me that one of the things going on in this thread is that many of us feel betrayed by Mr. Rodgers' actions, as casting all of us in a bad light. That makes it tempting to throw him off the bus, as it were -- or under it -- by suggesting that he's too irresponsible to carry a gun, or even that he may have been shot in justifiable self-defense.

Was it stupid to start a confrontation in this way? Of course. Does it show bad judgment? Heck yes. Did his actions rise to the level of assault, or anything else that would justify taking away his 2nd Amendment rights? Don't think so.

Unfortunately, defending those rights does, at times, mean supporting their exercise by people whose behavior we don't like.
If we could legislate against people we just thought were immature, stupid, or Walter Mitty types owning guns (or driving cars, or flying planes, etc), who would make the determination?
Exactly.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 25, 2011, 12:41 PM
So, even for us gun folks, his displaying a holstered gun changes the equation to one in which the man who shot him may have acted in reasonable self-defense.

Well, I think at least part of the issue is that Rogers is displaying behavior that looks very much like predatory behavior. He waits for the guy outside the convenience store and then follows him as he exits, attempting to engage him verbally over what appears to be an unlikely or odd issue.

If somebody displays that same behavior with me late at night outside a convenience store, I am likely to consider that person a potential threat and be watching them very closely to see if they produce a weapon while at the same time trying to put some distance between us.

If you run around doing the same things predators too, people may perceive you as a predator. Since many people already equate a gun with predatory behavior by people, if you are open carrying, you've got to be especially sensitive to that.

Vanya
May 25, 2011, 01:20 PM
BR, I completely agree, and I'd react the same way to anyone who behaved in such a way. My point is just that once you take the holstered gun out of the equation -- and it doesn't feature in any of the print news stories I've read about this incident -- Mr. Rodgers is in fact perceived as a victim, and not as someone who behaved in a predatory way and in any sense got what he deserved.

So there are a couple of possibilities: first, that the mere presence of a visible holstered weapon really does elevate the "threat level" posed by the person carrying it. I find it odd that many people here seem to accept that, as it flies in the face of a great deal of rhetoric about Constitutional carry.

Another possibility is that it's somehow a "threat multiplier" -- that if someone who's open carrying behaves in a way that's utterly non-threatening, the presence of the gun will have no effect on how people perceive him.

If one believes the first, open carry by anyone is problematic.

If one believes the second, it implies, I think, that open carry should be practiced only by "poster children," those who will behave at all times as "ambassadors" for Second Amendment rights -- and in the real world, that ain't gonna happen.

So it's a bit of a dilemma for us, isn't it?

markj
May 25, 2011, 03:17 PM
Gun or no gun, waiting outside to confront someone that didn't thank you for an act of goodwill is not only a bad decision, it defeats the purpose of doing a good deed for the sake of doing it

Thats what Isaid, then was accused of stirring the pot.


Why just this morning I held the door open for a gent I did not know, he said thank you, I said have a great day sir. End of story. If he had gone in without aword, I would have left tthinkinghe had something important on his mind. If I had a gun or not.

Now if I had forgot to say thanks and he came up to me, Iwould whip out a buck and tip him telling him Vaya con dios El Hombre and left it at that....

B. Lahey
May 25, 2011, 04:15 PM
The link doesn't work anymore, all I could find is the story and video below. No mention of Rodgers carrying a firearm, and they say police have not been able to recover the video of the shooting.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/27880751/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

He was giving the guy a lesson on manners, apparently.:rolleyes:

Anyone have a functioning link to the original video?

gearhounds
May 25, 2011, 04:26 PM
Open the link, and look at the video links to the right. It's about half way down the list. The direct link automatically go's to the newest video, apparently.

DAS9mm
May 25, 2011, 05:33 PM
The fact that the shooter ran and is hiding is proof enough in my world that this wasn't a defensive shooting. Defenders call for help. Criminals hide from the police.

He might have other reasons to hide from the police. Short of someone kicking my front door in, I'm not sure what constitutes eminent deadly threat than armed a-hole coming at me. To quote Southpark, "he's coming right for me!"

output
May 25, 2011, 05:45 PM
Try this: http://www.wsbtv.com/video/27877916/index.html

doofus47
May 25, 2011, 05:55 PM
Why is it there are so many shades of crazy but they don't ever seem to make a rainbow...

Brian Pfleuger
May 25, 2011, 06:02 PM
He might have other reasons to hide from the police. Short of someone kicking my front door in, I'm not sure what constitutes eminent deadly threat than armed a-hole coming at me. To quote Southpark, "he's coming right for me!"

Reasons more important than having shot someone?

I think not.

thump_rrr
May 25, 2011, 08:03 PM
Here's a direct link to the shooting video http://bcove.me/nyqsde5g

Tom Servo
May 25, 2011, 09:46 PM
Reasons more important than having shot someone? I think not.
Who knows? Perhaps the guy doesn't know the law and thinks he'll be charged. Maybe he was too freaked out to think clearly at the time, and thought that calling the police after the fact would make him look like the aggressor.

Frankly, if I'd been that guy, Mr. Rogers' wife and kids would have seen him get a faceful of pepper spray, followed by being disarmed and arrested. Judging from the "poor me" tone he takes on the interview tape, it looks like he's considering himself the victim. I hope he'll learn a lesson from this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

MLeake
May 25, 2011, 10:33 PM
markj, I thought your original post was justifying the behavior of Philadelphia PD toward open carriers. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

TailGator
May 26, 2011, 11:12 AM
Few if any have defended Mr. Rogers, but some have offered a lukewarm defense of the shooter, saying that Rogers may have uttered some threatening words that justified the shooting. I would submit for consideration the fact that the shooter went back to his car for the gun, and my opinion that if he could go back to his car to get a weapon he could just as easily have gone back to his car and driven away from whatever threat Mr. Rogers made.

Like I said a couple of days ago, no good guys here, bully vs bully.

Vanya
May 26, 2011, 11:46 AM
I would submit for consideration the fact that the shooter went back to his car for the gun, and my opinion that if he could go back to his car to get a weapon he could just as easily have gone back to his car and driven away from whatever threat Mr. Rogers made.
Exactly. It seems very much a case of jerk meets bigger jerk...

I can't help wondering whether Mr. Rodgers would have felt so confident about administering a "manners lesson" had he not been carrying; or (perhaps worse) if he thought that by holding a door for someone while carrying, he was being that "poster boy," and so felt that much more entitled to have his "courtesy" acknowledged. Purely speculative, I admit...

But I do think it's worth keeping in mind that there's a lot of space between stupidly getting in someone's face and posing a lethal threat. The shooter could indeed have driven away; and is there any evidence that he even noticed that Mr. Rodgers was carrying?

Ringolevio
May 26, 2011, 12:43 PM
One of the major points stressed in CCW class (and which every armed citizen -- CC or OC -- should fully grasp) is that carrying a gun doesn't make you a freelance cop.

Mr. Rodgers should have also grasped that it doesn't make you Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt, either.

Those of us who carry should strive to be conscientious about our own manners. Remember the old saying, "An armed society is a polite society."

(I also think we should strive to wear a smile and to laugh off even an intentional insult or provocation.)

But trying to give others a "lesson in manners" brings to mind another old saying: "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."

And how do we know how "politely" Rodgers delivered his "manners lesson"?

markj
May 26, 2011, 01:49 PM
markj, I thought your original post was justifying the behavior of Philadelphia PD toward open carriers. If I misunderstood, I apologize

Isnt that a different thread altogether? In this thread Isaw a guy open a door, get no responce from the guy went in he waits and follows guy saying something I couldnt read, guy OC gets shot by guy he held a door open for.

When idiots collide?

In the other thread I said if a cop pulls a gun and tells me to get down Iwill comply immediatly no matter what I think is right. Settle up later with a lawyer if need be but not on a street where the cop can shoot me.

Then folks went nutso, some wanted to dive behind cover and shoot back.....
I will always comply with an armed policeman. I wont OC in town cause it upsets folks and a cop may be taken away from somethjing important to question my OC. The permit allows for a concealment, I do so. Why waste a cops time? Why argue with a cop has a gun on you? I dont see that as being productive behavior.

So I can say that this shows OC sure dont help a guy out in a SD situation. The element of surprise was not his.....

MLeake
May 26, 2011, 03:39 PM
I wasn't referring to arguing with a cop, nor advocating doing so. I was referring to your reference to the cop's approach with gun drawn solely due to OC (in the Fiorino case).

Rogers got himself into his problem due to his behavior and demeanor, which may very well have been amplified in the shooter's mind (we won't know unless and until they find the shooter) by the fact that Rogers was being aggressive and displaying stalker behaviors while openly carrying.

Rogers: waits outside convenience store, offended over lack of thanks, and follows shooter to car.

Fiorino: walking between his business and his vehicle.

I can understand a person feeling threatened in one scenario; I cannot in the other. I don't know if the shooter was justified, because we don't know what Rogers was saying or how the shooter perceived his behavior. I do know that Sgt Daugherty responded solely to the gun, and not Fiorino's demeanor or behavior, when he made the initial decision to both draw his gun AND aim it at Fiorino.

Nilloc
May 26, 2011, 03:50 PM
There's no way on earth I'd ever stop at a convenient store in Southwest Atlanta in the middle of the night for anything.....much less then demand a "thank you" for someone who I held the door open for. :eek:

C0untZer0
May 26, 2011, 04:41 PM
My thoughts on OC are completely changing as I see more and more people do stupid things while OC.

This whole thing with a bunch of OCers going to a Starbucks in California wearing unloaded handguns. What did that accomplish except motivate the politicians in California to propose bills outlawing open carry.

C5rider
May 26, 2011, 05:16 PM
Tonight! On a security camera near you! WHEN IDIOTS COLLIDE!!!!

I see four main facts:

Grungy guy sits outside and waits for you. Then follows you toward your car wearing a firearm. Demanding that you say, "Thank you for his kindness of all things!" -1 for OC guy.

Leather jacket guy could have simply said, "Sorry, Thanks!" and we'd never have heard about this incident or heard of either one of these guys. -1 for the leather jacket guy.

LJG LEAVES the scene. This tells me he doesn't care that he just shot someone or, he's possibly one of those guys who we all strive to protect our "legal" guns from. -1

The fact that OC guy never even reached for his gun (whether or not he ever draws it) tells me that he wears it to be seen, not used. May be why CCW doesn't appeal to him. -1

The way I see it, this whole scenario is frought with examples of what NOT to do.

I know this will not bode well but, the way I see it, the best we could hope for is for each of these guys' wives to beat the living stuffing out of each of them for the stunts they pulled and put a little bit if maturity in each of them! I'd be of the mindset that if THAT were the case, and they each learned their lessons, I say, "Case closed!"

I'm with WildAlaska, ALWAYS obey the hincky-meter!

langenc
May 26, 2011, 07:33 PM
I only read a few posts.

I wonder how the shoote would have been taken by the shooter and all commenting here if he had left his gun home??

secret_agent_man
May 26, 2011, 07:56 PM
There's no way on earth I'd ever stop at a convenient store in Southwest Atlanta in the middle of the night

That really hits the nail on the head.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 27, 2011, 07:55 AM
So if you are the "No thank you" guy in this scenario, how would you handle such an approach by someone open-carrying? Obviously, the first thing I would want to do is apologize and try to deescalate the situation - and I think most here would agree with that approach though.

Say that isn't effective though and the person wants to continue the conversation - do you turn your back on them and walk away? If you stay there, at what point do you decide there might be an imminent threat. From an open holster, even a relatively untrained person can draw and shoot in about 2 seconds. Let's say you are keyed up and highly observant - it is going to take most people about 0.2 sec to notice, process and respond to an action even in a state of high alertness. That doesn't leave a lot of a time buffer for decision making.

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2011, 08:21 AM
He's at a convenience store. It shouldn't take but 10 seconds or less to get back to his car. Verbally make efforts to deescalate without ever stopping on the way back to the car. Get in as soon as you get there, drive away.

secret_agent_man
May 27, 2011, 09:05 AM
and the person wants to continue the conversation

I have not seen the video, but I suspect this was not a "conversation," but more of a confrontation with a nut case.

Wagonman
May 27, 2011, 01:49 PM
I am very much against OC. I get paid to OC. The higher state of vigilance required to open carry frankly isn't worth it for citizens or off-duty Coppers. I mention off duty Coppers just to be clear I don't have a do what I say not what I do attitude. The main thing I do while on duty would get you pinched for brandishing. When I am going through crowds I hold on to top of gun and release button to deter possible drunken encounters.

I am 110% in favor of RKBA... wish Illinois would pass CCW legislation, spoke out vehemently when the president of my union came out as not pro- CCW, even so much as playing the "don't worry guys, we can carry off-duty" card. So my Bona fides are in order.

markj
May 27, 2011, 03:03 PM
So if you are the "No thank you" guy in this scenario, how would you handle such an approach by someone open-carrying?

I posted this before. I would pull a buck out of my front pocket (cash for tipping pocket) handed it to him and say Vaya con dios El Hombre and walked away from him.

That gun he so proudly displayed did nothing in this SD situation, it may have escalated the entire thing.

Mleake, the PA guy was doing what he had a right to do, the chief of police has issued a directive to his personell to do this I dont think it is right to do this to a guy OCing but it is done and will be done. So why not conceal it and avoid the confrontation you know will come if you OC? People just dont like seeing a gun strapped on a persone hip. Like CA it could backfire and be made against the law.

I see other "rights" being taken away by legislation, Denver CO has a new law on modified motorcycle exhaust systems.

Tread litely or the "rights" you so love may be taken away by a simple vote. We have a thing about the majority rules not the minority altho I see the minority getting the say so a lot more theses days...

spacemanspiff
May 27, 2011, 03:11 PM
My "mindset" (god I hate that word) is to run, or beg for my life, or do anything I can to avoid confrontation
But how will you prove that you have gargantuan manparts to the rest of the flock?? The females will never know you are genetically superior unless you strut your stuff like a peacock.

Wagonman
May 28, 2011, 09:26 AM
Spliff.... I just sprayed coffee on iPad :D

Aguila Blanca
May 28, 2011, 10:02 AM
The original video seems to have gone away. The link now takes me to a video about IRS forms or some such nonsense.

Does anyone know if the original video is still available somewhere? Google fu is weak ...

CMichael
May 28, 2011, 10:28 AM
I can't find the video.

Vanya
May 28, 2011, 10:55 AM
Try the link posted by thump_rrr: http://bcove.me/nyqsde5g. It works for me.

Now that I've seen it, it's hard for me to see anything in Mr. Rodgers' actions, at least (granted that we don't know what he may have said), that would justify a response involving deadly force. He pretty much stands there with his hands in his pockets until he's shot.

Doc Intrepid
May 28, 2011, 11:11 AM
Rude behavior is nearly an epidemic in US society today. It has become the 'new normal'.

It's difficult to differentiate intentionally belligerent behavior from unintentional and mindless rudeness because the latter is so prevalent.

Anyone who carries a firearm and who feels even remotely slighted when faced with rude behavior - including being flipped off while driving, or cussed out as well as simply having courtesy remain unacknowledged - ought not to be carrying a firearm. It's a sure bet that you will often be "dis-respected" in one way or another, and perhaps several times a day - and if you take it upon yourself to educate everyone who disrespects you, you'll have little time to do anything else. ;)

People who carry guns need to have thicker skins.


I've often voiced the opinion that if we ever lose the right to carry firearms in the US it won't be because of the anti's - it will be because of bad behavior and poor decision-making on the part of those who carry.

Doc Intrepid
May 28, 2011, 11:30 AM
"My thoughts on OC are completely changing as I see more and more people do stupid things while OC.

This whole thing with a bunch of OCers going to a Starbucks in California wearing unloaded handguns. What did that accomplish except motivate the politicians in California to propose bills outlawing open carry."...hits the nail on the head.

After reviewing articles published in papers nationwide, I'm having a hard time coming up with any practical advantage to open carry. I simply don't see what it accomplishes. It does not deter crimes against the carrier - and now adversaries know you are armed; it is a matter for concern for most civilians who don't carry and wonder why the carrier is armed, and what his intentions are; and it frequently provides an advantage to our political adversaries.

Open carry is provocative to most of the rest of society. Just because something is legal does not make it wise to do it.

Wagonman
May 28, 2011, 12:49 PM
Doc, you make logical, well thought out, and cogent points.........knock it off ;)

Doc Intrepid
May 28, 2011, 01:12 PM
:D



Okay!