rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

The situation under discussion was one in which a person who feared -- rightly
or wrongly -- that he was about to be the victim of a crime showed his
potential attackers that he was capable of defending himself, thereby
*deterring* a threat.
What threat was made by anyone besides the person that want to be the
victim when he flashed his gun?
Open carry makes all that go away.

Sure. That reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family" in which
Archie Bunker goes on TV to make an editorial statement about how you
could eliminate airline hijackings by arming all the passengers.

Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.
While doing so, keep in mind Flight 93.

The difference is that "All in the Family" was a comedy.

And Archie was presented as a buffoon whenever he was given words to
say that contradicted the prejudices of the writers.

Open carry would be, in the context of this discussion, equivalent to
everyone threatening violence against everyone else. That's a pretty
crappy vision of society. Don't you think?

Yes, I do think, but you seem to be only expressing emotional
responses, devoid of thought.

"An Armed society is a polite society." Those with bad intent will
avoid people who show they are able to protect themselves and seek out
people like you who choose to be victims.

Why do you associate the viewing of a gun with a threat of violence? I
see lots of guns when I hunt or shoot at a range, but I don't assume
anyone is threatening me. If I see a cop, I don't assume he is
threatening me by carrying a gun on his belt.

David

On Jul 12, 5:37*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

The situation under discussion was one in which a person who feared -- rightly
or wrongly -- that he was about to be the victim of a crime showed his
potential attackers that he was capable of defending himself, thereby
*deterring* a threat.
What threat was made by anyone besides the person that want to be the
victim when he flashed his gun?
Open carry makes all that go away.

Sure. That reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family" in which
Archie Bunker goes on TV to make an editorial statement about how you
could eliminate airline hijackings by arming all the passengers.

Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.
While doing so, keep in mind Flight 93.

Hijackers could take hostages. Hold a gun to the little old lady's
head, for instance.

Armed passengers could put holes in airplane parts that would be
better left "unholed." It's not a very good place for shooting guns.

The difference is that "All in the Family" was a comedy.

And Archie was presented as a buffoon whenever he was given words to
say that contradicted the prejudices of the writers.

Yet, here you are agreeing with what he said.


Open carry would be, in the context of this discussion, equivalent to
everyone threatening violence against everyone else. That's a pretty
crappy vision of society. Don't you think?

Yes, I do think, but you seem to be only expressing emotional
responses, devoid of thought.

Really? How do you know how much I've thought about this? My question,
as I am sure you are aware (but were too busy being a smartass), was
about widespread open carry being tantamount to everyone threatening
violence against everyone else. Not necessarily that the gun carrier
would start the violence, but sending a clear message that he would be
willing to participate in it.

"An Armed society is a polite society." Those with bad intent will
avoid people who show they are able to protect themselves and seek out
people like you who choose to be victims.

So you think. I think differently.

Why do you associate the viewing of a gun with a threat of violence? I
see lots of guns when I hunt or shoot at a range, but I don't assume
anyone is threatening me. If I see a cop, I don't assume he is
threatening me by carrying a gun on his belt.

Shooting at a range is very, very different from "showing" your gun to
kids in a gas station parking lot. And you really can't be serious
about comparing a cop to an average guy in this respect. And, by the
way, the cop is most certainly threatening you. He's not telling you
that he's going to start something unprovoked, but he is telling you
not to provoke him, "or else."

Suppose that Snag's gas station incident had gone down a little
differently. Suppose that the guys in the other car were afraid of
Snag, as he thinks they ought to have been. Suppose that, in a purely
defensive move, they had shown him that they were carrying guns.
Should Snag have then opened fire? What's the protocol here?

David

David R.Birch wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

The situation under discussion was one in which a person who
feared -- rightly or wrongly -- that he was about to be the
victim of a crime showed his potential attackers that he was
capable of defending himself, thereby *deterring* a threat.
What threat was made by anyone besides the person that want to be
the victim when he flashed his gun?
Open carry makes all that go away.

Sure. That reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family" in which
Archie Bunker goes on TV to make an editorial statement about how you
could eliminate airline hijackings by arming all the passengers.

Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.


Surprise.
They'd be dead before they realized what was happening.
In fact, they would be in denial until they suddenly realized they'd had
their throats cut.



--
John R. Carroll

John R. Carroll wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

The situation under discussion was one in which a person who
feared -- rightly or wrongly -- that he was about to be the
victim of a crime showed his potential attackers that he was
capable of defending himself, thereby *deterring* a threat.
What threat was made by anyone besides the person that want to be
the victim when he flashed his gun?
Open carry makes all that go away.
Sure. That reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family" in which
Archie Bunker goes on TV to make an editorial statement about how you
could eliminate airline hijackings by arming all the passengers.
Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.


Surprise.
They'd be dead before they realized what was happening.
In fact, they would be in denial until they suddenly realized they'd had
their throats cut.

Yes, this is exactly what happened on 9/11/2001 on Flight 93, where
the hijackers subdued the passengers and flew the plane into the White
House, as planned.

David

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:37 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.
While doing so, keep in mind Flight 93.

Hijackers could take hostages. Hold a gun to the little old lady's
head, for instance.

So? How would that have worked on flight 93?

Armed passengers could put holes in airplane parts that would be
better left "unholed." It's not a very good place for shooting guns.

True, but you have to really know what you're doing to cause major
damage. The explosive decompression Hollywood is so fond of depicting
just doesn't happen.

The difference is that "All in the Family" was a comedy.
And Archie was presented as a buffoon whenever he was given words to
say that contradicted the prejudices of the writers.

Yet, here you are agreeing with what he said.

Because I don't have the prejudices of you and the writers, I am not
frightened by guns. I respect them.

Open carry would be, in the context of this discussion, equivalent to
everyone threatening violence against everyone else. That's a pretty
crappy vision of society. Don't you think?
Yes, I do think, but you seem to be only expressing emotional
responses, devoid of thought.

Really? How do you know how much I've thought about this?

My point is that so far you haven't demonstrated that you have thought
about it at all.

My question,
as I am sure you are aware (but were too busy being a smartass), was
about widespread open carry being tantamount to everyone threatening
violence against everyone else.

Which is nonsense to anyone who respects guns with out fearing them.

Not necessarily that the gun carrier
would start the violence, but sending a clear message that he would be
willing to participate in it.

The clear message is that he is ready and able to defend himself from
violence.


"An Armed society is a polite society." Those with bad intent will
avoid people who show they are able to protect themselves and seek out
people like you who choose to be victims.

So you think. I think differently.

You feel differently, I have seen no evidence of thought.

Why do you associate the viewing of a gun with a threat of violence? I
see lots of guns when I hunt or shoot at a range, but I don't assume
anyone is threatening me. If I see a cop, I don't assume he is
threatening me by carrying a gun on his belt.

Shooting at a range is very, very different from "showing" your gun to
kids in a gas station parking lot. And you really can't be serious
about comparing a cop to an average guy in this respect. And, by the
way, the cop is most certainly threatening you. He's not telling you
that he's going to start something unprovoked, but he is telling you
not to provoke him, "or else."

I thought he was armed to enforce the law, I feel no threat from him.

Suppose that Snag's gas station incident had gone down a little
differently. Suppose that the guys in the other car were afraid of
Snag, as he thinks they ought to have been. Suppose that, in a purely
defensive move, they had shown him that they were carrying guns.
Should Snag have then opened fire? What's the protocol here?

The protocol for concealed carry is to leave the scene if possible so
that no confrontation occurs. This is basic in concealed carry
courses. If they saw he was prepared to defend himself, their best
option was to leave, assuming that all involved are legally carrying.
Most successful defenses by concealed carry licensees never go beyond
displaying the fact that the intended victim is armed.

David

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:00:49 -0500, the infamous "David R.Birch"
scrawled the following:

John R. Carroll wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, "HH&C" wrote:

The situation under discussion was one in which a person who
feared -- rightly or wrongly -- that he was about to be the
victim of a crime showed his potential attackers that he was
capable of defending himself, thereby *deterring* a threat.
What threat was made by anyone besides the person that want to be
the victim when he flashed his gun?
Open carry makes all that go away.
Sure. That reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family" in which
Archie Bunker goes on TV to make an editorial statement about how you
could eliminate airline hijackings by arming all the passengers.
Please explain how a hijacker would succeed against armed passengers.


Surprise.
They'd be dead before they realized what was happening.
In fact, they would be in denial until they suddenly realized they'd had
their throats cut.

Yes, this is exactly what happened on 9/11/2001 on Flight 93, where
the hijackers subdued the passengers and flew the plane into the White
House, as planned.

****, a sharpened credit card would sail right through inspections,
and I've heard they cut a throat and jugular just as easily as a knife
will. sigh

My freshly sharpened new pencil didn't even raise an eye on the last
flight I took. It was less than 2' from the inspector's eye, at eye
level in my shirt pocket. My vicious 2" long pocket knife (stored in
checked baggage) OTOH, would have been a no-go. Mom's safe-tipped
bandage cutting scissors, a full ONE INCH LONG, were questioned until
he opened her carryon and saw the rounded edges.

Our inspections are a total farce; feel-good exercises which catch
next to nothing. shrug

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater