Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 155 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: Packing Heat.
RoguePhotonic #2654 03/02/10 09:23 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 695
CaT Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 695
Quote:
We can't deny that the apprehension felt around open carry situations is due to fear mongering

Yeah, actually, we can. I don't pay attention to fear mongering from either side of the argument, nor is my real apprehension decided for me in that way.

With the largely duplicate thread going on over at WPSMB, I took the rare (for me these days) step of posting there first because I wanted to add to something Ken said over there. But my response there applies to your comment (quoted above).

So here is my post from WPSMB reproduced below (and having also responded to what Bee asked me on WPSMB about how long this thought process takes, the entire process only takes a couple of seconds, but of course, far longer to type out):

Been lurking on this thread.

Wasn't planning on adding anything to it, but wanted to elaborate a little further on the "destabilization" thought that Ken mentioned (and with which I agree, although I don't agree with the comment about the carrier being the first target...). I want to try and describe how I would probably react (and more important, *why*) if I ran into any stranger (to me), other than law enforcement, who was openly carrying any kind of firearm (loaded or not) in public (city or backcountry).

Roughly, my mental process might go something like this (couldn't get the bullet points to single space, sorry):
  • See person with firearm
  • Do I know this person? If yes, no biggie.
  • If no, is there anything about this person, at first glance (which is probably all I would have), that would cause me to think, even a little bit, that this person might be a threat, even without the firearm? If no, then probably no biggie. But how do I know that for sure? Should I assume, sight unseen, that this person who is unknown to me (and thus an unknown quantity) won't be a threat? If I assume no threat, how do I know that for sure? I don't.
  • If any threat is sensed (rightly or wrongly, based on the immediate circumstances), then the presence of a firearm only heightens that sensed threat.
  • Do I want to socially engage this armed person in the same outgoing manner that I normally do? What will be the consequences of that social engagement?
  • The mere presence of a visible firearm (always presumed by me to be loaded unless proven otherwise) slightly decreases the likelihood that I will as readily engage this person in the same manner that I otherwise might do without the firearm.
  • My mind will automatically ask, why is this person *displaying* a firearm in the first place? Does s/he really feel that unprotected without it, or is s/he just displaying it more as a means of saying to others, in essence, "because I can do it, I am doing it" (sort-of like the same thought process that might motivate someone to demonstrate for or against any principle that they hold very strongly)?
  • If displaying the firearm more on principle (just because I can...), then, without knowing anything about them (again, remember that they are a total stranger and thus, an unknown quantity) I may begin to question their ability to show good judgment and restraint, since I consider such a willful display a bit over the line of what I would consider showing proper restraint and being considerate of how others might be reacting (with unease) to this display of potential deadly force.
  • If a person can't show a basic amount of reasonable restraint in a non-stressed environment, then how are they going to show the kind of restraint that is needed even more in a tense situation? That could be a problem.
These are the kinds of logical thought processes that would probably go through my mind, depending entirely on the situation. Note that I mentioned no names here, because I don't consider that relevant to this line of thought.

My main point here is that a stranger is an unkonwn quantity until I meet them and am comfortable with them so that they are no longer a stranger. I'm very outgoing most of the time, and make friends pretty easily. Also, I am very inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt in just about any situation, all other things being neutral or equal. But even so, until the time a new acquaintance ceases to become an "unknown quanity", if you add to that mix any kind of a weapon, and most certainly an openly displayed firearm of any kind (loaded or not), it will make me more cautious toward and wary of that person. Obviously, that will change completely once I get to know that person, should it get to that point.

I think a few here had commented that they didn't necessarily understand why someone carrying openly, merely on its face, would be a problem for others. The above thought process hopefully answers that question. Before anyone responds and says that I am a fearful person, I am not.

Ooops ... went longer than I anticipated (what a surprise).


CaT

PS - Rod, still not getting the picture above. Maybe it'll work on my computer at work tomorrow.


If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracle of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.
- Lyndon Johnson, on signing the Wilderness Act into law (1964)
Re: Packing Heat.
AlanK #2655 03/02/10 09:25 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By: AlanK
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
I agree Alan...

I'd happily debate/discuss any topic with the likes of yourself and Icystair any day. Like you said, we really aren't that far apart even though we're not exactly on the same page. I understand and respect your thoughts, and I think you reciprocate. We could probably spend hours debating in a bar from opposite perspectives on a given matter, and part agreeing to happily do it again soon.

I enjoyed much of the discussion on the WPSMB thread, although there were a couple of exasperating posts too (by people who aren't over here). I especially appreciated a couple of Bulldog's essays. I mentioned somewhere that I own no guns and also that I have always lived in places where I could go out walking at any hour without fear. I also admitted that some event could cause me to regret that attitude, or at least change my mind. For example, if I am held up at gunpoint a couple of times, I might very well re-think my gun non-ownership. In any case, I certainly don't go around telling other people how to respond to such situations!


Alan, I apologize - in all the back-and-forth between the two boards, I completely missed this post and just now saw it. In all honesty, I'd rather debate or discuss a topic with someone who is not necessarily on the same page as me than someone who is - if they bring civility and mutual respect to the table. It's not worth the effort if you can't learn something new or gain a different insight. You do that, and I appreciate it.

Essays, huh? Oh well, I've never been accused of being shy . . . or concise.

Re: Packing Heat.
RoguePhotonic #2656 03/02/10 09:32 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 372
D
DUG Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 372
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
Quote:
He either knew how to handle himself against the lion without a gun or he figured it out pretty quickly. Who knows, a gun might have made the situation WORSE.


I think the general logic your trying to use could just as easily be used in the opposite manor, I think the statistic is guns are used 2.5 million times a year by citizens to prevent crime, you could just say well it worked out pretty well having a gun, not having one could have made things worse, but I think we both can agree that on either side of the argument we can find incidents where things would have been better with a gun or without one.

I find it amazing that the supreme court would have to even think about the "reach" of the second amendment, the constitution is "supposed" to be the supreme law of all the land, states have to follow it and then as it says "all other laws are respectfully the right of the states", this element of the constitution has long left me wondering how federal law is even legal, by the wording of the constitution it shouldn't be but that is another matter I have been long meaning to research.


All I'm trying to say is the situation ended well. Hard to argue that. Also, the situation may have ended badly if he had a gun and wasn't able to get a kill shot quickly enough. Or the gun could have gave him a false sense of security changing how he handled himself. Without it he had to use his wits to survive. I am only going off the little info you've posted, but at the end of the day if he is alive and the animal is alive, that seems like a good thing.

I'm not anti gun and I'm not into giving up any freedoms or rights. I just don't see a need to carry in the backcountry. You say just because you feel like it should be good enough. It might be, if that's your standard. It's also my right to fart in church next to you while drinking a beer, but I don't. Sometimes I don't do whatever I feel like, even though it's my right just because I care how my actions affect other people. I'm funny that way.............................DUG

Last edited by DUG; 03/03/10 05:33 AM.
Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2657 03/02/10 11:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
To CaT, the notions are certainly intriguing, my first argument would be in the notion of how people generalize what they consider a "threatening appearance", I don't deny at times judging people in ways based on their looks but I do say that this is one of humanities greatest down falls, looks can be extremely deceiving and by using them as judgement against people we don't even know we only help to create greater segregation between ourselves.

Honestly though I do believe we are beginning to find a solution to the nature of open carry for someone like me at least, many other states of mind expressed I completely disagree with their assessment and feel they are wrong, I think we can agree it's not based on personal or heard about grievances associated with the situation and the sources of those feelings or thoughts are undoubtedly a far more complex matter that extends to the very heart of this country but in the end does it even matter? as a person that would open carry (I never have before) I have to make a decision and I personally would have to disregard others feelings and make people feel uncomfortable, and I certainly do not like making people uncomfortable but it comes down to that or me surrendering what I consider a very important liberty and to do so under the notion I consider completely irrational apprehension, and I cannot do that, I will not do that, and I think that by doing open carry and exposing people to it I will be doing a greater part no matter how small of it to change peoples opinion on the matter, after all the more people are exposed to something like that the more comfortable they will become with it and in my opinion will add a positive element back into society.

I also think that people are more inconsiderate in asking others to give up their legal rights/comfort/hobbies so that they themselves can feel a bit better, just think about how many different things you could apply that idea to in society, things people wished others did not do for one reason or another but have the legal right to...

Quote:
All I'm trying to say is the situation ended well. Hard to argue that. Also, the situation may have ended badly if he had a gun and wasn't able to get a kill shot quickly enough. Or the gun could have gave him a false sense of security changing how he handled himself. Without it he had to use his wits to survive. I am only going off the little info you've posted, but at the end of the day if he is alive and the animal is alive, that seems like a good thing


I agree all ended well, if I had a gun in that situation it would go about like this "pulls out gun, fires shot into air and points at the animal, if it does not scare and does not charge then it would just be a stand off anyway" no need to fire at the animal until it becomes a threat.

Quote:
I just don't see a need to carry in the backcountry.


I don't either, you wont ever see me carry in the backcountry concealed or not unless I have something like hunting in mind, I already burden myself with 7 pounds of camera gear and hell if I am going to bring a gun!

Re: Packing Heat.
Bulldog34 #2659 03/03/10 11:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 225
S
Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 225
Bee... you're right.. how a person (read "woman") carries themselves is very much a part of how their interactions in the wilderness (or anywhere else) are going to go... someone who looks around... makes eye contact.. stands taller.. is going to be less likely to get "targeted" then someone who walks with shoulders hunched, folded in on themselves, constantly staring at the ground and their toes.

BullDog... several weeks ago I went to one of our local county parks to photograph the flood stage river that had resulted from the massive rains we'd recieved here in SoCal. I had mentioned the previous evening to my Mom that I would be going during lunch... and then sent a cell phone photo to a couple of friends from the park. As I walked a little further back into the park to get to a different vantage point I crossed paths with a couple of guys (looking a tad bit disheveled) and the thought process that went through my head (as a solo female in a fairly remote area) was as follows: 1- Are these two going to be trouble for me? 2-Who knows where I am? 3- Can I defend myself against these two? 4- Do I turn around and get back to my car right now? 5- Could I get to my car before they get to me? 6- Now that I've passed them do I hear them following me? 7- I'm due back to work at 1, how long will it take them to notice I'm not there and start wondering where I am? (I was on my lunch break). This entire thought process took about 2 seconds... but it still put me on edge for the rest of my walk, so I totally sympathize with the girl who you assisted. It doesn't matter what the intentions are.. if you're already stressed out... (and I do remember you talking about that incident on the other board).

Another thing to consider regarding carrying firearms... if it comes down to it are you going to be able to use that weapon? If you were attacked... do you have the cahones to pull that gun, point it at another living human being (no matter what threat they are) and pull the trigger? If you freeze or panic and get the gun out, but then can't pull the trigger... guess what? You've just put another advantage (and weapon) into your attackers hands, because as soon as they overpower you, that gun is theirs. I'm sure that the whole overpowering thing would be less likely to happen to a man then it would be for a woman... but take me for example. I am 5'00" in my stocking feet... I weigh in at just over 140... if I don't fire that weapon as soon as it's out of it's holster, danged near any man is going to be able to wrestle that from me. Don't think I won't put up a fight... but I am not going to disullision myself far enough to think that I'm goign to be able to keep my weapon from any average sized man who wants it...

Re: Packing Heat.
SoCalGirl #2660 03/03/10 12:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 582
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 582
re: critters...

I've stared down a cougar, and walked up the Taboose Pass trail with a bear. In neither situation did I think I needed a gun. I needed to shit my pants at first, but then I calmed and assessed the situation, made myself large and noisy, and took steps towards both animals. In the case of the bear, it simply turned and walked with me (about 100ft ahead) and I just kept talking to it so it knew I was still there. It finally got tired of my jabbering and headed down into the creek.

re: generalizations...

Both sides of this discussion are making gross generalizations. One is saying that everyone who carries is trustworthy and has the knowledge and skills to know when and how to use said tool. The other is saying that all of those people who carry are not to be trusted, destroy my sense of peace and quiet, etc.

With something like this, which in part hinges on human nature(s), generalizations are pointless and worthless. We each know how we, individually, would react to a situation. There is no way of knowing, until you have been in a situation with another person, to know how they will react. I've seen some of the bravest people I know reduced to standing around in shock and assume a follower role instead of the leaders they usually are.

It is that variability that concerns me. Not the right to carry or not. Hell, you want to carry the weight, go right ahead. I used to throw my K-Bar on the side of my pack on my solo trips. I got a lot of looks, mostly from men, btw, and comments about the size of my knife. Helluva lot more useful in the backcountry, too.

Of course, as I say this, I do have to take into account that I'm 10 feet tall, I chop down trees with my bare hands, lug 100 pound packs full of three bear cans over the tops of mountains, and cuddle with the mountain lions at night.

Speaking of which... maybe I need to go find DUG and keep him company in that winter hole of his... smirk


Facebook

Flickr Pics

Think outside the Zone.
Re: Packing Heat.
SoCalGirl #2661 03/03/10 01:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Quote:
If you freeze or panic and get the gun out, but then can't pull the trigger... guess what? You've just put another advantage (and weapon) into your attackers hands, because as soon as they overpower you, that gun is theirs. I'm sure that the whole overpowering thing would be less likely to happen to a man then it would be for a woman...


This gets back to what I've been trying to emphasize on this gun carrying mania. One of the reasons that I'm incredibly uneasy with all these guns out there is the poor level of training required for even a CCW in California. It's not just about basic safety (don't clean a loaded weapon) and it is definitely not just about hitting a target with a score of xx. We no longer train with a numbered scoring system, so the emphasis is not on your score, but firing quickly and accurately into the center of mass to stop the threat.

SoCalGirl is right, it's also about weapon retention (forgotten the number, but a significant number of trained officers are shot with their own weapons); deciding when to shoot or not shoot; understanding lethal force; when to use a secondary weapon when lethal force is not justified; how to shoot quickly and accurately in an adrenaline situation. Most police shootings happen within about a 5 foot distance and are over in 3 (!!) seconds (should be verified, but I think that's from FBI stats). One study found the best trained officers in daylight conditions hit the person with about 65% of rounds fired. That's officers who probably train several times a year in tactical scenarios, not standing on a range firing at a stationary paper target. Other studies have shown hit ratios in the 15% range.

And then, yes, the psychological part of shooting. You have to be absolutely prepared to instantly recognize the situations where lethal force is necessary and justified; draw, aim and shoot. That's less than a second.

If people feel the need for a weapon, take a close look at Tasers. The new civilian models are made to go long enough for you to drop it (still active) on the ground and run away. The C3 is small and lightweight and comes in a variety of complimentary colors.




g.


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2663 03/03/10 04:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Quote:
I've stared down a cougar, and walked up the Taboose Pass trail with a bear. In neither situation did I think I needed a gun.


I also have not felt I needed a gun with any animal situation I have encountered, I walked a trail with a mother bear and her two cubs but I never felt worried even though I know of the dangers of being around the cubs, the odds of coming across a situation where I would feel threatened is extremely low.

I do admit that I am making generalizations, my only argument is I am basing the generalizations on the lack of any cases of open carry problems while the other side makes them based on what exactly? what ifs?

I also agree completely that we can never know exactly how we will react until something happens.

Thanks for the comic relief, exactly what this thread needs. smile

Re: Packing Heat.
RoguePhotonic #2669 03/03/10 05:48 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.


Mike
Re: Packing Heat.
Mike Condron #2670 03/03/10 05:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.


'cause I can

(answer does not reflect the opinion of this poster who only aims to annoy Mike grin )


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Packing Heat.
Bee #2671 03/03/10 05:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Oh yeah???? Annoy this!!!! mad


Mike
Re: Packing Heat.
Mike Condron #2673 03/03/10 05:58 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Oh yeah???? Annoy this!!!!


Now take it easy, mister, we don't want anyone to get hurt.


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2674 03/03/10 06:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Quote:
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.


The good reasons are all the ones you already know such as self defense, I think we can agree the reasons are sound but our argument has centered around the nature of statistical probability and whether it's irrelevant, I maintain that it is.

Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2676 03/03/10 06:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
Actually I think I should make a point that falls outside of statistical probability, open carry is a visual deterrent and greatly reduces your chances of being attacked, criminals prey on the weak and are not likely to take on a person with a gun on their hip.

On guns in general we could break out all the statistics of where they have helped, I forgot which town it is in America if anyone has the name that passed a law requiring the head of every house hold to own a gun and ammo for it, when that law passed the burglary rates dropped 95%, or how about the other way around such as when Australia banned guns, crimes rates across the board sky rocketed.

Or how about the bigger picture such as many years ago when Japan said they would never want to invade America because they knew how everyone was armed. =P

Last edited by RoguePhotonic; 03/03/10 06:12 PM.
Re: Packing Heat.
RoguePhotonic #2678 03/03/10 06:26 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 215
Add "in a campground such as those near the Whitney Trailhead or in at the car camping campgrounds in Yosemite".

Does the same "self defense" rational apply in these very benign locations?


Mike
Re: Packing Heat.
RoguePhotonic #2679 03/03/10 06:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I forgot which town it is in America if anyone has the name that passed a law requiring the head of every house hold to own a gun and ammo for it, when that law passed the burglary rates dropped 95%, or how about the other way around such as when Australia banned guns, crimes rates across the board sky rocketed.


Rogue, coincidentally I posted that information on WPS this afternoon - it's Kennesaw, Georgia, here in metro Atlanta. Here's the post from today:

Jim, Georgia has 159 counties (insane, I know - only Texas is crazier) and about 800 incorporated cities and towns (many of them smallish, but then again 6 million of Georgia's 10 million people are in metro Atlanta), but the firearms regulations are pretty homogenic throughout the state due to the state law pre-emption statute - in other words, no governing body may restrict firearms regulations further than state law allows, which is pretty wide-open.

However there is one city that has "enhanced" state law by having an ordinance on the books that requires every head of household to possess a firearm and ammunition. The city is Kennesaw (right next to my little burg of Marietta), and it actually has an NPS-operated park within it's city limits - Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park - with about 27 miles of extremely heavily-used trails lacing two mountains. From Wiki:


On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. No one has ever been charged under the ordinance. In the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65, to 26 in 1983, to 11 in 1984.

Even though the law is clearly tongue-in-cheek, has no associated penalty, and has never been enforced, I suppose a broad interpretation could be made by some that it now requires all KMNB park visitors to be armed and loaded . . .

Good for some comic relief anyway in what has occasionally become a flashpoint thread.



Re: Packing Heat.
Bulldog34 #2687 03/03/10 07:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
"Ms. Ordinance, please meet Mr. Ordnance"


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2691 03/03/10 07:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Jeez wagga, do you just sit around all day and make this stuff up? When does your brain get a rest?

Re: Packing Heat.
Bulldog34 #2692 03/03/10 08:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
Mr. Ordnance eventually summoned up the brass to invite Ms. Ordinance out for a sedate date. He proved to be an excellent lead in dancing. She correctly gauged him to be of the appropriate caliber and, as he didn't choke, allowed him to shoot his wad. The resultant shotgun wedding...

Is outside of the scope of this forum.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Packing Heat.
wagga #2693 03/03/10 08:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 2
I rest my case . . .

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.045s Queries: 55 (0.038s) Memory: 0.7034 MB (Peak: 0.8758 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 19:33:17 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS