Had the police called on me

[Rookie]

The statement being contested, is that a gun is no different than a pen or cell phone. There were no parameters set. If the two are similar, then they are universally similar; pocket, car, hand.... how they are viewed should make no difference based on the premise.

I stand by my statement. Any item in hand usually indicates use or an intention of using. A gun used for a specific reason. If that reason does not exist, then the gun should remain holstered. If there isn't a legitimate reason to have a gun out of the holster then of course there is reason to be wary.

 

[Benny]

And you have come to this conclusion based on what? If you are so bold to make such a claim, I challenge you to back up (with my posting habits), that I believe that only those with a badge should be OC'ing.



And now an insult? My delusional mind? Where did that come from? Within this thread, I have done nothing but extend courtesy. I can disagree and be civil at the same time. I would hope those familiar with posting habits recognize this. I again challegene you to find a single post where I have ever accused someone of "cop-bashing," because they disagreed with me. You can infer what you will, but do not attempt to paint me with a brush that lacks the substance to back your claims up.

Yeah, I'm out...

Haha, I wasn't even talking about you, but if the shoe fits...

 

[E5RANGER375]

I disagree. If you don't believe in "shall not be infringed" then you are on the other side of the fence.

I agree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Haha, I wasn't even talking about you, but if the shoe fits...

Oh... dang. I'm sorry

 

[sj kahr k40]

Educating the public.... yes, that would be ideal.

The problem is that you citzen gun owner are EPIC FAIL in educating the public. I'm a life long gun owner, and yet I have never, outside of random firearm forums seen any type of awareness concerning the right to OC extended to the general public. Not a flyer, not a news spot, not a magazine article.... nothing.

here's a news story about gun rights, specifically about OCing

Protest: Families walk downtown with guns on belts and backs - fox59.com

Some of us are committed to educating the public

 

[Rookie]

EPIC FAIL!

 

[Kutnupe14]

here's a news story about gun rights, specifically about OCing

Protest: Families walk downtown with guns on belts and backs - fox59.com

Some of us are committed to educating the public

I stand corrected... How well was this publicized prior to the event? Is there a thread here about this?
Were you part of that rally? If so, BRAVO.... Thi is exactly the type of thing the OC movement needs. It's sad that for how outspoken many are about OC'ing only about a dozen people showed up.

 

[thompal]

Actually, it is.

This may sound nit-picky but it always gets under my skin when people say this. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it certainly IS evidence.

Pfffft. Nonsense.

You have no evidence that I am home.

That does NOT mean that you have evidence that I am NOT.

 

[thompal]

Explain why someone (a non-gun owner) shouldnt be offended or slightly concerned. I'm interested to see answers to this.

Well, it's easy to explain why someone else shouldn't be offended. Primarily, it's because people need to mind their own business, but if they insist on meddling in the affairs of others (like what color shirt they wear, how they wear their pants, what political sentiments they express, etc), they can always find a plethora of things to be offended about.

As for being "slightly concerned," I think this is somewhat of a strawman argument, because anytime you are out in public, you should be "slightly concerned" about many people around. For example, if you are walking down the street and have a group of youths behind you who are talking the "urban lingo," then you SHOULD be "slightly concerned." Anyone who is too oblivious to be concerned about a lot of the people they encounter is merely a good crime victim.

Situational Awareness. It's not just a trendy catchphrase. It's really a spiffy idea.

 

[thompal]

None of the examples you cited involve a weapon or instrument designed (or could possibly) injure or end life. I think that is a big difference. C'mon people it's a firearm not a tonka truck. Some people are going to have issue with it.

Let me as you this question. If a guy walks around with a double bladed axe strapped to his back because that is his preferred method of self-defense, and also his right, would you be concerned?

Why should someone's personal preference for a self-defense method or tool concern or offend me?

I would be more "concerned" with a car load of teenage girls with their radio blaring, on their cellphones, and applying makeup than I would about a guy in line behind me at the store who has an M&P on his belt.

I would be more "concerned" about the group of youths who is taunting the woman walking down the sidewalk than I would be about the woman who is carrying her pistol in an attempt to get home safely to her family.


C'mon people. It's a tool someone has chosen for self-defense, not a threat to your personal belief system.

 

[thompal]

We're dodging the question on the table. Would you be concerned if it was a guy carrying a double bladed axe on his back? Answer that question please.

Bemused, probably.

Curious, certainly.

Concerned? Why? Has he threatened me? Is he swinging it around in my presense?

I wouldn't even be "concerned" if he was carrying a (gasp) KNIFE!!

 

[thompal]

And this is where we disagree. It sounds fine and dandy to state that, but you don't honestly believe that. No one iota. With the exception of the knife, a person carrying a pen, flashlight, or cell phone, in their hand, would probably not have your interest; however it's we replace it with a handgun, it would certainly snap you head. I challenge you to say otherwise. Can you explain why this is? ....unless a you honestly view a person walking with cell phone in their hand as being akin to a person walking with a gun in their hand.

You are becoming quite the master of the strawman argument.

Are we talking about someone who chooses to OC, or are we now talking about someone carrying a handgun IN THEIR HAND??

Just because you aren't winning converts to your oddly paranoid personal opinions, doesn't mean you can win by creating a strangely misanthropic strawman either.

But to get back to your PRE-strawman argument, why would you ever claim that someone OCing would "snap my head?"

You don't seem to be trying to prove to anyone that "OCing is bad" but rather is seems that your desire is to show that "guns are inherently bad."

 

[PatriotPride]

IMO, you are just as guilty of placing a negative light on guns as the antis out there. A gun is an inanimate object. It's at tool. It's no different than the knife, cell phone, pen, flashlight that you carry.
Anyone remember when cell phones first came out? I know where I lived that only drug dealers could afford them (with a few exceptions like doctors). If you were to see someone walking down the street, talking on a cell phone, your first thought was "drug dealer". Today, everyone has a cell phone. What used to be associated with criminals became common because people decided they wanted the convenience and didn't care that some stranger might look down their nose at them or some police officer might harass them because of some piece of plastic.

A gun is a tool. Nothing more.

+1.

 

[PatriotPride]

You realize who you are talking to, right? He wholeheartedly believes that only those with a badge should have the privilege of OCing.

BTW, you disagreeing with him is cop-bashing, so be careful.















Sorry, I should clarify...You disagreeing with him is cop-bashing in his delusional mind.

Another big +1 for telling it like it is.

 

[snowman46919]

You are becoming quite the master of the strawman argument.

Are we talking about someone who chooses to OC, or are we now talking about someone carrying a handgun IN THEIR HAND??

Just because you aren't winning converts to your oddly paranoid personal opinions, doesn't mean you can win by creating a strangely misanthropic strawman either.

But to get back to your PRE-strawman argument, why would you ever claim that someone OCing would "snap my head?"

You don't seem to be trying to prove to anyone that "OCing is bad" but rather is seems that your desire is to show that "guns are inherently bad."

you forgot "end of the thread."

 

[grimor]

OC is bad, you might get hit by a car...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaUOmT-nJCI

 

[sj kahr k40]

I stand corrected... How well was this publicized prior to the event? Is there a thread here about this?
Were you part of that rally? If so, BRAVO.... Thi is exactly the type of thing the OC movement needs. It's sad that for how outspoken many are about OC'ing only about a dozen people showed up.

I organized the event, it was sad that so few showed up, maybe if the weather had cooperated, there are a few threads here about the event.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...eet_and_lunch_11_26_10_discussion_thread.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._meet_and_lunch_11_26_10_planning_thread.html

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, it's easy to explain why someone else shouldn't be offended. Primarily, it's because people need to mind their own business, but if they insist on meddling in the affairs of others (like what color shirt they wear, how they wear their pants, what political sentiments they express, etc), they can always find a plethora of things to be offended about.

As for being "slightly concerned," I think this is somewhat of a strawman argument, because anytime you are out in public, you should be "slightly concerned" about many people around. For example, if you are walking down the street and have a group of youths behind you who are talking the "urban lingo," then you SHOULD be "slightly concerned." Anyone who is too oblivious to be concerned about a lot of the people they encounter is merely a good crime victim.

Situational Awareness. It's not just a trendy catchphrase. It's really a spiffy idea.

You are becoming quite the master of the strawman argument.

Are we talking about someone who chooses to OC, or are we now talking about someone carrying a handgun IN THEIR HAND??

Just because you aren't winning converts to your oddly paranoid personal opinions, doesn't mean you can win by creating a strangely misanthropic strawman either.

But to get back to your PRE-strawman argument, why would you ever claim that someone OCing would "snap my head?"

You don't seem to be trying to prove to anyone that "OCing is bad" but rather is seems that your desire is to show that "guns are inherently bad."

First, we need to address your use of the word "strawman." I have repeatedly seen persons throw out the word incorrectly. A Strawman fallacy is a misrepresentation of statement made without addressing the core of the idea.
Here is the original statement I contested.

....A gun is an inanimate object. It's at tool. It's no different than the knife, cell phone, pen, flashlight that you carry.
Anyone remember when cell phones first came out? I know where I lived that only drug dealers could afford them (with a few exceptions like doctors). If you were to see someone walking down the street, talking on a cell phone, your first thought was "drug dealer".....

Rookie cites four different examples of objects that are "no different (than guns)." He then illustrates an example of the use of one of the four objects (a cell phone), by a person "walking down the street, talking on a cell phone." He further clarifies that this instance is when they "first came out."
Well, hands free devices didn't exist when cell phones "first came out," and one would obviously have to be carrying by hand to hold a conversation. The fact that he's uses a cell phone, one of the four objects mentioned earlier... which he draws a similarity to a gun, easily allows the "in hand" extension, to a firearm, to be made.
In contesting that argument, I illustrate that, with the possible exception of a knife, someone walking down the street with one of other three objects, in hand (remembering: someone walking down the street, talking on a cell phone.... when cell phones first came out) is in no way similar to carrying a firearm, in a similar fashion.There's no strawman, nor any other fallacy in my statement. The core of Rookie's idea is that guns are similar to the objects he mentioned. Other than being inanimate objects, they are quite dissimilar, and I provided a solid logical contradiction as to why.

Now, taking the thread, on whole, the "gun in hand" example is a strawman in that it doesn't apply to the OC debate we are currently having. However, my post was specifically a response to Rookie and no one else.

(I will address the rest of your posts a lil later)

 

[jeremy]

Who cares HOW anyone carries?!
As long as they carry...

 

[dross]

Let me as you this question. If a guy walks around with a double bladed axe strapped to his back because that is his preferred method of self-defense, and also his right, would you be concerned?

I think you make the OCer's point with this example. I would be concerned because it would be such an unusual sight. The OCers make the point that people need to see that normal mild-mannered folks carry guns. When it becomes commonplace, it will cease to scare as many people.