Open carry confrontations

[tricolordad]

Why on earth would you walk around downtown Detroit at 1:00 AM?.

Because you just got off work and the bus don't stop in those neighborhoods after dark?

 

[Bikenut]

Stupid guy OC'ing on a bus in Bangor lucky he didn't kill somebody.

That "fact" enough for ya? It's called opportunity. Give a dumb arse the opportunity and he'll use it.

Even if it is to just spout rhetoric in a web forum.

Facts.... show me where in that article it said that the guy on the bus was OC'ing. I'll save you the trouble.. it doesn't. It only uses careful wording to imply in order to lead you to believe there is some kind of connection between the legal open carriers and the guy on the bus.

And then it continues to imply that OC has something to do with all the other scary unsupported by facts scenarios also presented.

Reread that article and pay careful attention not only to what is actually said... but what is carefully left unsaid.

And no... it isn't just rhetoric in a web forum... it is about spreading misinformation or presenting opinion as facts and it is about standing behind statements by supporting them with facts. Got facts or just rhetoric?

So again... show me cites and/or links to where that "opportunity" you mentioned was taken advantage by some dumb ass against a civilian OCer.

The reason all the dumb ass myths (pick one... any of the dumb ass myths) about guns continue to circulate is that no one is willing to demand folks present actual researchable facts to back them up. Myths are funny things... when presented with facts they evaporate like early morning fog meeting the hard light of the sun.

 

[carracer]

Of course it "is" credible because the numbers are representative samples of the relative populations. Count the number of uniformed LEOs compared to the number of OC'ers you see next time you are out and about. Then do the math.

No, it is an absolutely true and reasonable premise, see comment above, then do some more math.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. If you figure numbers that don't exist might make or break your point, maybe you are the one who should be looking for them. Common sense holds up the other end, thank you very much. Sometimes they don't even need a bad guy to bork it up:

Bangor incident shows problem with open carry | Sun Journal

Hmmm... A little further research shows...wait for it.... HE WAS CONCEALING WITHOUT A PERMIT!!! PLAYING WITH IT ON THE BUS (showing it off to someone)!!!

Link Removed

I submit to you that this shows a problem with concealed carry!

Not really. I support both ways of carrying. Just showing one the fallacies of the quoted post.

 

[kwimby]

I submit to you that this shows a problem with concealed carry!

What it shows is the potential problems people with a propensity to play with guns can cause. Open carry just gives them more opportunity to do so.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by carracer View Post
I submit to you that this shows a problem with concealed carry!

What it shows is the potential problems people with a propensity to play with guns can cause. Open carry just gives them more opportunity to do so.

Wow! Now there is a response that is a generalized statement with a startling lack of facts but a tremendous amount of fear mongering directed at open carry!!!

Kindly explain how having a gun hidden under a shirt or in a pocket will prevent a person who wants to play with his gun from... playing with his gun. After all, subsequent follow up on the guy in the bus who was playing with his gun... you know, the guy in the article you presented as an example of why open carry is so terrible... showed that the guy was illegally carrying concealed and he still played with his gun.

You are presenting the premise that those who open carry ARE more likely to play with their guns just because they open carry than concealed carriers who are less likely to play with their guns... because they carry concealed.

The lack of logic in your statement is nothing less than astonishing. And what your statement really shows is an anti open carry bias.

Now a general statement not directed at any individual(s)..............

I personally don't care if someone doesn't like open carry or thinks open carry isn't a good thing to do since they are free to legally carry any way they want. What I do care about is when folks use statements that imply there is something wrong with open carry, and with those who do so, in order to use the tactic of diminish, demean, demonize, and ridicule (a favorite tactic of Saul Alinsky) to push their negative personal opinion of open carry.

I don't have any problem with folks presenting facts to support their dislike of open carry but it is annoying to see folks attempting to present personal opinion as fact.

Don't like open carry? Don't do it but kindly refrain from trying to get other people to not do it too just because you don't like it.

Saul Alinsky... have a look... interesting stuff about how the left uses words... and Obama is mentioned too.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

[UrbanArmed]

Casinos, Greektown, Red Wings, Cobo Hall, the riverfront.

Same reason you would walk around downtown Chicago, New York, Miami, LA or any of a hundred other big cities. Night life.

Just because it is Detroit doesn't mean the entire downtown is bad. It is the criminal element that exists everywhere that is the problem.

Then you are probably drinking in which case you wouldn't have a firearm on you, in which case OC vs. CC is a moot point.

 

[kwimby]

And what your statement really shows is an anti open carry bias.

Well, at least you got that part right. I forgot to mention, OC also proffers others the opportunity to play with the OC'ers gun, as well.

Some may be interested only in the "confrontation" aspect. Some others, well that has already been clearly outlined for anyone wishing to observe the "facts."

 

[gunnerbob]

What it shows is the potential problems people with a propensity to play with guns can cause. Open carry just gives them more opportunity to do so.

Well, at least you got that part right. I forgot to mention, OC also proffers others the opportunity to play with the OC'ers gun, as well.

Some may be interested only in the "confrontation" aspect. Some others, well that has already been clearly outlined for anyone wishing to observe the "facts."

Care to back this up with those supportive facts? Or, are you just talking out of your ass again?

 

[kwimby]

...are you just talking out of your ass again?

Maybe that means you are just talking "to" my ass? :agree:

 

[gunnerbob]

Maybe that means you are just talking "to" my ass? :agree:

That's what I figured, another asinine comment from you.

 

[dogshawred]

Care to back this up with those supportive facts? Or, are you just talking out of your ass again?

Bob he has to talk out of his A$$, because his mouth really knows better.

 

[dogshawred]

Maybe that means you are just talking "to" my ass? :agree:

It is kind of hard to tell when you are all A$$, don't you know.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And what your statement really shows is an anti open carry bias.

Well, at least you got that part right. I forgot to mention, OC also proffers others the opportunity to play with the OC'ers gun, as well.

Some may be interested only in the "confrontation" aspect. Some others, well that has already been clearly outlined for anyone wishing to observe the "facts."

I'll say it again ... I don't care if folks have an anti open carry bias or if folks think open carry is silly or dangerous since no one is forcing them to do it themselves... but when folks start trash talking open carry for other people.... then...

Back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your negative statements in regards to open carry. Got facts to back up your latest statement concerning OC proffering others the opportunity to play with the OC'ers gun? Any cites and/or links?

Failure to do so means you got nothing but your personal dislike of open carry.... and that you are attempting to use misleading statements with no factual background in order pawn your personal dislike off as being real world facts.

Are you aware that a gun owner/carrier who talks against a facet of the right to keep and bear arms because he "doesn't like it" is no better than the rabid anti gunner who talks against the entire right to keep and bear arms because HE... "doesn't like it". Both are undermining a right just because they, in their magnificent arrogance, have decided that the actual right isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" because the only thing that is "acceptable" is what they tell other people they should.. and should NOT... be allowed to do. And both want to be the one in control of what other people are "allowed" to do.

And there is a striking similarity between the arguments the rabid anti gunner uses when talking against the right to keep and bear arms and the arguments offered by an "anti gunner lite" gun owner/carrier talking against how other people legally exercise that right. Both arguments are composed of misleading, demeaning, and ridiculing statements that are devoid of actual facts.

Here is your chance to convince everyone and prove your point... provide actual facts not statements intended to mislead with implications to connections not supported by facts but with cites and/or links to incidents that show your anti open carry statements are based in actual fact and actual real world events.

 

[kwimby]

Back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your negative statements in regards to open carry.

Why don't you back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your positive statements in regards to open carry?

 

[carracer]

Why don't you back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your positive statements in regards to open carry?

Wow! Are you from Australia? Can you prove you aren't?

 

[kwimby]

So we're done here now?

 

[whodat2710]

I think kwimby might be Dianne Feinstein in drag.

 

[Bikenut]

Why don't you back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your positive statements in regards to open carry?

Typical response from someone who has nothing.... try to deflect the heat off yourself onto your opponent. Epic fail.

YOU are the one making negative statements. YOU are the one who needs to prove what you say is true. I have been the one asking you to man up and prove your assertions with cites and/or links.

YOU are the one using the leftist tactics of Saul Alinsky to demean, diminish, deflect, and avoid providing proof (because you don't have any and everyone already knows it) hoping using insults and ridicule will cast enough aspersions upon your opponent so no one will notice....... you don't have any proof to back up your statements.

So we're done here now?

Whether you are aware of it or not... you were done the very first time you avoided providing cites and/or links that proved your premise. Everything after that point was merely allowing you to prove to everyone that you have nothing to back up your statements... and you did so admirably.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I'll say it again ... I don't care if folks have an anti open carry bias or if folks think open carry is silly or dangerous since no one is forcing them to do it themselves... but when folks start trash talking open carry for other people.... then...

Back up your statements with cites and/or links to actual facts that support your negative statements in regards to open carry. Got facts to back up your latest statement concerning OC proffering others the opportunity to play with the OC'ers gun? Any cites and/or links?

Failure to do so means you got nothing but your personal dislike of open carry.... and that you are attempting to use misleading statements with no factual background in order pawn your personal dislike off as being real world facts.

Are you aware that a gun owner/carrier who talks against a facet of the right to keep and bear arms because he "doesn't like it" is no better than the rabid anti gunner who talks against the entire right to keep and bear arms because HE... "doesn't like it". Both are undermining a right just because they, in their magnificent arrogance, have decided that the actual right isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" because the only thing that is "acceptable" is what they tell other people they should.. and should NOT... be allowed to do. And both want to be the one in control of what other people are "allowed" to do.

And there is a striking similarity between the arguments the rabid anti gunner uses when talking against the right to keep and bear arms and the arguments offered by an "anti gunner lite" gun owner/carrier talking against how other people legally exercise that right. Both arguments are composed of misleading, demeaning, and ridiculing statements that are devoid of actual facts.

Here is your chance to convince everyone and prove your point... provide actual facts not statements intended to mislead with implications to connections not supported by facts but with cites and/or links to incidents that show your anti open carry statements are based in actual fact and actual real world events.

Well stated. Very good job.

I know of one incident in my state where someone open carrying had their gun taken from them and used against them and the fault was partly that of the carrier. He was not careful and it appears that his SA was not what it shold have been. One incident in a state which has one of the highest percentages of open carriers per capita in the nation.

I'd say that's a pretty good record.

 

[SouthernBoy]

So we're done here now?

I do have one question if I may. I have not closely followed this thread so I cannot say I am privy to all that has taken place here. But I do have one question, please.

Do you fully support and celebrate both modes of carry and see it as a personal decision taken by the individual?