Open Carry Of Firearms: Yea Or Nay?

I believe the false dichotomy he was addressing was the one you made in regards to fear. But that was the first instance, the part you replied to was the lesser of two arguments.

idk about that. I live for today. not hypothetical guilt. or fear of hypothetical guilt. and "broski" was just a reasonable alternative to "Jackass" which is what I wanted to type. we obviously have completely different mindsets, & aren't going to convince eachother of anything.

don't tell people over the web you care more about your family then they do theirs. it's asinine.

My future progeny will learn to be stealth assassins and won't use guns.
They will also live in a place called fantasylandberglandville.

No, I'm no coward, I assure you. Any warrior would tell you discretion is the better part of valor, and the greatest victories are the ones that don't require one to fight.

You say that I don't want to admit "the world is dangerous" or that "there are dangerous people".
Hmmmmm ...
I'm fairly certain that right here in this thread I said this:

and


Learn to read and comprehend, then come back. Or don't. Thanks.

You are tricky as ever Elana, I see what's happening. :D

But sadly that's what happens when one makes long posts.
Logic that may be perceived as contradicting and several other things.
But I'd say if as you say "people can't learn or comprehend what you say", learn to say it better. ;)
That's advice I give myself every day, I don't always take it either.

I didn't.

I said I guarantee I take responsibility and the safety of my family just as seriously, or potentially more seriously, than you do.

And that's probably true.

However, since you made a point of that behavior being "asinine", you should pull out a mirror and see if you have a donkey's face. Because when you said this:
that's basically what you did. Presumed that I don't have responsibilities, or implied that, if I do have responsibilities, that I must not take them seriously (or "not care" about my family) if I don't tote a piece.

Be sure to get a good dental insurance plan. Donkeys have terrible teeth.

I'm not tricky, Vin, I'm heady.

How's that for a short post?

wow man, you should run for governor

*** for tat, kit for kat! I say this you say that!
Guns are wrong, but they aren't bad!
If you have one and you're a dad-you are afraid of the trouble to be had!
Who said fear was so bad?
*** for ***, tat for tat?

This is my counter-argument in a humorous almost limerick format, for those who don't get it(not implying that people won't get it, but just in case)

O and I do have a good dental plan. but I hate the dentist.

cest la vie

Mosin, Glad you have a good dental plan. Not surprised you hate the dentist. Being exposed/vulnerable laying on your back with sharp instruments in your mouth probably would make an EEG of your brain light up like a Christmas tree.

Vin, did you take your meds today?

I better be careful I don't drink you too much or I'll become stupefied!

But! Just a 'lil bit will give me the perception of wit.

I'm not on any meds.
When I used to post here I was under a stoner-lull.
Now I'm crystal clear and sharp as a tack!
But the tack very well could be a little dull, depends what you are comparing it to.
I've also embraced the path of self-improvement much more since we last spoke, I drown in sarcastic seriousness...So I guess that part hasn't changed. I try not to take things too seriously.

finally we can agree on something...

I'm afraid there are many people in the world that are too stupid to be entrusted with a weapon. Thus I think indiscriminated accessibility to weapons would be a very bad choice. If that's what op meant.

That being said, I have(illegally)a taser and never part from it(hey it's not a gun!)

That's surprising! I never imagined you would own a taser. Understandable though. I have been towing around pepper-spray since college.

they use to sell air tasers at fry's electronics for a month before they decided to only sell the hand taser version only.

edit: btw

Well I have a katana too, but that's not easy to carry around(unless you're at a comicon).

Edit: and I'm pretty sure it's not sharp at all.

Good advice.


That's actually really, really good to hear, Vin. For what it's worth, I'm proud of you.

I haven't purchased any type of firearm as of yet, I've wanted to...not really for protection but to just go shooting with, but each time I start entertaining the idea I think...wow the money could go to much better use with X. That's the big reason I don't have a gun, and I can always just use my dads guns when we go shooting anyway so it bothers me less lol.

I'd say the big person that changed the way I see things was Richard Feynman...he died before I was born but his words still live strong.

Someone is a threat to myself or my family = I want to shoot them

Need a gun to shoot them

Need a gun

/thread

LOL! All I'm imagining is your avatar samurai slicing someone on the Spanish Steps in Rome.

If someone is a threat to myself, I try to talk it out.
I've never had a gun pulled on me so I don't have the fear of people shooting me in my bones as of yet.
If talking it out doesn't work and it gets physical I go by my personal code of "if I get cornered in someway try to beat the person down"
That's pretty much the end of it for me.
But in my defense, I haven't had to frequent places that I've got *** with in my 23 years so far.
That and I have the s***** car defense.

Whether we agree or not, it's been an interesting and fulfilling discourse. Thanks for participating.


You're absolutely correct. I don't think anyone would realistically disagree with you. The problem lies in the fact that it's extremely difficult to define "stupidity" or competency to the degree where we could accurately and reliably put "safe" people on one side of the theoretical line, and "unsafe" (stupid) people on the other side. Further complicating the issue is that life circumstances change everyday. For example, a man could be legitimately considered "safe" for owning a handgun one day, but the next day he loses his job, or his house burns to the ground, or his family member dies in a car crash ... is he still considered "safe" the following day? How about 3 months later?

So until we can develop the technology to reliably foretell the future (ever see "Minority Report"? ... yeah I don't think will happen), we're left with 3 choices:

1. Ban handguns
2. Allow handguns freely, or
3. The muddled sham of an attempt to control handguns that we have in the USA today.

Since so many people find #1 and #2 appalling, we're left with #3. And the debate continues ...

Non-lethals would be another idea...has this been discussed yet?
My water pistol idea was the more satirical discourse of the more serious argument on non lethals.
But I guess pepper spray and tasers were brought up lol.

No ... no.

The problem with this barbaric logic is that you're not acknowledging the difference between a real actual threat and a perceived threat.

If someone has your family member tied up and gagged and is flaying him/her with a cutlass, then yes, that's a real threat, and if you shot that person in cold blood, frankly, I, nor anyone else would argue that you did the wrong thing, or that the flayer didn't get exactly what he deserved, or that the use of deadly force wasn't warranted and necessary in that situation.

The problem is that life is EXTREMELY rarely that cut-and-dry or black-and-white. Humans react to PERCEIVED threats FAR more often than actual real threats. This happens for 2 reasons:

1. The sheer number of potential perceivable threats vs. the relatively tiny number of real/actual threats one encounters, and
2. Humans, and almost all animals, are naturally and instinctively hard-wired to react to all threats, perceived or real/actual, in the same way. The sympathetic nervous system and the resultant neuro-endocrine response are non-volitional electrical and chemical processes. They can be tempered, but not extinguished.

And that's exactly why handguns are a plague on society. Because, no matter how well-adjusted or well-trained the gun's wielder might be, there WILL come a time in his/her life when s/he is NOT stable enough to safely possess the weapon. And since we don't have the fictional technology from "Minority Report" to alert us when that time will happen in an individual's life, I'd argue that NO ONE should be considered safe to possess a handgun.

NOT because I don't believe in one's right to self-defense. Of course I believe one is entitled to defend his body and his family from harm. However, that right does NOT, by itself, entitle any person to free access to the degree of deadly force granted by handguns.

Pepperspray is an interesting chemical. It's actually a bit hit or miss. I have a few cans of it, I normally carry one when I go hiking or biking off trail (since most state parks it's illegal to carry a handgun). More then I care to happen, I've run across alligators and rattlesnakes sitting on the trail. Of course I stay back and wait for them to move, but some days they are just a bit more agitated .. or hungry. There's been times when pepperspray (I've tried both Bearmace and the stuff issued to prison guards) will work wonders. a quick spray and all is well. no harm to the animal, I, and my friends are safe.

Other times.. empty the entire can and then end up running as it didn't do a damn thing.

The racoons at my house are not phased by any type of mace. It's kind of amusing.

There's also many brands of 'self defense mace' that you see in the stores that at most, just irritate your eyes. You're still fully functioning and your vision is only slightly blurred.

Whether we agree or not, it's been an interesting and fulfilling discourse. Thanks for participating. [/quote]

I agree. I'll try to better temper those pesky emotions in the future

*edit*
sry, too dumb to quote one line at a time

Generally, mace or pepperspray is, much like a pistol, a blankie/binkie for feeling safer when you aren't actually any safer than you would be without it.

Most of those chemicals (the ones that are commerically available anyways) are useless unless they are sprayed directly into the eyes, without missing, and the target's eyes, of course, must be open.

More often than not, any attempt to "mace" someone attacking you will just result in enraging that person without debilitating him significantly. It *might* save you from a mugging, but it probably won't. Similar to a gun.

But at least the mace (most likely) wouldn't kill anyone while it's not actually protecting you from harm. The gun probably will kill someone while providing a comparable level on non-actual perceived security.

So yes, go with the mace. Better yet, study kung fu.

It all depends on the situation imo. If someone wants to just fight, ill fight, no need to shoot unless I feel my life is truly in danger.

My family is another story, If I feel their life is in danger or they are threatened with severe harm, my intent is only to remove the danger.

I will not hesitate to kill someone in this instance.

Have you killed before?