Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Link Removed
Concealed vs Open carry
- Thread starter chilipeppernorm
- Start date
Do you know why the rate of burglaries of homes that are occupied is much lower in the US than in the UK? Criminals themselves say it is because they are afraid of getting shot by the homeowner - a fear they don't have in the UK. Do you know why in the majority of cases where a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is only shown and not fired? Because criminals do not want to be shot during the commission of their crime. 60% of criminals said they would not attack a target KNOWN to be armed, 40% of criminals said they would not attack a target they thought might be armed. Why? Simply due to the overwhelming number of targets available that are likely not to be armed.
I can't do anything that will guarantee I won't ever be attacked by a criminal. But the simple statistical history and data shows that more often then not when a gun is introduced into the scenario in self defense the criminal runs away from that gun. If they see that I am armed during target selection, odds are they will just pick a target one block down the street or wait 5 minutes for an unarmed (or at least not visibly) target to appear, which 99.5% of targets will not be visibly armed. If they don't see my gun during target selection, then I still have the advantage over concealed carry in that I can carry a larger, higher capacity gun openly and I don't have to retrieve my gun from concealment in order to use it. I see no reason not to play odds that history indicates are in my favor based upon internet theories that have nearly 0% real life evidence to support them.
You can choose how to carry your firearm however you want to based on whatever theories you use to justify it. The simple truth is there are facts and history available to indicate your theories are false.
chilipeppernorm
New member
Can we please provide reputable, factual, and scientifically based data for our assertions, be they OC biased or CC biased? I've yet to see anyone substantiate their passionate opinions on either side. Enough already, proclaim fact and document it with legitimate scientific resources, or simply state it as opinion and run with that. OC and CC are both honorable choices depending on ones preference and abilities. Can we concentrate on the true enemies of 2A our rights???
whodat2710
New member
Just look at any news story where someone was attacked in public AND defended themselves with a gun. The NRA's "The Armed Citizen" stories are a nationwide archive of such "good guy wins" stories. An overwhelming number of these stories center around the CONCEALED CARRIER. I don't recall ever seeing one where an OPEN CARRIER was attacked and defended themselves. If you can find any stories where an open carrier was attacked please post it.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Www.gunssavelives.net is another website dedicated to self defense stories. Same results there as well.
If navy gets to a computer again soon, I'm sure he can link to the study were they interviewed inmates about how they choose their victims.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Here's your original post:
But now Navy (and apparently others) are talking out their ass by giving you their rationale and (temporarily) neglecting to link to the study he mentioned? Because believe me, I've watched Navy's posting style and history very carefully, and you're about to be hoisted by your own petard by suggesting that his referring to a study is not "factual" or "scientific" or "reputable." You may or may not have picked up on it, but NavyLCDR is currently deployed on an aircraft carrier and is kind of busy between posts here at USA Carry. He has never failed (that I've ever seen) to provide sourcing and links when asked. He usually provides them without having to be asked, so my bet is that he didn't have much time, or maybe his internet connection wasn't reliable enough to spend time digging out links wherever he was in the world when he made the post.
But whatever, you asked for rationales for OC, not "scientific based" studies or any other *proof* of the prudence of OC'ers' choices. Your "element of surprise" meme was blown out of the water in Post #5 by Bikenut. His rationale is flawlessly articulated. He gave you exactly what you asked for, as has Firefighterchen and NavyLCDR and others. Now you're whining because your *rationale* for thinking you ever had any *edge* or "element of surprise" to begin with has been completely debunked, so you move the goal-posts and demand in a highly frustrated sounding post that OC'ers provide virtual *proof* that the same rationale that you asked for works as their rationale(s) claim.
Tell ya what, you provide proof that CC has real tactical and deterrent advantages over OC, and then we'll talk about proving our positions to you. If you're going to move the goal posts, you get to return the kick-off on the new playing field. Fair 'nuff?
Blues
The citation to the facts that I posted earlier are found here:
Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths
in this document:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf
I don't have the bandwidth out here at sea to download the document itself, but the facts are in there. The majority of criminals will avoid situations where they might get shot. Most criminals still have the human instinct of survival that overrides most other behaviors. The reason criminals will take guns from cops (a common argument used by the concealed carry only crowd) is the exact same instinct for survival. They don't takes guns from cops in order to just obtain a gun. They take guns from cops in order to use it to escape arrest. Average Joe Criminal isn't going to rush into a convenience store with a police car parked outside to rob the cash register, they will wait for the police to leave, or find another convenience store. There are just too many easier ways for criminals to get what they want then to attack the .5% of the population who is visibly displaying the means to kill them. Again there are no guarantees - but since there are no guarantees, I will play the odds that are in my favor of not being targeted by the criminal to begin with by showing my gun rather than playing the odds that I will be successful in a self-defense attempt because they attack me because with my gun hidden I look like every other Joe Target on the street.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You're up, chilipeppernorm. Good luck - you're gonna need it.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
NavyLCDR! Thank you for the links. I had started to read but my comp crashed and I lost the bookmark!
I couldn't remember the title so I was unable to find it.
Once again, thank you for the links!
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
I couldn't remember the title so I was unable to find it.
Once again, thank you for the links!
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Hopefully, chilipeppernorm is too busy reading to make an apology post to Navy, but I did find in Navy's links the part about the criminals' stated preferences for unarmed victims (Pgs. 37 & 38 of the .pdf). I also found where Gun Facts got their numbers from, and it was indeed a published, scientific-based, reputable duo of researchers who conducted their study (commissioned by the DoJ) between 1982 and 1983. A summary of the researchers' findings, along with a few pull-quotes of stats from their study, can be found here, but one line pretty well sums up what the consumption of hard cold facts can do to anyone willing to accept them as such:
Wright's and Rossi's research is clear; armed citizens are a deterrent to crime, and just the known fact that a given jurisdiction is rich in armed citizens reduces crime in most of those jurisdictions. In none of the armed-rich jurisdictions is crime increased. At worst, crime-rates stay level where criminals know that legal access to arms is the least restrictive, and likewise on the street, where the fewest legal impediments to carrying weapons are imposed on the law-abiding citizen.
Given the increase in the number of lawfully armed citizens since that study was completed and published in 1984, it seems likely that this study's conclusions are even more relevant today. Also, given that the mere threat of an armed citizenry in given jurisdictions is all it takes to make criminals change their behaviors, just imagine what the absolute knowledge of a citizen's armed status because of them OC'ing would do to dissuade the common street-thug from trying to victimize OC'er. The reason there aren't lots of stories of attacks on OC'ers is because, believe it or not, even street-thugs aren't that stupid.
Blues
Wright's and Rossi's research is clear; armed citizens are a deterrent to crime, and just the known fact that a given jurisdiction is rich in armed citizens reduces crime in most of those jurisdictions. In none of the armed-rich jurisdictions is crime increased. At worst, crime-rates stay level where criminals know that legal access to arms is the least restrictive, and likewise on the street, where the fewest legal impediments to carrying weapons are imposed on the law-abiding citizen.
Given the increase in the number of lawfully armed citizens since that study was completed and published in 1984, it seems likely that this study's conclusions are even more relevant today. Also, given that the mere threat of an armed citizenry in given jurisdictions is all it takes to make criminals change their behaviors, just imagine what the absolute knowledge of a citizen's armed status because of them OC'ing would do to dissuade the common street-thug from trying to victimize OC'er. The reason there aren't lots of stories of attacks on OC'ers is because, believe it or not, even street-thugs aren't that stupid.
Blues
B
Bikenut
Guest
↑ Good grief Blues and NavyLCDR!!! How dastardly of you to "offend" and "hurt the feelings" of all the anti OC'ers with... GASP!... actual facts! I mean... what stupid fish (dum bass) circular, emotional, completely unsupported arguments can they come up with to rebut... FACTS?
Actually... you guys have my utmost respect because you deal in facts... provable facts.
Actually... you guys have my utmost respect because you deal in facts... provable facts.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Actually I commend you for asking to be presented with facts. However, I expect you will find that those in favor of open carry will be more than happy to provide cites and/or links to actual facts..... while those who do not support open carry will offer nothing more than obfuscation, misinformation, attempts to redirect the argument, and emotional "what ifs"... along with a steadfast refusal to give any cites and/or links to actual facts to support their statements.
And I posted the following before and I'll post it again because the more I think about it the more I believe it is the truth....
So... if anyone finds that they fit that definition? Then, in my not so humble and likely to piss off a lot of people opinion, they are not supporters of the right to bear arms but are anti gun supporters of gun control. The only difference between the anti gunner "lite" and the rabid anti gunner is the degree of control of other people's guns desired.
chilipeppernorm
New member
NavyLCDR, Bikenut, Firefighterchen, BluesStringer, and any other OC practitioner or advocate. Take a deep breath and read what I actually wrote throughout this thread from the start. First, Navy, I had no idea you are deployed, but thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service, as well as any others on this forum currently in the military or veterans (myself-Infantry 1st Cavalry Division Vietnam 1972). At no time in any of my posts did I disparage anyone for OC nor their rationales or reasons for OC. If you believe I have please quote me and you will receive my sincere public apology. If not, this post in no way constitutes an apology nor an attack. This was part of my post in starting this thread:
I do have a question, but before I pose it I want to make sure all know that I'm not questioning the right or preference of anyone who chooses open carry. I can see any number of circumstances where open carry convenience may prevail. However, from my perspective I believe that open carry in many public situations, areas, or venues one could be forfeiting a valuable tactical advantage. Simply put, I don't want the general public to know I'm armed, just want to appear as "joe lunchbox" and be mostly ignored unless I have to present my weapon in defense of myself or others, which should be a complete surprise to all and give me that slight edge.
As you can see I'm clearly not insulting nor negating OC, and I simply state I prefer CC and why. I honor and respect your choice to OC as well as your rationale for doing so even if it doesn't coincide with my choice, as constitutional believers (all) am I not entitled to that same respect?
I do believe OC folks have come under attack and I think you transferred some of that onto me or at least CC advocates (I'm not playing the victim card). My statement of CC proponent morphed into a "right" vs "privilege" discussion, and then it was implied that those seeking CC permits were kissing the ass of the nanny state. Finally, it appears that my appeal for hard scientific evidence for the effectiveness of one carry method over the other was misinterpreted as lack of anecdotal evidence and reports available regarding an armed populace ready, willing and able to defend themselves, family and the innocent with readily available firearms. That was never disputed and thus is a "straw man" argument. We all know an armed honest citizen is the greatest deterrent to those who would visit evil upon us. Interviewing prisoners willing to speak with you regarding the motivation and methods for their crimes is definitely informative, if somewhat suspect given their known history of lying. When I spoke of "scientific" study I was referring to the classical scientific method consisting of a large sample group, a double blind study including a control group vs an equal experimental group, defined outcomes over a specified time period with results being analyzed via accepted statistical methods, in this case for the effectiveness of one carry method over another. I still have not seen that study and may never do so.
Finally, gentlemen, I do not oppose you. I consider you allies, and hopefully friends against the forces that would deny us our ability to defend ourselves. I have not and will not engage in personal attacks. I do believe we have common ground on many levels, and regardless of how we carry I wish you safe travels. CC at this time represents my only available option and my preferred choice, God Bless.
I do have a question, but before I pose it I want to make sure all know that I'm not questioning the right or preference of anyone who chooses open carry. I can see any number of circumstances where open carry convenience may prevail. However, from my perspective I believe that open carry in many public situations, areas, or venues one could be forfeiting a valuable tactical advantage. Simply put, I don't want the general public to know I'm armed, just want to appear as "joe lunchbox" and be mostly ignored unless I have to present my weapon in defense of myself or others, which should be a complete surprise to all and give me that slight edge.
As you can see I'm clearly not insulting nor negating OC, and I simply state I prefer CC and why. I honor and respect your choice to OC as well as your rationale for doing so even if it doesn't coincide with my choice, as constitutional believers (all) am I not entitled to that same respect?
I do believe OC folks have come under attack and I think you transferred some of that onto me or at least CC advocates (I'm not playing the victim card). My statement of CC proponent morphed into a "right" vs "privilege" discussion, and then it was implied that those seeking CC permits were kissing the ass of the nanny state. Finally, it appears that my appeal for hard scientific evidence for the effectiveness of one carry method over the other was misinterpreted as lack of anecdotal evidence and reports available regarding an armed populace ready, willing and able to defend themselves, family and the innocent with readily available firearms. That was never disputed and thus is a "straw man" argument. We all know an armed honest citizen is the greatest deterrent to those who would visit evil upon us. Interviewing prisoners willing to speak with you regarding the motivation and methods for their crimes is definitely informative, if somewhat suspect given their known history of lying. When I spoke of "scientific" study I was referring to the classical scientific method consisting of a large sample group, a double blind study including a control group vs an equal experimental group, defined outcomes over a specified time period with results being analyzed via accepted statistical methods, in this case for the effectiveness of one carry method over another. I still have not seen that study and may never do so.
Finally, gentlemen, I do not oppose you. I consider you allies, and hopefully friends against the forces that would deny us our ability to defend ourselves. I have not and will not engage in personal attacks. I do believe we have common ground on many levels, and regardless of how we carry I wish you safe travels. CC at this time represents my only available option and my preferred choice, God Bless.
Dr. Dillner
New member
wolf_fire
New member
Here are your posts chilipeppernorm:
post #1 - not personally attacking
post #18 - not personally attacking
post #22 - personal attack on thru, but was necessary and enjoyed by many :smile:
post #45 - not personally attacking
post #50 - not personally attacking
post #54 - definitely personal and was your first (and seemingly only) personal attack... yes, Bikenut used the word "you" but thats because using the pronoun "one" seems stuffy to some.
post #64 - not personally attacking
post #83 - this was more of a rant than anything else. It seemed like you were getting frustrated at this point
post #93 - not personally attacking, but definitely personal
I agree that you have not been personally attacking, for the most part. This is a good thing. But has the OC crowd been personally attacking?
The facts of the matter are, have a good reason to carry in the way you desire to carry. Failure to do so is ignorance (I'm not saying that is you.). The OC crowd just has more facts to back up their arguments in the history of this forum. The CC crowd has used more emotion and straw man arguments to back up their arguments in the history of this forum.
If attacked by facts, please don't take them as personal attacks. Some people may have been personally attacking, and if so, you should call them out personally (either in the forum or better yet, send a personal message saying what they did was rude, crass, etc.)
I believe the forerunners advocating OC, have adequately given fact, logic, and reason to verify their position as to why OC is a preferred method. Some, however, are not comfortable doing so for whatever reason. If one is not comfortable with a form of carrying a firearm, then one should not do it. But no person should make up reasons for their un-comortableness (again, I'm not saying you did this, but it has been done). This is why the OC crowd attacks with facts to break down reasons that are really excuses. However, one also should not feel that an attack on a position is an attack on a person.
post #1 - not personally attacking
post #18 - not personally attacking
post #22 - personal attack on thru, but was necessary and enjoyed by many :smile:
post #45 - not personally attacking
post #50 - not personally attacking
post #54 - definitely personal and was your first (and seemingly only) personal attack... yes, Bikenut used the word "you" but thats because using the pronoun "one" seems stuffy to some.
post #64 - not personally attacking
post #83 - this was more of a rant than anything else. It seemed like you were getting frustrated at this point
post #93 - not personally attacking, but definitely personal
I agree that you have not been personally attacking, for the most part. This is a good thing. But has the OC crowd been personally attacking?
The facts of the matter are, have a good reason to carry in the way you desire to carry. Failure to do so is ignorance (I'm not saying that is you.). The OC crowd just has more facts to back up their arguments in the history of this forum. The CC crowd has used more emotion and straw man arguments to back up their arguments in the history of this forum.
If attacked by facts, please don't take them as personal attacks. Some people may have been personally attacking, and if so, you should call them out personally (either in the forum or better yet, send a personal message saying what they did was rude, crass, etc.)
I believe the forerunners advocating OC, have adequately given fact, logic, and reason to verify their position as to why OC is a preferred method. Some, however, are not comfortable doing so for whatever reason. If one is not comfortable with a form of carrying a firearm, then one should not do it. But no person should make up reasons for their un-comortableness (again, I'm not saying you did this, but it has been done). This is why the OC crowd attacks with facts to break down reasons that are really excuses. However, one also should not feel that an attack on a position is an attack on a person.
B
Bikenut
Guest
About that concealed carry "edge"... please consider....
CC'ers know they have the ability to respond to a deadly attack with their hidden gun after the attack has begun. Ok.. fair enough... yet...
OC'ers also know they have the ability to respond to a deadly attack with their openly carried gun after the attack has begun but they also know that an openly carried gun can cause a bad guy to decide to not attack the guy who obviously could shoot him if he attacks. (Please note I said "can" cause a bad guy to decide not to attack. I did not say "will".)
With open carry the bad guy KNOWS he will be up against a gun if he proceeds.
With CC the bad guy is just taking a chance his victim doesn't have a gun because there is no gun to be seen. And, at least in Michigan, the odds his intended victim really is unarmed are in the bad guy's favor since there were 511,971 concealed carry permits as of 8-4-13 (*see below for link) but there were an estimated 9,883,360 people in Michigan in 2012 (*see below for link). Just taking those numbers (and I know one is from 2013 and the other is from 2012 but this is just an off the cuff comparison) means the bad guy has a 19 to 1 chance his victim (that doesn't have a gun in plain sight) is unarmed.
So... both OC and CC offer the ability to respond to an attack... but OC has the added advantage of possibly preventing the attack from happening. An advantage CC does not have.
Does that mean everyone should OC? Of course not. All it means is folks have a choice (where legal anyway) and it should be understood that there isn't any "Concealed vs Open Carry".... all it is ... is a personal choice. But it would be wise if folks were to seek out the facts concerning the advantages, and the disadvantages, of both to base their CC or OC decision on.
But one thing it does mean.... if folks are going to present any negative aspects of either mode of carry they should understand that someone will be asking for facts to back it up.
*Link Removed
*Link Removed
You never will find the specific scientific study because it is simply impossible to study how many criminals have seen a gun and decided to move on to a seemingly unarmed target. It's equally impossible to study how many criminals have been "surprised" by the concealed carry firearm and ran away. However, inside the document that I linked too are some interesting findings. The documents lists the facts and the source of those facts. One fact presented is that in the majority of cases of a firearm being used for self-defense, there is no shot fired. The mere presentation of the firearm is enough to stop the attack. That fact tells me that criminals just don't think it is worth it to tangle with a person with a firearm when they don't have to. Another fact presented is that when felons in prison were interviewed, 40% said they would not attack a target that they thought might be armed, and 60% said they would not attack a target that they KNEW was armed. I just prefer that they know I am armed before they choose me for a victim rather than after they have already attacked me.
Beyond all that..to me it's just common sense, which even most criminals have enough of to avoid getting shot at when they don't have to. Why attack the .5% of the population that they can see has the means available to kill them when there is 99.5% of the population remaining that isn't displaying that ability?
Part of the issue you are facing, chilipeppernorm, and some of the reason that you received such strong replies (some of which I, personally, don't think you deserved) is that this OC v. CC discussion comes up at least once a month, if not several times per month, and the threads are normally started by a concealed carry only snob that just can't resist declaring his/her disdain towards open carry and those of us that do.
In my day to day life back home, I only receive negative comments or actions regarding my firearm maybe 3 or 4 times per year. If I receive any comments or gestures regarding my firearm, 99% of them are positive. So far, 4 out of 5 negative reactions I get regarding my firearm are from concealed carry only snobs that just can't resist telling me they have a concealed pistol license and carry their gun concealed and that I should too. I'm sorry that it appears you are suffering some of the backlash from their actions and attitudes.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I'm sorry but I'll take a deep breath when you get off your high horse and tell me what I ever said that made you think I was hyperventilating over something you said.
I do believe those that spread a myth about open carry (losing a tactical advantage) are not helping the cause. We have truth, statistics, and facts that back us up as gun owners as a whole. If we don't stick to that strategy we are no better than the anti gun folks who base their decisions solely off of feelings and emotions.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Is trying to answer your search for documented evidence that OC has advantages that simply cannot be enjoyed while CC'ing somehow disrespecting you or your choices?
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that question. I don't think you've been disrespected by any of the OC'ers in this thread, at least not that I have seen.
That is not what happened. Navy mentioned two statistics, after which you posted what sounded to me like a very frustrated demand for hard evidence, after which Navy posted the links where he found the stats and I posted some things I found within those links, including where to find the original citation of un-linked stats by Navy.
At the point at which you started appealing for hard scientific evidence, at least three subsequent replies were decidedly not anecdotal, they were sourced, linked and partially quoted from one of the preeminent studies ever done on the subjects Navy first cited the parts he was using it in support of.
I don't claim any scientific training at all, but I have spent many years debating the science of global warming with hundreds of people, some who were/are scientists, but most who weren't/aren't, but were/are still pretty bright folks capable of obsessive-level research. If there's one thing that must be considered in any application of the classic scientific method of which you speak, it's that there are aspects of all study that are simply un-provable by science. For instance, prove that the daytime, unclouded sky is blue. Or conversely, prove that its appearance is an illusion that everyone on Planet Earth simply perceives as being blue. Either hypothesis can be objectively proven to be true. Everyone can objectively look at the daytime, unclouded sky and see the color blue in the entire panoramic view. 7 billion people all saying the exact same thing seems objectively proven to me. However, the atmosphere is colorless by any other objective measure. Air and/or natural elements that make up the atmosphere cannot be deemed to be any color, much less the specific color of blue. If both hypothesis can be proven true by objective standards, so too are both proven false by virtue of the other one being true. There are literal "washes" or "ties" in science is my point.
So I said that to say this; by the criteria you're demanding in order for it to fit into a valid, scientific-method-compliant study on CC vs. OC advantages or other types of conclusions, it cannot be proven to that standard of criteria in the real world. You can't have double-blind control groups with teams of scientists monitoring every aspect of a carrier's daily life to begin with, but even if you could, you'd also have to have teams of scientists monitoring the criminals who were (or were not) deterred by seeing an openly carried weapon. So obviously, by your criteria, you are looking for answers to questions that cannot, under even the best of circumstances, be scientifically proven one way or the other.
So we turn to the next best thing. We find scientists who actually work as demographic and statistical researchers, we find a controlled group large enough to draw statistical conclusions from, we compile and evaluate their answers in as comprehensive an analysis as is possible from such a study, and we publish it for the people or entity that commissioned our study, which in the case of the study of incarcerated criminals, was the Department of Justice in 1982. As far as their study being "somewhat suspect" because of criminals being known liars, meh, every researcher knows that humans are prone to varying levels of dishonesty. The controls for that are built into the way and number of times the same questions are asked. Regardless, the citations and links offered were not "anecdotal," and the study the information was based on was done in as scientific a manner as was/is possible. It is still heralded as the most reliable study ever done on how criminals view the armed citizen, even above Kleck's and Lott's studies. It certainly doesn't "prove" beyond any doubt that OC is a deterrent to being attacked 100% of the time by 100% of criminals who might otherwise attack someone, but no one even approached making such a wildly impossible claim for one thing, and it lends a lot more than simple anecdotal evidence that there is indeed a deterrent effect in OC for another.
You may or may not laugh at this, but before August 21 of this year, CC was my only "safe" option here, as prior to a new law going into effect on that day, cops had a lot of discretion in making life tough for OC'ers. Now they don't have that discretion, and generally-speaking, I am still more comfortable CC'ing. I tried to find it but couldn't, but maybe a year or two ago I remember stating almost the same thing as you said above, that even if it was fully legal here (back then) I would still prefer to CC. Now I have changed that to describe it more accurately; I am simply more *comfortable* CC'ing, because I don't like the the thought of drawing attention to, and having to explain, myself to anyone, especially cops who might not yet understand the new law. Comfort-zone considerations aside though, I cannot deny the logic of the deterrent value that Bikenut, Navy, Firefighterchen and others have consistently articulated over the last couple of years that I've been watching them post. Being honest about acceding to my comfort-zone is admitting to a limit upon myself that I wish I could eliminate. In other words, I'm kind of mad at myself for getting old and comfortable with much of anything, but especially where it concerns my rights, and even more importantly, where it concerns a deterrent to being victimized that I have been convinced is real by keeping an open mind when the subject comes up (which it seems like it does every few minutes to tell you the truth).
In summary, you and I are very close in age, we did our military stints around the same time, we care about our rights, we advocate for our respective positions with passion and confidence, and we are not easily dissuaded from them. I guess the only real difference between us that I see is that you embrace your comfort-zones as experience-based "preferences," and I lament mine because they make me feel old and staid, unadventurous, stagnant and like the creature of habit that I detested and resisted mightily, and with great success I might add, as a young man.
I honestly believe that all any of us whom you may have perceived animosity or anger from wanted was to disspell any stated myths, attempt to offer well thought-out rationales and be consistent and wholly 2A-compliant in everything we said. A bump or two in the road notwithstanding, I think the OC "side" of the thread has accomplished that. That's all.
Blues
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
One of the points I find the most amusing when dispelling the myths of firearms, is when someone claims they made their choices on experience. I am pretty sure norm hasn't, doesn't, and will not open carry and such he has no personal experience to draw his conclusions from.
