explaining to an anti gun person

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by ; FyredUp

Is this really how this quote is supposed to go? Because if it is I guess it seems actually kind of stupid to me.

FyredUp,

Since OL'MONN has not answered and I am here, I think I will presume to answer for him. I hope it's OK.

I believe that is how the quote is supposed to go. The scenario that makes it understandable is this:

Gunman comes in and shoots someone. OL'MONN responds to contain the situation (either with a gunshot or by forcing the perpetrator to stop at gunpoint). It is unlikely any armed civilian would be the one to pull a gun first.

for example, Luby's Cafe, October 16, 1991. George Hennard drove a car through the front of Luby's and started shooting people. If Suzanne Gratia had been armed, she would have been able to shoot Mr Hennard from cover before his tally ran up to 23 dead (her testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1994).

Another case in point. Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007. Even if everyone on campus had been armed, the first victim, or possibly two, would probably have been killed. By the time Seung-Hui Cho got to the Engineering building (Norris Hall), and certainly after he killed the first person there, (when everyone was climbing out windows and barring doors) if that one teacher who blocked a classroom door with his own body had been armed, Cho could have certainly been stopped rather than gone on to kill two dozen additional people (total 32 plus himself). I am being pessimistic in estimating that he might have been able to kill 6 in Norris hall before being stopped by an armed civilian.

The armed civilian, if not the first one shot is in the best position to be the second one to fire a bullet. That one in self-defense, aimed, from cover and bring an end to whatever evil is being done.

Lost sheep

[Johnc]

If the bad guy see's your gun he's just gonna come up behind you and put one in your head so you won't be trouble to him. Then he will take your gun as it's probably better than his. CCW is concealed.

Years ago, I worked directly next to a business where the manager thought it was ok to print, brandish and occasionally late in the day, open carry.

His store was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight.

The first person to loose his weapon...... You guessed it, the manager. No shots were fired, the robber just walked up to him, calmly placed a gun to the managers head and took his weapon.

To add insult to injury, the Police pulled his TARGET permit. He did not even have a business carry.

To review, he lost his dignity, his gun, his permit and succeeded in putting another gun on the streets for the bad guys. It could have been worse, he could have lost his life.

OC= Inviting trouble. Just keep it concealed.

[Warchild]

I open carry at the range and during training only. No one is going to pay you hazard pay for carrying open so there is no valid reasoning behind it.

[B.N.Real]

Simply say,

"I'm recognize you are uncomfortable."

"I assure you I am a legal carrier of this handgun and it will only be used to save someones life from a criminals attack."

"Have a nice day."

It helps if you are carrying a dark blued snubbie as opposed as a brilliant stainless full sized six inch barrel 44 magnum as well.

I have carried a snub 38 open carry Ultralight and people never see it 3/4 of the time.

I would think a small semi auto in black stainless or blue matte finish would get the same reaction.

Heck,a Ruger LCP or a KelTec P3at in a small side belt holster would likely be missed as a pager with the right holster being used.

But legally so,enough of the gun has to show to be legal.

[#18indycolts]

Give me 100 liberal anti-gunners a day

and I'll give you 100 conservative anti gunners to go along with that.

[stevieboy]

I live in a state (Georgia) where a carry permit permits both open and concealed carry. I have a permit and I wouldn't dream of carrying openly. It's simply a way to attract attention to yourself and, in a commercial establishment, to raise suspicions as to what you're up to. I would imagine that walking into a convenience store at night with a gun strapped to your hip is likely to make the clerk nervous at a minimum and might cause a really dangerous unintended reaction.

As for the reaction of an anti-gun friend or relative, my thought is that the best way to make a convert is to take that person shooting. Until a few years ago I didn't own a gun and wouldn't dream of owning one. I wasn't exactly passionate about gun owners' rights (although it was never an issue that I gave a lot of thought or emotion to). Then, one day, a friend took me shooting and that first trip to the range was all it took for me to change my mind completely. Within a few months I'd made a convert out of my wife and shooting is now our shared hobby.

[Dave85]

If I own a restaurant and someone walks in with a .45 on their side I'll ask them if they are LE. If they aren't I'll tell them to leave. CC may be a right but business owners have property rights. Why would I take this stance? I have a business to run and I don't want you scaring my customers or my employees.

I can totally understand this sentiment. People have families to feed and bills to pay. It can be a scary thing to have to risk your income to protect and further the free exercise of a right. Too many people are not willing to take that risk, which is too bad, because that is exactly what is necessary to win access to and preserve any right. When we cater to the fears of the fearful, those fears become the default position; and rights and desires will be forever confused.

and I'll give you 100 conservative anti gunners to go along with that.

I have my doubts. While it's fair to say that the Second Amendment has proponents and opponents in both camps, there are strong indications that the split is not particularly even in amongst true conservatives. One of the strong markers of conservative thought in the US is an emphasis on individualism. The Second Amendment is the flagstaff on which they fly that banner. That's not to say you couldn't find some otherwise conservative people who somehow missed the gun memo - Charles Krauthammer comes to mind - but not at the same ratio. The term "conservative" is simply more narrowly defined today than is "liberal."

Now, if you go simply looking for anti-gun Republicans, that would be a quickly-filled order.

Drifting back to the OP's question....

This is exactly the type of situation that everyone considering open carry needs to think through before you begin that journey. When you put that gun on, whether you like it or not, you become an ambassador for the gun community. If you show genuine conviction and are pleasant, patient and understanding with the curious, you will be doing us great justice. If you are gruff or dismissive, or worse, if you make a pretense of being some kind of operator or commando, you will be doing us great harm. Be thoughtful in your response, as you are answering for all of us.

[#18indycolts]

Now, if you go simply looking for anti-gun Republicans, that would be a quickly-filled order.

+1, I agree, and will give you that.

[Warchild]

I gave up trying to explain things to close minded people a long time ago. In all matters of opinion, debate is futile. If I were to be asked now "Why are you carrying a gun?" I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and reply "Why not?" and walk off, failing to stick around for the retort.

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by ;Warchild

I gave up trying to explain things to close minded people a long time ago. In all matters of opinion, debate is futile. If I were to be asked now "Why are you carrying a gun?" I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and reply "Why not?" and walk off, failing to stick around for the retort.

Warchild,

Not all who ask the question do so from a closed mind.

When you fire off a retort, do so with the same care you fire off a bullet.

Your audience is not only your questioner, but all within earshot, and all that those people will tell the story to. The proverbial ripples in a pond.

Lost Sheep

[JTMcC]

When I read these type of threads on the internet it just reinforces my decision to continue to live in rural Arizona, where it's common to see people carrying openly in the grocery store, resteraunts, the library, just about every place. Locals don't think anything of it, you sometimes run into tourists that are a little suprised but that's it.
You have the occasional California transplant who will be a bit disturbed but overall it goes unnoticed.
The responses seem to follow geographic lines.
We certainly haven't seen "always predicted" (on the net) deaths of citizens who carry open by the criminal element seeking them out to die "first".
I think I'm several times more likely to die via lightening strike than I am by an armed robber singling me out because I have a firearm on. So to me, it's no issue. Maybe if I was frequenting convinient stores in Oakland or Martinez at 4 am, but then I can't carry openly in those locals anyway.
Open carry by well behaved normal folks presents a positive to the public, not a negative.
All my opinion, so take it or leave it.

JTMcC.

[Warchild]

Lost, I'm not referring tot hose with legitimate questions, I'm referring tot hose that look at you as if you are stupid. That have that sarcastic tone about them.

[TridentOne]

I explain gun ownership and carrying to be similar to locking your doors at night or wearing a seat belt. Neither locking your doors nor a seat belt is a guarantee against death anymore than a gun would be, but if you are at an ATM with your kid in the car 8ft away, wouldn't you want some reasonable protection against being carjacked, kidnapped, raped or murdered? Is it likely? Of course not. Is a gun reasonable protection? Just as reasonable as wearing a seat belt in the unlikely event you are in a car wreck. That's how I try and verbalize the "reasoning" to someone frightened by a paperweight.

I wouldn't recommend everyone who can operate a seat belt own or carry a gun and the "menace" associated with guns is a little childish in the 21st century.

[BigDaddy]

[/QUOTE] pen isn't designed to kill, right? Guess what? Neither is a gun. It's one use among many.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me you are joking.

I guess they can make handsome paperweights

cheers,
--Dave

[5Wire]

Print up some cards? Or just use the points made in the text>

[deadwooddickey]

i dont carry a gun because i am afraid. i carry a gun at certain times because it enables me to be unafraid.i feelcomfortable knowing that if necessary i can meet deadly force with the same.protecting me and my family is the # 1 reason i have a ccw permit.i would never want to shoot or kill someone but if they pull theirs and are intent on hurting or putting me or my family in grave danger lord have mercy on their soul. PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION !!!!

[RainbowBob]

Suzanne Gratia knows why she carries. What she doesn't know is why she left her .38 in the car in Luby's Restaurant's parking lot on March 14, 1997 in Kileen, Texas. As sure as any prediction ever can be made, her parents would have been alive on March 15th if she had carried that day.

Lost Sheep:

You are lost no longer. You have answered all your questions with your post script.

[Mark Milton]

At this point I have been carrying concealed for decades and never flashed my peice.

Nobody ever spotted it either....

Most people are not really intelligent people anymore. They are mindwiped McSheeple. It's a waste of time to try and explain anythig to them because Big Media has wiped their minds and made up their opinions for them.

In your situation:
• I'd have covered the gun with my t-shirt in the first place to avoid anybody seeing. You are just asking for trouble that way, and if the Manson Family had a reunion there, they would have taken you out first.

• I'd have asked the girl had she ever heard of the Manson family or seen the movies "Zodiac" or "Last House on the Left' and left it at that.

When the McSheeple realize that only they obey these rediculous gun laws and that wolves like the Mansons, Zodiac or your run of the mill hoodlum ingores gun laws as much as they ignore laws about rape, murder and armed robbery, they decide they want a gun too.

Or you could have told a joke like — For the same reason your manager carries condoms in his wallet when he hasn't picked up a chick in years.Its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[Dave85]

When the McSheeple realize that only they obey these rediculous gun laws and that wolves like the Mansons, Zodiac or your run of the mill hoodlum ingores gun laws as much as they ignore laws about rape, murder and armed robbery, they decide they want a gun too.

There's a grain of truth in your reasoning, but...McSheeple? It's McSheeple now? Sheeple wasn't insulting and dismissive enough?

This kind of epithet slinging suggests a level of disrespect that will be an impediment to a polite and reasoned discussion. Granted, most people I encounter who have disdain for guns have not arrived at that feeling through rational analysis. However, there are a lot of things all of us probably take for granted until we have to think logically about them. I am constantly finding myself confronted with newly discovered (by me) facts that don't square with my preconceived notions. I adjust my understanding of the world and move on to the next confrontation with reality. It is imperative that we patiently extend understanding to those who have not (and may not ever) come to the realizations that we find so obvious.

Managing our interaction with information through the often inefficient or erroneous shortcuts of stereotype, prejudice and "common knowledge" is a natural function of being human. No human-ovine hybridization is necessary.

[ghosst]

Because Cops are too heavy, and you have to feed Bodyguards

[spamanon]

There's a grain of truth in your reasoning, but...McSheeple? It's McSheeple now? Sheeple wasn't insulting and dismissive enough?

This kind of epithet slinging suggests a level of disrespect that will be an impediment to a polite and reasoned discussion. Granted, most people I encounter who have disdain for guns have not arrived at that feeling through rational analysis. However, there are a lot of things all of us probably take for granted until we have to think logically about them. I am constantly finding myself confronted with newly discovered (by me) facts that don't square with my preconceived notions. I adjust my understanding of the world and move on to the next confrontation with reality. It is imperative that we patiently extend understanding to those who have not (and may not ever) come to the realizations that we find so obvious.

Managing our interaction with information through the often inefficient or erroneous shortcuts of stereotype, prejudice and "common knowledge" is a natural function of being human. No human-ovine hybridization is necessary.

Well put, and I agree. Though it is hard, we really should always try to engage rationally and reasonably.
OTOH
To carry the analogy even further, how does one get an animal, sheep or otherwise, to do what he wants? By coaxing or beating? Surely a man that coaxes is wiser than he who beats.

[mrray13]

ya know, we have caved in far too long...too much CC is the only way to go. maybe people wouldn't be upset to see a firearm if more people wore them openly. maybe if more people wore them openly, our goverment might see that legal firearms aren't the ones that need controlled. maybe if people wore them openly there wouldn't be so many many BGs in the first place..i mean comeone, does a wolf attack a dog or the sheep? it goes for the unarmed animale, not the one armed with teeth.


no, none of that will happen because most of us are far too concerned with not making waves instead of making the waves we should be making. it is our right, atleast according to this supreme court, why do we have to conceal? i don't like fat girls in belly shirts or spandex, yet noone makes them dress properly and i'm forced to either put up with it or leave the area when one is around.


and catfish, if that's how you feel, i for one would never step into your business. i , as an LEO, would much rather see people OC as to concealed. for many reasons, and while it's your right to refuse service, it's my right to refuse your business.

and as mentioned earlier, how many BG would actually carry open? i mean, chances are their firearm isn't legal anyway.

[andyjs3589]

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then, there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal, that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV; where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Waterengineer]

The correct response is to put them on the defensive by asking them why they don't carry.

[Whiteboy67]

"If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand"
Does that apply here? Or you think it would just make them pissy.