# Right To Bear Arms



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

This is a Blog forum on the BBC which is discussing the header article about the Second Amendment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html

Whilst there are indeed some foolish and judgemental posts from some non-Americans in the blog, the two vociferous attack-dogs by the names of ZanO and AllenT2 (if I recall their tags correctly) are doing an excellent job of illustrating how *not* to make a point :lol:.

On the other hand, some of the input from American contributors is very lucid and thoughful.  Most persuasive.

Anyhow, have a read and see what you think.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Growing up in central Illinois, we often went hunting with our fathers during pheasant and rabbit season, and then were dropped off at school.  I hung my game bag and shotgun in the cloakroom with my coat.

After moving to Colorado with my family in my teens (the late 1970's), most kids my age drove pickup trucks, and a rifle rack was pretty much obligatory.  Generally there was a rifle, compound bow, or both in the rack in full view.

People did not engage in duels in the streets.  I never heard of an accidental shooting.  And no one freaked out when they saw a gun, recoiling as if it were a rattlesnake that was about to rear up and bite them all by itself.

People who did not grow up in America do not understand our gun culture.  And they use 'gun culture' like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  I'm glad to be the product of a gun culture.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People who did not grow up in America do not understand our gun culture.  And they use 'gun culture' like *it's a bad thing.  It's not*.  I'm glad to be the product of a gun culture.



It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any 'freeer' than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any 'freeer' than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.



I agree.  It is a different way of living.  One that we Americans understand and accept and prefer.  What we find baffling is people from outside the USA who want us to adopt their non-gun culture.  We don't want to be like you.  We think you're fine, and if you're happy with your culture, that's cool.  But we don't try to force you to be more like us, we'd ask the same in return.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2010)

The 2nd Amendment was included in our Constitution as a LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT POWER. It wasn't about public safety, it wasn't about hunting and there wasn't concern over what the Europeans thought about it. 

And it's still not my concern. My ancestors decided to leave the old world for a reason.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 11, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It may not be a bad thing, but neither is it inherently better than non-gun cultures. US society is no less violent than most others, and neither is it any* 'freeer'* than European countries with strict gun laws. It is just a different way of living.


 It is not about *freeer*, it is about *freedom*, of which our whole society is based on. Freedom of choice is essential in unleashing that that is within us to survive and prosper. It is the abuse of that freedom of choice that could be our downfall, sadly.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2010)

American "freedom" is based in the idea that our freedoms are inherent and NOT granted by the government. Government's only role is to limit or regulate NOT to authorize.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 11, 2010)

We are talking about 2 different things here:

1) I don't -want- you to change anything. I don't live in the US hence I couldn't care less.
2) In a discussion about a topic, I can have an opinion about said topic without it affecting me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> American "freedom" is based in the idea that out freedoms are inherent and NOT granted by the government. Government's only role is to limit or regulate NOT to authorize.



So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans.  I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying _"The Constitution gives me the the right to..."_  No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever.  The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you.  Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans.  I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying _"The Constitution gives me the the right to..."_  No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever.  The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you.  Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.



Yup. And that is what made America such a "grand experiment" back when it was founded. Unfortunately we seem to be devolving back into what all governments seem to devolve into.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Yup. And that is what made America such a "grand experiment" back when it was founded. Unfortunately we seem to be devolving back into what all governments seem to devolve into.



We did a lot of things intentionally different when we were founded.  Innocent until proven guilty, division of powers, an intentionally-weak federal government, and the concept of authority to govern deriving from the just consent of the governed.

Problems arise because the real power (we, the people) grow complacent, tired, overwhelmed, and stop taking part in the 'lively debate' and the 'daily struggle' to govern and steer our nation.  We stop thinking _"We have a problem, how do we solve it?"_ and start thinking _"we have a problem, how will the government solve it?"_  Government begins to usurp power because the people step back and demand that someone else take care of them.

Ultimately, we remain the captains of our own destiny.  But it's hard work, and a lot of people would rather someone else steer the ship.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

Some very good points above.  I hesitate to pick out any in particular but Bill's comments bring out some highly salient issues - post#9 especially (taken in tandem with Angel's #7).

How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?

The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people.  He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people. He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.


 
That sort of confusion is natural in a chaotic situation.  As part of my CWP class we talked about a local incident (Salt Lake City, Trolley Square Mall 2007) and what we would do.  The general concensus was to get the hell out and defend you and yours from immediate threats, not to go hunting where the shots were coming from, this depended on the personality of the class member.  If you can't get out you hole up and watch the entrances.  Incidentally, the Trolley Square attacked was interrupted by an off duty police officer who was carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the mall's regulations.  The officer pinned the shooter down in a store until other officers could arrive.  

I think the point that there would be multiple shooters responding directly is highly unlikely, the simple fact is that most people don't carry.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Some very good points above.  I hesitate to pick out any in particular but Bill's comments bring out some highly salient issues - post#9 especially (taken in tandem with Angel's #7).
> 
> How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?
> 
> The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people.  He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.



I reconcile with Benjamin Franklin's quote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As to that blog..I could just as easily theorize that the group of untrained gun owners could stop the lone gunman without undue danger. All that blog does is support a preconception of gun owners that the reader would like to believe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So true, and so misunderstood, even by Americans.  I cringe everytime I hear some US citizen saying _"The Constitution gives me the the right to..."_  No, sir or madam, the Constitution gives you nothing whatsoever.  The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do to you.  Your Creator (whomever you believe that to be) gave you your rights, and our forefathers thought it wise not to screw with those rights to the extent possible.



It's easy to make this mistake because our schools and our media beat this misunderstanding into our heads.  I sometimes have to correct myself (or have myself corrected) when I really do know better.  This misunderstanding, IMO, makes it a lot easier to "erode" our rights away.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> How do you reconcile the general "Freedoms and Rights" aspects with the inherent (and avoidable) increase in deaths when you couple firearms with lack of responsibility/training/common sense?



It is difficult, isn't it?  How do you tell a parent whose child was killed in a crossfire between a 'citizen' and a 'bad guy' that the citizen did nothing wrong, although their shots went wild and killed their child?  I would not want to be the one having to explain something like this.

Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen, even very bad things, because we chose not to live in a nation that attempted to regulate whatever that bad thing is, or which denied the government the power to monitor, investigate, and otherwise interfere with bad things happening.

Wiretap laws means some bad guys get to have discussions about crimes without being detected.  Freedom of religion means there are religions that want me dead, but they still have the right to believe that if they wish.  Freedom of the press and speech means hate groups get to spout their hatred and foment violence and chaos.  The right to bear arms means that some people who should never have guns will have them, and all that that implies.

We place limits on freedoms, even in the USA.  Generally, those limits are placed where they infringe upon the rights of others, or are so clearly harmful to the immediate safety of others that such behavior cannot be permitted (the classic example is yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater - it's not protected 'free speech').

But in the USA, we are traditionally wary of placing limits on freedoms.  We tend, as a nation, to place fewer restrictions that perhaps some other countries do (although that is changing).  Part of that is because of our national reluctance to trust government with power, and part of it is because the rules put in place by our founders actually prevent it.

More freedom equals more danger.  You can't be free and protected (or rather, you can, but only in the sense that an absolute power chooses to act benevolently).  At one end of the spectrum is a society that holds all the power and protects its citizens against all dangers - even dangers to themselves in some cases.  At the other is anarchy.  The US exists somewhere between those two extremes, as does most of the rest of the world.  But the US is a bit farther over to the 'more freedom, more danger' side than most.

Another point to consider is this: making guns more available to people increases the risk that they will be used the wrong way.  On the other hand, making them less available to people only restricts access to the people that follow the law in the first place; it in no way restricts criminals who want guns but who cannot obtain them legally.  Given that an armed citizen has a better chance to survive a gunfight with an armed criminal than an unarmed citizen, I'd choose to be armed if given the chance.

And my final point is this: making guns more available does not make them mandatory, but making them less available does serve to prohibit them.  In other words, if you don't want a gun, don't buy one.  No one is making anyone purchase one who doesn't want one.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> As to that blog..I could just as easily theorize that the group of untrained gun owners could stop the lone gunman without undue danger. All that blog does is support a preconception of gun owners that the reader would like to believe.



I was much more interested in the comments in the blog (which cover a huge swathe of opinion) than the short article that inspired them.

For me, to reiterate a stance I think I've made known here before, I have ever been a proponent of the school of thought that says that an armed society is a polite and orderly society.  

But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged.  Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way).  Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I was much more interested in the comments in the blog (which cover a huge swathe of opinion) than the short article that inspired them.
> 
> For me, to reiterate a stance I think I've made known here before, I have ever been a proponent of the school of thought that says that an armed society is a polite and orderly society.
> 
> But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged.  Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way).  Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.



From the move (EXCELLENT MOVIE!) "Nobody's Fool," with Bruce Willis and Paul Newman:




> *[URL="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0097842/"]Judge Flatt*





> : Ollie, you know my feelings about arming morons: you arm one, you've got to arm them all, otherwise it wouldn't be good sport.


[/URL]


----------



## Blindside (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> But I would much rather that the arms be hand-to-hand rather than ranged. Much less chance of accidently slaying the Vicars Daughter that way (that being an archytype for "innocent bystander" by the way). Plus, it takes rather more skill to be effective with a sword than it does a gun (which is why guns became so prevalent of course) and that in and of itself tends to weed out the eejuts.


 
And yet because it takes more skill to use the weapon it gives rise to classes in society who are dedicated to their use and often use it to dominate the rest of the society.  And often aren't so polite.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

A valid point, *Blindside*.  From such good intentions are 'warrior elites' born.

It would seem that when we seek for simple answers to complex problems there are none to be found.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> The example from the blog that stuck in my mind as a very good one was the hypothetical "lone loon" in a shoping mall full of legally armed (but not really competent) ordinary people.  He starts shooting, all and sundry respond as per their natures and a lot more people end up dead as a consequence.



This type of example is used often by the anti-gun side to "illustrate" their point... that said however... cite to me some examples of these wild gunfights actually occuring.  I'm sure an example or two might be found if you look hard, but the truth is that it really doesn't happen often.  And in fact, most of these "loon with a gun" sprees tend to take place in locations where the general population is unarmed; Schools, Violence-free workplaces, the streets of D.C., Chicagoland Lane Bryant stores, and other places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited.  You don't hear about these mass killing sprees in places where the victim's are armed very often, I question why that is.  (Nah, I really don't.)


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

Also a valid point, *Cryo*.  

I am most assuredly of the opinion that in the end the numbers speak for themselves (depending on how they are gathered and 'spun' of course), without the need for 'edge of the spectrum' what-if scenarios.  Sadly, much as most of us here might wish it otherwise, the numbers seems to say that a society with relatively free access to guns leads to the death of more of it's constituent members - more so than when the weapons available are blades (such as the knife crime problems in Scotland).

Those same numbers (comparing the US to the UK) show that burgulary is about half where common firearms ownership is present and yet rape is doubled .

Lies, damn lies and statistics?  Or cultural differences?


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Freedom means that sometimes bad things will happen, even very bad things, because we chose not to live in a nation that attempted to regulate whatever that bad thing is, or which denied the government the power to monitor, investigate, and otherwise interfere with bad things happening.
> 
> Wiretap laws means some bad guys get to have discussions about crimes without being detected.  Freedom of religion means there are religions that want me dead, but they still have the right to believe that if they wish.  Freedom of the press and speech means hate groups get to spout their hatred and foment violence and chaos.  The right to bear arms means that some people who should never have guns will have them, and all that that implies.
> 
> More freedom equals more danger.  You can't be free and protected (or rather, you can, but only in the sense that an absolute power chooses to act benevolently).  At one end of the spectrum is a society that holds all the power and protects its citizens against all dangers - even dangers to themselves in some cases.  At the other is anarchy.  The US exists somewhere between those two extremes, as does most of the rest of the world.  But the US is a bit farther over to the 'more freedom, more danger' side than most.



Reminds me of a quote I love

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

So true.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2010)

Most statistical "gun deaths" in the US are suicides.

and

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html



> In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.)


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another point to consider is this: making guns more available to people increases the risk that they will be used the wrong way.  On the other hand, making them less available to people only restricts access to the people that follow the law in the first place; it in no way restricts criminals who want guns but who cannot obtain them legally.  Given that an armed citizen has a better chance to survive a gunfight with an armed criminal than an unarmed citizen, I'd choose to be armed if given the chance.



Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The problem is not the guns, it's the people holding them. Take away the guns, and the same thing will happen as in the major UK cities: people start stabbing each other.

Guns themselves are irrelevant to crime figures.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is difficult, isn't it?  How do you tell a parent whose child was killed in a crossfire between a 'citizen' and a 'bad guy' that the citizen did nothing wrong, although their shots went wild and killed their child?  I would not want to be the one having to explain something like this.



Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?


----------



## David43515 (Mar 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?


 
Yes they could still be held responsible in both crimminal and civil courts. But the fact that they were engaged in a struggle for their life at the time might go in thier favor in the crimminal court. (They`d better have been struggling for their life. If you kill some innocent bystander while shooting it out over a car stereo you desrve to share a cell with the crook.)


----------



## David43515 (Mar 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
> The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
> Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
> ...


 
A friend from Jamaica used to get the papers from home, no shootings in them but plenty of stories each week about people hacked to death with machetes.

But aren`t there stats that show when states adopt CCW laws their violent crime usually drops, or is that just a myth? For example, I`d always heard that when Kenesaw GA passed an ordinance that said each homeowner had to own a gun the violent crime rate went to almost zero. (IIRC, their nonviolent property crime went down for a while and then came back up to what it had been before.)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Blindside said:


> And yet because it takes more skill to use the weapon it gives rise to classes in society who are dedicated to their use and often use it to dominate the rest of the society.  And often aren't so polite.



"God made man.  Colonel Colt made them equal."  - Unknown author.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Guns have absolutely nothing to do with violence in a society.
> The US has gun proliferation, but is fairly violent.
> Switzerland has guns in every home yet is also a much safer place.
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
> ...



I disagree.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Do you mean that in that situation, the citizen will not be prosecuted? Is he not responsible for the bullets coming out of his gun?



Where did you read me saying that?

My point was that if citizens are not authorized to be armed, there would not be the potential for crossfire injuries or deaths between criminals and would-be victims.  There would only be victims; no cross-fire, since no one would be shooting back.

Not that I believe in this scenario; there have been many dire predictions that if citizens are allowed to go about armed, there would be 'blood in the streets' and 'wild west shootouts' happening everywhere.  It's never happened.  But yes, the potential is there for innocent people to be harmed if an armed citizen defends himself with a gun.  I was just trying to answer the question.

However, to answer your question; if a citizen is attacked by an armed thug and returns fire with a legally-carried firearm of his own, he is responsible for where his or her bullets go, aye; but if he accidentally hits someone other than his target, he would most likely not be prosecuted for murder.  Perhaps involuntary manslaughter, if that.  Just as a person whose car goes out of control, mounts the pavement, and kills a pedestrian is 'responsible' for the death, might be prosecuted, but certainly would not be prosecuted for intentional acts.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Sadly, much as most of us here might wish it otherwise, the numbers seems to say that a society with relatively free access to guns leads to the death of more of it's constituent members - more so than when the weapons available are blades (such as the knife crime problems in Scotland).



I think it has less to do with the availability of guns here, and more to do with other factors.  It doesn't take a gun to be an idiot, i think that both: the general availability of guns in our society, as well as an attempt to vilify them means that is the weapon one hears about most... 

However it's true that with the availability of a firearm as a weapon, that is the weapon of choice... but realistically, if that gun wasn't available, then a sword would be used, if the sword wasn't availible, then a kitchen knife, if not the knife, a sharp stick, if not that stick, then a rock... 

And, FWIW, I read a study from... I wanna say 2003 or 2004, I will see if I can find it, the common kitchen knife was used in more assaults in the US than firearms durring the period studied.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> However it's true that with the availability of a firearm as a weapon, that is the weapon of choice... but realistically, if that gun wasn't available, then a sword would be used, if the sword wasn't availible, then a kitchen knife, if not the knife, a sharp stick, if not that stick, then a rock...



Actually, I don't agree with that statement.  No offense meant, but it's a common counter-argument that pro-gun people use to counter anti-gun people's assertions that having 'easy access' to guns results in more deaths than if guns were unavailable.

The truth is probably unknowable - no one knows - or can prove - that if a person who kills another person with a gun could not gain access to a gun, then they would definitely still kill, but using a different weapon.

However, I have an unsupported opinion.  I am willing to believe that SOME people want to kill so badly that they would use whatever weapon they could, or even their bare hands.  Others, however, would not.  A gun does offer an immediacy and in some ways an impersonalization that other weapons do not.  I suspect that some people who would pick up a gun and fire it would not have the courage - or the willingness - to club someone to death with a stick or a rock.

I say this as a pro-gun person.  However, I don't think hiding from the facts is particularly useful.  I think it is true that in a society where guns are more available, they will be used to kill sometimes.  It is an unfortunate side-effect of having that sort of freedom.  I wish it wasn't true, but I think it is.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2010)

I agree with your views on that particular argument, Bill.

It is true that if someone is really and trully all fired up to have blood on their hands they will do anything to achieve the desired end.  Most ordinary people will not - guns make it all too easy to have a momentary 'paddy' and produce a corpse.

The best example is found in World War One, of all places.  Military records show that when ammunition ran out, troops were most rebellious about refusing to resort to 'cold steel' to do the job that guns made so easy at a distance.  It might be something that is not widely known because, clearly, it's not something the 'brass' would like getting about but it is nontheless the case.

Mind you, with the desensitisation to lethal force that is being inculcated by the 'leisure media' maybe that reluctance no longer applies?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 12, 2010)

Well, I've gone and read the whole blog. My head hurts and my eyes burn, but I managed.

Rather wish I hadn't, because I had hoped there might be some chance of salvaging certain individuals' catastrophic misunderstandings of what we are about.

But then two things occurred to me at once:

* It's a British paper. I'm not British. I don't like it when they stick their noses in to what I do, so I would show myself a hypocrite were I to come onto their site and do the same.

*It's quite obvious the predominant amount of posters on both sides of the pond would have but precious little interest in anything I would have to say. I have always thoroughly disapproved of the Internet custom of engaging in battles of wits with unarmed men before, and will not go in for it now.

As to the original topic: I am unshakably pro gun but, though I do not believe open carry should necessarily be illegal, I myself do not support the idea of open carry as it is tactically unsound.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

When I lived in Denver, I knew a man (friend of a friend) who owned a pawnshop.  He had been robbed before, as had the person who owned the pawnshop before him.  He carried his pistol in a shoulder rig in plain view when he worked in the shop.  He had not been robbed since he started doing that.  Simple, effective, and makes it very clear that if anyone robs him, they will be getting shot.  Seemed to work for him.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When I lived in Denver, I knew a man (friend of a friend) who owned a pawnshop. He had been robbed before, as had the person who owned the pawnshop before him. He carried his pistol in a shoulder rig in plain view when he worked in the shop. He had not been robbed since he started doing that. Simple, effective, and makes it very clear that if anyone robs him, they will be getting shot. Seemed to work for him.


 

I'm gonna err on the side that it also makes it very clear that he's saying "Hey, look what I have, assassinate me from distance with a rifle and come take it AND my merchandise, since guns and prescription drugs are the only two things you scumbag types can sell on the black market for more than their market value".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'm gonna err on the side that it also makes it very clear that he's saying "Hey, look what I have, assassinate me from distance with a rifle and come take it AND my merchandise, since guns and prescription drugs are the only two things you scumbag types can sell on the black market for more than their market value".



Haven't heard of many pawnshop owners taken out by sniper recently, but then perhaps I haven't been paying attention.  I rather think armed robbery is a bit more common?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Haven't heard of many pawnshop owners taken out by sniper recently, but then perhaps I haven't been paying attention. I rather think armed robbery is a bit more common?


 
I'm just saying, It is my personal opinion that giving an impending miscreant, or group thereof, advance warning to come in shooting is tactically unsound.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I'm just saying, It is my personal opinion that giving an impending miscreant, or group thereof, advance warning to come in shooting is tactically unsound.



It worked for Ronald Reagan.  Remember MAD?


----------

