- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
"Anyone" is very general. I highly doubt that anyone who openly carries is compensating for something.
Actually, now that I think about it....I don't consider the whole "compensating for something" line to hold any substance - I most often hear it used by persons who tend towards the "anti gun" or "more gun control" side of things, and I think it's just a somewhat hackish statement that is far too often used, mostly by persons who aren't really considering the matter all that seriously or thoughtfully.
Kinda a throwaway statement, really.
Then again most political arguments are filled with such things....from all sides.
I'm not familiar with her...what's the story behind that comment?
So your theory about OC making you a target for attack doesn't really stand on it's leg then.
She married a guy who was willing to cash in his 401(k) in order to put her through law school, and on the day that he made the last payment, she left him. But she left him with the kids because she wanted a political career, and being "mom" was such a time-wasting drag, you know. He even got custody of the kids that weren't his, which virtually never happens in Texas.
I admit that there is a TedyBear element in carrying a gun. I feel more relaxed knowing that there's a way to deal with the worst situation should it arise.I personally think anyone open carrying is compensating for something...
I admit that there is a TedyBear element in carrying a gun. I feel more relaxed knowing that there's a way to deal with the worst situation should it arise.
See also:
*****
Having warded off 2 road-rage incidents with nothing but carrying a gun openly, I support OC. Which ever way this election goes, I hope Texas can join the OC community sooner than later. Think what you will about OC vs. CC, but people should be free to make their own choice imo.
A situation like a mass shooting? If I'm the shooter and I see your holster, you're my first target. Better that you conceal it so that I won't know you're the guy to go after first.
Or, you might not attack because you know that someone is going to shoot back.
Or, you might not attack because you know that someone is going to shoot back.
Not on everything. They have strong right to work laws
It makes you a target during an attack. It would not often be the motivation for the attack in the first place. That does not translate to an expectation of "mass attacks."
The Open Carry Argument
First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened.
If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn't respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn't know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn't going to take the time to figure it out.
Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn't make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
That post didn't specify OC. I could be carrying concealed.A situation like a mass shooting? If I'm the shooter and I see your holster, you're my first target. Better that you conceal it so that I won't know you're the guy to go after first.
If you don't like OC, then don't OC. Others should be free to make their own choice.That makes no sense at all. Criminals just do whatever it takes to win. They'll send in some dude into the bank to case the place and they'll know beforehand and prep for it. As soon as the OC dude exits the door, the criminals will pop him and move in.
Sources?There is no shooting back because I get to shoot first.
TX is full of brain-dead xenophobic right wingers
Well maybe after Texas becomes the next state to legalize weed they'll stop running around and settle down to watch some cartoons.It's political fluff. TX is full of brain-dead xenophobic right wingers running around and nothing gets them riled up more than gun-friendly talk.
There is no shooting back because I get to shoot first.
Yeah because mass killers like that are the bastion of rational thinking:roll:
"right to work" laws have nothing to do w/a right to work. It's simply a ban on union security agreements, which are voluntary, contractual agreements between a group of workers and an employer--in other words, such laws are an example of government intervention into private agreements (a no-no in a free market).
Employers who have never signed such an agreement are always free to hire anyone they want even in states with no so-called "right to work" laws. But of course, the uneducated righties that mostly populate the state of TX don't know that, making them easy prey for the stale dishonest rhetoric of pols that promise to enact these anti-market laws.
TX is also the state that has decided to ban Tesla from directly selling cars to consumers, another anti-freedom, anti-market practice.
I could list all the other anti-freedom, anti-market measures that the lower-midwestern right wing ****hole has enacted, but it would crash the forum.
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?