Why does almost every thread on this forum become an open carry pissing contest?
The subject of this thread is:Why does almost every thread on this forum become an open carry pissing contest?
Originally posted by Bikenut
But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.
Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.
I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?
What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?
So now I'm wondering why you see almost every thread on this forum as an open carry pissing contest?
Interesting how people put their own perspective upon the context of a post.Because I read them.Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So now I'm wondering why you see almost every thread on this forum as an open carry pissing contest?
I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.
Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.
I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?
What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?
Anything can, like Teddy Bears and blunkies.I fully support and encourage gun ownership, carrying and use.
Something I've noticed is that many (not all) gun owners seem to believe that if they carry guns all the time that they are safe from just about any kind of attack. I wonder if this produces a false sense of security.
I've read some even say that if passengers in Belgium could carry guns that they could have prevented the carnage at the airport and on the subway. Huh? Bringing a gun to a bomb fight?
What do you think? Are we putting too much faith and dependence into carrying guns?
Because I read them.
I've said many times that if folks who support the right to keep and bear arms yet fervently disagree on one issue were to sit down and talk over a dinner they would find that they agree on lots more than they disagree regardless of how contentiously they disagree on that one thing.Originally posted by Bikenut
But I have met a few folks who puffed up their chests and said the bad guys better look out because if the bad guy attacks they will whip out their super secret ninja hidden concealed carry element of surprise and open a can of whup arse all over that bad guy.
Never thought I'd be sayin" this but Bikenut, I agree with you.
Your average concealed/open carry citizen isn't a sniper soldier carrying a rifle with scope to the airport or train station. The bomber probably will not be recognized before the explosion. In the case of the Brussels airport bombers, they were using dead-man switches. If they had been shot and killed the bombs would have gone off. Depending on the type of explosive being used, a shot to the torso could also end up in an explosion. That's what I mean by taking a gun (handgun) to a bomb (covert terrorist) fight.. . .
Soldiers take guns to bomb fights all the time, and are quite successful. A sniper sees an enemy combatant through his scope from 1,000 yards away with an RPG leveled against his brothers in arms and takes that RPG out before the trigger can be pulled. Same concept on a smaller scale at airports and train stations and other heavily populated publicly accessible areas. If a bomber can be identified by a carrier (concealed or otherwise), they can be taken out before they activate their payload. The truth of that statement is irrefutable, just as is the statement that not all bombers will be careless enough to be identified and not all publicly accessible areas will be populated by armed civilians capable of reacting immediately to such an immediate threat.
I make no argument against carrying or encouraging carrying.I know this for sure; If I don't carry, I will never be prepared to defend mine or anyone else's life in any life-threatening situation. That someone *may* not be prepared psychologically or physically at the precise right moment even though they are carrying, is not a valid argument against encouraging the general population to be armed at all times. The more who are armed, the greater the likelihood that someone who is both mentally and physically capable of defeating such an ominous threat as a terrorist (bomber or shooter) will be among them. Even if a terrorist attack goes off without a hitch (from the terrorist's perspective), there is no logical argument that can stand that says more people being armed increased the chances of that happening, so for me it's kind of a "so what?" if some people are unrealistic about the safety carrying a gun actually provides.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?