StainTrain Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) In my eyes the benefit to the unarmed comes from concealed carry. Not knowing who is or is not armed benefits those who chose to run through life trusting their luck. As R2 has pointed out, this applies only to the states the permit carry. (I wouldn't live anywhere else). I agree with this. In regards to the Open Carry Movement as referenced above, I liken most of the guys that are open carrying to the guys wearing a Tap-Out shirt, 40lbs overweight and never seen the inside of an MMA establishment. I liken the concealed carry guys to GSP wearing an old navy shirt and flip flops. Edited July 11, 2014 by StainTrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 I think we have gone past open/concealed discussion to the question of weather the armed are responsible for the safety of the unarmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 To that I say you are responsible for yourself and family. Jumping in the middle of a violent situation as a good Samaritan is a recipe for disaster. Certainly we want to preserve innocent life, but its a little more difficult and risky than most people imagine. Know your limitations or you may mess up more than you fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 additionally...civilians will not have the same legal protection as LE in the event things don't go as planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 I have no responsibility except to myself and my wife, but I have no doubt I would throw myself into any situation in which I heard gun fire. It wouldn't be the first time, and if you value you life, it is stupid. It is stupid regardless. Anyways, there is a difference between responsibility and moral obligation. I expect no one else to do it, and maybe that is part of the reason I know I would. Those who love their life will surely loose it. Anyways, I done think anyone is stupid for taking responsibility for others. I also get nagged at for being the guy that picks up strangers... often... and gives my stuff away... But who you take responsibility for is personal. Who you are born having a responsibility for is yourself, and our nation cant even figure that out! Part of my belief, as well as a few others, as too responsibility and moral decisions are based on my religion. In a nation that was religious, we used to see peace due to these beliefs. Those beliefs, along with our nation, are dead. Ill leave that where it is ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) In my eyes the benefit to the unarmed comes from concealed carry. Not knowing who is or is not armed benefits those who chose to run through life trusting their luck. As R2 has pointed out, this applies only to the states the permit carry. (I wouldn't live anywhere else). Exactly. Although it appears this rationale does not extend to the full reach of the right of defense. Edit: In law and ethics, it is permitted to exercise your personal right of self-defense to cover others who are threatened. The consensus apparently is that those in need of defense who do not bear weapons should be ignored. And hey, I'm cool with that. Just wanted to know how those who are armed prefer to roll. Edited July 11, 2014 by gnatshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Seems that rejecting customers who carry has been a bad business decision, for at least one guy... Barber shop owner feels heat from open carry ban choice - KCTV5 - July 10, 2014http://www.kctv5.com/story/25992013/barber-shop-owner-says-hes-facing-backlash-for-not-allowing-open-carry-weapons And in an unusual twist, a journalist actually approaches the notion of open carry from more than the usual Marxist perspective: A solution to the open-carry protest problem: Jeff Knox calls on fellow 'old guys' to get out of their BarcaLoungers and be heard - WND - July 11, 2014http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/a-solution-to-the-open-carry-protest-problem/ The complexity of the issue has led to a lack of unity among the rights movement. Keyboard critics around the country need to shift their focus away from what Texas protesters are doing wrong and focus on what they are, could and should be doing right. The critics should also be using whatever influence they wield to encourage responsible gun owners to participate and demonstrate tactics and approaches that will advance the cause. In any movement, there are always some socially challenged individuals who want to go too far, argue too loudly, or who have an aversion to bathing. Edited July 11, 2014 by gnatshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgecrusher Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Edit: In law and ethics, it is permitted to exercise your personal right of self-defense to cover others who are threatened. The consensus apparently is that those in need of defense who do not bear weapons should be ignored. This blanket statement is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 This blanket statement is ridiculous. It may be ridiculous, but I was heavily criticized for wondering whether the armed might have a reason for protecting the unarmed. Look, I'm totally cool with the notion that people who bear arms can only be motivated by personal safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgecrusher Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 And most people make that choice for personal protection. Hence the reason to conceal carry. Not to draw attention to themselves. From a different prospective, a conceal carry permit doesn't deputize anyone. For someone without training, when do you draw down? What level of force determines this for you? Where does the laws of your state cover you to? How do you know a person needs an armed citizen to help? I'm not saying you can't intervene in a life or death situation. I would, but it needs clear defined lines. A lady come running out of her house saying my husband is going to kill me, and he's chasing her with a knife as she runs at me, well shit, drop the knife motherfucker because now I can't tell if I'm the target. On the other hand, two kids are beating up one kid, I can deal with that without a weapon. But what about where the lines blur? This isn't as easy as black and white all the time. And this is my last comment about open carry: it seems to apply to the type who lives by the saying if you've got it flaunt it. The rest of us would just rather fly under the radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 edgecrusher, you have perfectly said what I tried to say. Yes, carrying makes it necessary to make choices the unarmed cannot make. To shoot or not cannot be an easy decision. But the armed have the burden of making that choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Kentucky law states (I done feel like breaking the krs book out) that you have the legal right to defend someone else's well being with deadly force, but any negligence earns you the hammer, whereas in self defense it might not. For instance, a guy lunges at you with a knife, and you accidentally shoot someone else in the foot. It mightget you negligence, but it would be a hard battle. A guy lunges at someone else, you draw, shoot miss, and hit someone else in the foot. Your toast. I read all the krs laws on firearms, but I want to re read it, highlight the important laws, and memorize them, so I can repeat the law verbatim if needed on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Yeah, that's right. State law is very inconsistent about liabilities for 'collateral damage' when you are defending yourself or others. State law in Iowa is pretty murky on this point. What's worse, there is no effort made to have CCW persons understand the rules of engagement -- whatever they might be -- and no requirement for any CCW person to be able to shoot straight. Iowa even made the national news by granting a blind man a CCW permit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Well, I kinda give them kudos. The ccdw is an infringement on our rights. No permits! No restricted weapons! If you want to subsidize something, subsidize high speed training classes and ammo! 'MERICA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Arizona will hammer you for projectiles not hitting their intended target, even though we have self-defense and defense of third person, AND use of deadly force to prevent "special crimes" (rape, arson, others). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Sounds like a good excuse for more range time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 The consensus apparently is that those in need of defense who do not bear weapons should be ignored. Bull$hit, that's not the "concensus." I like it that you think you speak for the members of this board, though. Not the fucking case. You seem to think that because you carry concealed, you have a responsibility to other people in danger, and I can point your words out to you, if you don't remember. It may be ridiculous, but I was heavily criticized for wondering whether the armed might have a reason for protecting the unarmed. Look, I'm totally cool with the notion that people who bear arms can only be motivated by personal safety. You're being heavily criticized due to the way that you're dragging this on. You never "wondered" whether the armed might havae a reason for protecting the unarmed, at all. You straight called "people that don't carry" out on some bull$hit notion that you have somehow implanted into your brainpan. Oh, and how many people in a crowd are you effectively gonna protect with a .22LR semi-auto, anyway? You better get your a$s pretty close to the action, superhero. Kentucky law states (I done feel like breaking the krs book out) that you have the legal right to defend someone else's well being with deadly force, but any negligence earns you the hammer, whereas in self defense it might not. For instance, a guy lunges at you with a knife, and you accidentally shoot someone else in the foot. It mightget you negligence, but it would be a hard battle. A guy lunges at someone else, you draw, shoot miss, and hit someone else in the foot. Your toast. I read all the krs laws on firearms, but I want to re read it, highlight the important laws, and memorize them, so I can repeat the law verbatim if needed on the spot. Arizona will hammer you for projectiles not hitting their intended target, even though we have self-defense and defense of third person, AND use of deadly force to prevent "special crimes" (rape, arson, others). Exactly - every state is different. Tossing blanket statements and generalities about based on your flawed, misguided opinion, covering people in other states with your comments, only shows your ignorance. Thank you beach and Jon, for providing examples for our .22LR CCW-toting crowd-protector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) edgecrusher, you have perfectly said what I tried to say. Yes, carrying makes it necessary to make choices the unarmed cannot make. To shoot or not cannot be an easy decision. But the armed have the burden of making that choice. Ya... and it's a choice to have the burden. Why complain about it? And you said earlier if a guy walks into a movie theater with a rifle you might have to "pop" him. WTF??? Is he breaking the law? Have you met the legal standards for deadly force? Do you know what those requirements are for you in your state? I'll go out on a limb here here and say there is no state in America where simply possessing a fire arm meets those requirements. And no... you don't get to "decide" to shoot a guy cause he has a rifle... I don't care where you live. As far as the OP... Colorado is open carry, and I could care less. It creates more problems than it solves. To be confrontational for confrontations sake is retarded. And the same does not apply from the country and the city. In the country, where you actually do hunt, and there is not anyone really around... rifles are no big deal. And it is mostly for hunting, not self protection... but obviously could be. It just isn't normal to see someone with a long gun in the city. And if has nothing to do with fear.... it plain isn't a "normal" thing to see. Nor do you have "normal" reasons for a long gun... but in Colorado... you can open carry all you want.... and guess what... nobody does. Very rare to see. Now out on the farm, sure. Every one has one in their pick up. I open carried for a little while... and it wasn't to make a statement, and I didn't want the attention. Like I said... it caused more problems than it solved. Fact is, while I do choose to carry, I would bet money that I will never be involved in a shooting. I don't live in Iraq or Columbia, and I do not need a AR at the drop of a hat at any given moment through out the day. That isn't pussification... that is just called living in a civilized country... during peace time. When the war breaks out, I might change my carry habits. Edited July 12, 2014 by Powerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microgunner Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 I don't live in Iraq or Columbia, and I do not need a AR at the drop of a hat at any given moment through out the day. That isn't pussification... that is just called living in a civilized country... during peace time. When the war breaks out, I might change my carry habits. For the most part I can agree with you, but, the word "need" I don't. No one "needs" a defensive firearm until they do, and then they need it really, really badly. So unless you're you can foretell the future you can't know what you'll need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 it isn't "normal" to see two half naked dudes making out at Starbucks, but if you show any negative reaction to it you will be labeled a bigot. this country has chosen it's direction...I'm just along for the ride. Roman empire, the sequel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microgunner Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 it isn't "normal" to see two half naked dudes making out at Starbucks, but if you show any negative reaction to it you will be labeled a bigot. this country has chosen it's direction...I'm just along for the ride. Roman empire, the sequel. Damn Blue! Why'd ya hafta go and bring your sex life into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 damn you....:P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 For the most part I can agree with you, but, the word "need" I don't. No one "needs" a defensive firearm until they do, and then they need it really, really badly. So unless you're you can foretell the future you can't know what you'll need. The fact is there has never been one single instance in my life where a gun would have improved any out come I was a part of. I have never "needed" a gun, ever. All I can do is look at history. A fire arm is not the ultimate trump card. It isn't a death ray. I am not guarantee a positive out come simply by possessing it. It does not make me immune from harm. It is simply an option. I like options. A knife is an option. Walking away is an option.... Now I'm sure a few can't say that. And no I do not know the future.... but it is also quite possible that I may indeed "need" a gun... but that having one will not improve that out come either. But now we are talking about hypothetical "possibilities". I carry. I think everyone should. I have no problem with open carry. I buy "having one and not needing" over needing and not having.... but let's not kid our selves.... being involved in a shootout is incredibly rare.... even Zimmerman could have just gone home... not saying he was wrong... just sayin'. Most people that do not look for a shoot out will ever find themselves in one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 it isn't "normal" to see two half naked dudes making out at Starbucks, but if you show any negative reaction to it you will be labeled a bigot. this country has chosen it's direction...I'm just along for the ride. Roman empire, the sequel. Yes, but every since the S.A.G... or is that F.A.G.... :) made it a union law to have two gays in every show.... people have gotten much more used to it.... now if only they could do that with guns..... oh, wait a minute they do... with endless shootouts and police tough guys.... then denounce gun violence... never mind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unforgiven Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Yes, but every since the S.A.G... or is that F.A.G.... :) made it a union law to have two gays in every show.... Show me that rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.