Question of the Day: Does Open Carry Makes Cops’ Jobs More Dangerous?

I find it odd that law enforcement officials don’t support the idea of open carry. If I were snorting—I mean patrolling the thin blue line, my firearm fear would focus on concealed carry. To paraphrase the British expression about death by bus (again), it’s the gun you don’t see that kills you. I wonder how much of the cops’ opposition to open carry is about maintaining the power to license guns, and how much of it is childhood exposure to gunfighting movies. A lot apparently . . .

Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott, sharing the opinion of the vast majority of the state’s sheriffs, stated, “Allowing people to carry pistols in their holsters, like the old Wild West days, is dead wrong. It will result in more shootings and make our deputies’ job more difficult and more dangerous”. The sheriff, reacting to a recent school board shooting in Florida, lamented the fact that, “The time is not far away when all our public meetings will require metal detectors and armed guards to protect officials from a mentally unbalanced individual with a gun.”

Guns on trochanters! Guns on trochanters! Great Scott! What’s a trochanter? Will open carry advocates take us back to the future to create gunfights in the streets, as the citizen-times.com’s editorialist (clamoring for Canadian gun laws in the Land of the Free) suggests? Or will open carry help police and reduce crime, in that Robert Heinlein “an armed society is a polite society” kinda way?

I’m a strong believer in open carry. I reckon it would extend and defend our second amendment rights by the process of normalization (nothing to do with Psycho). Although school shooters are as rare as gold hen’s teeth, open carry would certainly diminish that problem. What’s your take?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

53 Responses to Question of the Day: Does Open Carry Makes Cops’ Jobs More Dangerous?

  1. Since cops generally wear uniforms, and in America, uniformed cops are assumed to be carrying guns, what would be the point of forcing cops to conceal? They are pretty much stuck open carrying.

    Oh, you mean would it be dangerous for cops if WE open carry! Why? Are we more likely to start shooting police officers? I’ve open carried and CC’d right next to cops and have had no desire whatsoever to take a shot at them.

    So I’d say, who cares what they think about our rights? There’s probably quite a few that really dislike the 4th and 5th Amendment too. We don’t ask their opinion about that either.

    Their job it to protect us from those who would harm us, and to capture those who have harmed us already. Not to give opinions on what they think would be a better Bill of Rights.

  2. avatarMagoo says:

    Non-law enforcement personnel who open carry are essentially expressing their distrust of and hostility toward society. You are saying, “I have so little confidence in the social order and in my fellow citizens that I need a firearm just to walk down the street.”

    If there are 50 citizens in a public space and you are the one carrying a firearm, you will be perceived as the most aggressive and hostile, naturally. You may find that unfair, but this is how human beings are hard wired. It has nothing to do with “hopolophobia,” a ridiculous term not invented by sociologists but by a jackass named Jeff Cooper. The open carry of firearms and other lethal weapons in public is not the sign of an advanced civilization, but of a primitive one where people settle their disputes by force.

    • ooohh, more projection. When will you learn that just because these are the only reasons that YOU would act this way doesn’t mean that these are the reasons WE would act this way?

      • avatarMagoo says:

        I’m just telling you how ordinary citizens tend to react when they see firearms. Normal people do not want to see the widespread practice of open or concealed carry. It doesn’t bode well for their safety or for the state of their society.

        You gun loons seem very intent upon returning America to the Old West, when the first thing our pioneers sought to do was civilize it — so they wouldn’t have to carry guns on the street, among other things.

        Really, I feel kinda bad for you gun nuts. Your trigger fingers are itching but if you obey the law, the odds are remote in the extreme that you will ever get the chance to actually shoot someone. Bummer, all that trigger filing and quick-draw practice for nothing. You guys should buy up all the liquor stores, 24-hour pawn shops, etc. Then these peace-loving citizens can go find something safer to do, and you will be positioned considerably closer to the line of fire, where you are so clearly dying to be.

        • avatarAaron says:

          You’re kidding, right? Ask anyone that carries a gun for self-protection. They’ll agree that the best of all circumstances is that the bad guy gives up or runs away, upon the presentation of a self-defense weapon. No one really wants blood on their hands.
          Magoo, can you take a deep breath and examine your responses with a bit of detachment? Look at your language, and tone. YOU seem like the one who is angry, twitchy and distrustful of their fellow man.

        • avatarAnon says:

          I’m just telling you how ordinary citizens tend to react when they see firearms.

          No, you are just tell us how you would react in that circumstance, and then extrapolating that since you react that way, everyone reacts that way.

          Hence, “projection”.

        • avatarMagoo says:

          Nope, been around guns all my life. They don’t scare me. Some of you guys concern me a bit, however. When Barney wanted a cartridge for his revolver, he had to go ask Sheriff Andy for one. A sound policy in that case, I think.

        • avatarAnon says:

          Fine. Then please present your evidence and supporting documentation to substantiate your characterization of an “average” American’s response to openly carried firearms.

        • avatarcarlos says:

          react when citizens see a gun hahahaha they see cops gun dude go to hell

        • avatarPatriot Henry says:

          I’m just telling you how ordinary citizens tend to react when they see firearms. Normal people do not want to see the widespread practice of open or concealed carry. It doesn’t bode well for their safety or for the state of their society.

          Most people don’t notice. When budget allows I’ll get something bigger and see if anyone reacts. Here in NH people don’t really give a damn except maybe in the Southeast corner where the Massholes have taken over.

          You gun loons seem very intent upon returning America to the Old West,

          You can’t return to a place that never was.

          Really, I feel kinda bad for you gun nuts. Your trigger fingers are itching but if you obey the law, the odds are remote in the extreme that you will ever get the chance to actually shoot someone.

          The only people I want to shoot are two dimensional and made out of paper and ink – and I can shoot them all day every day, budget permitting.

          Then these peace-loving citizens can go find something safer to do, and you will be positioned considerably closer to the line of fire, where you are so clearly dying to be.

          Um, I’m dying to be in an area so remote that seeing a car will be something to talk about. In such an area there will be plenty of opportunities to shoot paper people and zombies.

    • avatarAaron says:

      Really? Then why did no one react at all when I walked into a lakeside restaurant in Vermont last year with a 1911 on my hip that I was borrowing from the tactical instructor? And strangely, I didn’t recall any feeling of “distrust” or “hostility” only “hunger” and “not feeling like unthreading the holster from my belt before going to lunch”
      There’s a common thread in your comments, that people who use and carry guns are paranoid and hostile, with a dim view of their fellow citizens.
      It’s really too bad that you feel that way – preparing for the worst is not the same thing as believing that the worst is going to happen.
      I am far more afraid for my life in a busy parking lot, walking across a busy street or trying to merge onto a busy highway than when I’m at the range or otherwise around people with firearms.
      People in their 3000+ pound killing machines are far less predictable and more deadly than law abiding citizens with firearms, concealed or otherwise.

    • avatarPatriot Henry says:

      If there are 50 citizens in a public space and you are the one carrying a firearm, you will be perceived as the most aggressive and hostile, naturally.

      The one who is loud and rude and making a scene over nothing usually attracts attention. Quiet polite gentlemen and ladies don’t tend to be perceived as aggressive and hostile.

      You may find that unfair, but this is how human beings are hard wired.

      Got a source for that?

      The open carry of firearms and other lethal weapons in public is not the sign of an advanced civilization, but of a primitive one where people settle their disputes by force.

      Um, no. I’ve heard of many unarmed people and some people who have a gun concealed or in their truck who settle their disputes by force, but never an open carry person. Got an example from within your lifetime of an open carrier using their firearm to settle a dispute?

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      You never learn, do you?

      Every state enforces its norms through the use of force. All laws without the threat of violent action are nothing but suggestions. The idea of a “peaceful,” “advanced” civilization is a fraud. We are no different than animals. Get used to it.

    • avatarSport Shooter says:

      Once again the pro gun control side is represented without the benefit of logic. And true to form it is always through the use of logical fallacies with ad hominem as a favorite. Let’s evaluate the following statement:
      If there are 50 citizens in a public space and you are the one carrying a firearm, you will be perceived as the most aggressive and hostile, naturally. You may find that unfair, but this is how human beings are hard wired. It has nothing to do with “hopolophobia,” a ridiculous term not invented by sociologists but by a jackass named Jeff Cooper. The open carry of firearms and other lethal weapons in public is not the sign of an advanced civilization, but of a primitive one where people settle their disputes by force.

      First let’s break it up into its numerous fallacies:

      If there are 50 citizens in a public space and you are the one carrying a firearm, you will be perceived as the most aggressive and hostile, naturally.

      This is a classic example of the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Though it is a little twisted, here Mr magoo is saying that 49 out of 50 people think open carry makes you aggressive and hostile, so it must be true. Where this falls apart is Magoo has absolutely no way of proving this is true, and in fact evidence suggests it is not. It is a known fact that well more than half our citizen population is actually opposed to gun control, so it is safe to assume at least 25 will support the OC persons right to carry, with at least some of those even feeling more comfortable around the OC person because at least they know where he stands. At the very least we can assume that more than 25 will assume the one who first speaks out in opposition to the OCer is the most aggressive in the room. I know I would if i was one of the 50, and last I checked I was a citizen which brings us to the subtler and more dangerous logical fallacy in this statement.

      His use of “citizen” suggests that we, the pro gun folks of the country, are not real citizens as long as we are pro gun. This is an example of the no true Scottsman fallacy of logic. Fortunately, whether Magoo agrees or not, pro gun people are still allowed to be citizens of this country, when that changes we will need our guns most. Magoo backed himself into this one, he on some level of thinking whether conscious or not realized the room could be full of 50 TTAGers, in which case absolutely no one would be more hostile to the OCer. So he had to remove that possibility and the best way was to limit it to citizens and infer we are not citizens. Well it is the best way if you and logic and not even acquaintances anyways.

      You may find that unfair, but this is how human beings are hard wired.

      In this logical fallacy Magoo states distinctly that all humans believe and/or act this way, therefor if anyone disagrees they are not human. Sadly, magoo is again very mistaken, a quick search revealed there has been no research done to prove this assertion, therefor the only backing it has is Magoo himself, which is to say extremely week backing in the least. Most likely he pulled this gem from his anus, but to be fair Magoo I give you this opportunity to prove humans are hardwired this way. Please use actual scientific findings or at least actual back-able logic in your proof, in other words because you say it is so does not make it so.

      It has nothing to do with “hopolophobia,” a ridiculous term not invented by sociologists but by a jackass named Jeff Cooper.

      Here we have ad hominem, the gun control advocates weapon of choice. Funny thing is actual ad hominems are really fairly hard to pull of, but gun control advocates manage it far more often than any other group I have seen. It requires two parts, an attack on the persons character and the second important part is the attack must be used in substitution of an actual counter argument. Attack plus logical counter argument does not equal ad hominem. Magoo pulls this off as he attacks Jeff Cooper by attacking his character and the omission of any reason why Jeff Cooper’s term is ridiculous.

      This is also a fine example of the poisoning the well logical fallacy. Magoo is trying to assert that because Jeff Cooper is a Jackass, anything he says or does should not be considered.

      The open carry of firearms and other lethal weapons in public is not the sign of an advanced civilization, but of a primitive one where people settle their disputes by force.

      And as we get to the final statement in the short post, no actual logic has come forth, but more logical fallacies do rear their ugly little heads. Magoo tosses out the term “advanced civilization” but fails to define it, thus leaving it ambiguous. He does this because he knows on some level of conscious that the statement is utter BS. The only definition we can infer is that advanced civilizations are ones where no one open carries, therefor of course no civilization that allows open carry can meet “advanced” status. Well, I lived in Brooklyn for a while, I never saw a single soul open carry there, and I would easily vote it amongst the least advanced civilizations I have been apart of. I have also lived in Switzerland where seeing someone walk down the street with their full auto rifle was not at all uncommon (read a daily occurrence), and I would say it is amongst the more advanced civilizations I have been a part of. I realize this is subjective, so let’s take a vote: where would you rather live, Brooklyn where you are extremely likely to get mugged or burglarized (I was mugged 3 times and burglarized 4 times in the year I lived there) and people line up on the 15th and 30th of every month to exchange food stamps for drugs (the illegal sort mind you), or Switzerland where there is no graffiti, extremely low crime, and people actual say hello and talk to you as you pass?

      Also Magoo is asserting here that the more guns you have in an area the more gunfights there will be. This is utter nonsense Magoo has contrived himself thinking there was no way to prove otherwise. He was wrong (as appears to be his MO at this point), as it turns out a little known fact was there was a period in early American history when the constitution was still brand new that we had a Swiss style mandatory gun law. That’s right, every home was required to have at least one rifle (the machine gun of the day compared to muskets), if they could not afford a rifle the government lent them one and they paid rent on it. Now, funny thing, anyone want to guess what period in our history had the least amount of crime, including firearm related homicide? If you said the same period every household had guns, you win! Therefor, it is clear that more guns does not translate to more wild west shootouts (there are of course many other examples, but this one works well enough).

      So Magoo, Next time how about trying actual logic, it would probably be received better. But as I have said before, if gun control nuts start applying actual logic, they will probably wind up switching sides.

      • avatarMagoo says:

        There’s a lot here and we can take it point by point if you like. We could start anywhere, say, with my assertion that Jeff Cooper was a jackass. One of the innumerable examples I can cite is his vociferous support of apartheid in which, among other things, he infamously referred to black South Africans as “orang-gautengs.” Now there is a jackass by most anyone’s measure, especially with respect to one’s social views. Would you disagree?

        And it’s easy to show how his term “hopolophobia” was rooted in equally backward views about the nature of humanity and society. Cooper was a profound reactionary, an extreme throwback with a pre-Victorian worldview in the late 20th century. Compared to Cooper, Teddy Roosevelt was a Maoist. Racist, homophobic, and misogynist don’t begin to describe his opinions. Don’t take my word for it; take his own statements on the related topics. I refer to Jeff Cooper as a jackass with charity and some fondness.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          Then think of another term to describe “an irrational fear of weapons.”

          Or I can do it for you…”weapon-phobia.”

          Ding.

        • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

          And by your logic, with the GCA Act of 1968 (or one of those acts) it was closely modeled after the Nazi’s weapon registration laws. Then again, we shouldn’t have enacted that law anyways because the Nazis were a bunch of racist genocidal monsters that cared very little about their own people, not to mention almost all of Europe and Northern Africa.

          http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

        • avatarSport Shooter says:

          There’s a lot here and we can take it point by point if you like. We could start anywhere, say, with my assertion that Jeff Cooper was a jackass. One of the innumerable examples I can cite is his vociferous support of apartheid in which, among other things, he infamously referred to black South Africans as “orang-gautengs.” Now there is a jackass by most anyone’s measure, especially with respect to one’s social views. Would you disagree?

          I can certainly see why you would think he is a jackass, though I suspect it has less to do with his views on apartheid than you let on.

          But whether or not he is a jackass is immiterial, it just does not matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because jackasses are not by default always wrong, as you are trying to claim.

          For example, lets take Simon Cowell from American Idols past. I was no fan of AO but I couldn’t help but see a few. And while it was abundantly clear that Simon Cowell was a jackass if ever there was one, he was right far more often than he was wrong. Therefor proving that even if someone is a jackass, they can still be right.

          Jeff Cooper was right about a great many things, whether you like him or not.

          And it’s easy to show how his term “hopolophobia” was rooted in equally backward views about the nature of humanity and society. Cooper was a profound reactionary, an extreme throwback with a pre-Victorian worldview in the late 20th century. Compared to Cooper, Teddy Roosevelt was a Maoist. Racist, homophobic, and misogynist don’t begin to describe his opinions. Don’t take my word for it; take his own statements on the related topics. I refer to Jeff Cooper as a jackass with charity and some fondness.

          Well, I admit when I read the first sentance I thought I was about to witness the miracle of a gun control advocate trying real logic, but that illusion was quickly dispelled by the next sentance. You went straight back to that favorite weapon of the gun control nut, ad hominem. What Cooper was, how he relates to Teddy Roosevelt, and his opinions contain absolutely no proof for your initial assertion. They are all attempts at character assassination, nothing more.

          So lets try this. Lets relook at your initial sentance:

          And it’s easy to show how his term “hopolophobia” was rooted in equally backward views about the nature of humanity and society.

          Since you state it is easy, try to actually do it. Now, you have a real bad habbit of resorting to ad hominem, which quickly takes your assertions into logical fallacy land thereby making them not proof at all. So try to do it without mentioning Cooper, infering Cooper, replacing Cooper, or transcending Cooper. In fact leave individuals out altogether. If it is easy as you stated, then prove it with real logic, by proving “hopolophobia [is] rooted in equally backward views about the nature of humanity and society.” Hint: focus on the backward views and nature of humanity and society.

          Five bucks says you can’t do it without more logical fallacies!

        • avatarMagoo says:

          You’re completely mistaken. Argumentum ad hominen is Latin for “argument to the man.” Simple name calling does not constitute an ad hominem argument. The purpose may only be derision or humor, a time-honored component in rhetoric. However, Cooper’s “hopolophobia” argument meets all the requirements of ad hominem, as does your argument with me here, ironically. Read your post.

          The hapless citation of informal logic, very popular in Internet discussion, is known as the “fallacy fallacy. ” For mislaid ad hominem specifically, a brief tutorial: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

          You have also constructed a perfect example of another well known logical fallacy: argumentum ad argumentum, aka the argument about the argument.

          The Hopolophobia argument is not only ad hominem, it is socially backward: It is intended to portray all issues of gun policy as the irrational fear of firearms, and thus unworthy of examination. In other words, it’s a referent-free label, a favorite tool of mob thought. The jackass whose name I must not utter here due to clownish pedantics invented a faux-intellectual term to motivate the basest of instincts. Without ever recognizing it, I’m sure.

        • avatarBuuurr says:

          “But whether or not he is a jackass is immiterial, it just does not matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because jackasses are not by default always wrong, as you are trying to claim.

          For example, lets take Simon Cowell from American Idols past. I was no fan of AO but I couldn’t help but see a few. And while it was abundantly clear that Simon Cowell was a jackass if ever there was one, he was right far more often than he was wrong. Therefor proving that even if someone is a jackass, they can still be right.”

          Agreed. I will give you another example. One, I think, of an individual who had a little more weight in his opinions and those of the hearts and minds of the world. A car company unveiled it’s newest creation to the head of a state. They beamed at it’s cost to awesome ratio and bragged about it in everyway that it delivered what was wanted. The head of state said (roughly), …I don’t like it. It is ugly and jagged. Make it more round – cute. I do not like this… The company was Volkswagen. The head of state was Hitler. One of the biggest jackasses the world has ever seen was literally responsible for the looks of one of the worlds most adored cars – the ‘Bug’.

        • avatarSport Shooter says:

          Reply to Magoo.

          You’re completely mistaken. Argumentum ad hominen is Latin for “argument to the man.” Simple name calling does not constitute an ad hominem argument. The purpose may only be derision or humor, a time-honored component in rhetoric. However, Cooper’s “hopolophobia” argument meets all the requirements of ad hominem, as does your argument with me here, ironically. Read your post.

          Conveniently you have a short memory. Kindly look back at my first reply to you to see I know quite well what is and isn’t ad hominem, well since I know you wont, here it is again for you “Funny thing is actual ad hominems are really fairly hard to pull of, but gun control advocates manage it far more often than any other group I have seen. It requires two parts, an attack on the persons character and the second important part is the attack must be used in substitution of an actual counter argument. Attack plus logical counter argument does not equal ad hominem.” The “argument to the man” literally means instead of arguing against the premise you are arguing against the man who made the premise.

          You are not engaging in simple name calling, you are indeed meeting the second requirement for ad hominem, that being that the attack be a substitution for any actual logical rebuttal. You are taking the argument to the man instead of his premise, your attempts to claim otherwise though I am sure you think clever are anything but.

          The hapless citation of informal logic, very popular in Internet discussion, is known as the “fallacy fallacy. ” For mislaid ad hominem specifically, a brief tutorial: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

          Ah magoo, you may not have noticed, but I am no stranger to the art of debate or logical fallacies. It is always funny to see people when faced with a long list of their own logical fallacies do a small amount of research to turn the table. You are right, there is a fallacy fallacy, and it it is newer. Unfortunately, I am not guilty of it. It does involve pointing out the fallacies of others, and it even requires naming them. However, it to has a second part which is remarkably similar to the second part of ad hominem (there is a reason for this) that is that the person naming the pointing out the fallacies must fail to show why they are fallacies or point out why they do not support the logic they are intended to support under false pretenses. Looking back, you will see I am very careful to meet at least one of those requirements, that is I always show why it is the fallacy I claim it is and/or why it does not logically work. In fact this would be the very reason I brought up the two parts to ad hominem mentioned above.

          You have also constructed a perfect example of another well known logical fallacy: argumentum ad argumentum, aka the argument about the argument.

          Umm no, you are incorrect here as well. But I would like to point out that what you have done here is pulled of an actual fallacy fallacy, notice you do nothing to prove it is argumentum ad argumentum nor do you dispute my actual logic with sound logic (and notice how I have once again proven your usage of the fallacy fallacy actually meets the fallacy).

          The Hopolophobia argument is not only ad hominem, it is socially backward: It is intended to portray all issues of gun policy as the irrational fear of firearms, and thus unworthy of examination. In other words, it’s a referent-free label, a favorite tool of mob thought. The jackass whose name I must not utter here due to clownish pedantics invented a faux-intellectual term to motivate the basest of instincts. Without ever recognizing it, I’m sure.

          Hmm, lets break this up some.

          The Hopolophobia argument is not only ad hominem,

          Umm no. Remember that second rule, the one you and most people have problems with, it requires ad hominem be used to counter an argument without addressing the argument itself or in other words as a substitution to an actual counter arguement. Cooper was not countering an argument when he coined the term, thus it is not ad hominem.

          it is socially backward: It is intended to portray all issues of gun policy as the irrational fear of firearms

          Sorry to inform you, but that portraying “all issues of gun policy as the irrational fear of firearms” is socially backwards is nothing more than your opinion. Unless you provide actual proof it is socially backwards it can be nothing more than an opinion (and I promise you that in this case it is doomed to forever be an opinion). For example, I think all attempts to restrict gun ownership is socially backwards. I can provide some logical evidence to back my case, for example most ruthless dictatorships are popularly believed to be socially backwards, and every last one of them employs draconian gun control policies. But it is still just my opinion, why first because there are other societies believed to be socially backwards that do or did not have strict gun control, second because in some cases the people living in those backwards societies did not believe their society was backwards. The problem here is socially backwards is one of those terms that is doomed to forever have membership in it be a matter of opinion and nothing more.

          and thus unworthy of examination. In other words, it’s a referent-free label, a favorite tool of mob thought.

          This I admit is the closest you have come to a logical argument. Sadly it is also an opinion as it is your opinion Cooper meant it the way you describe. And when we look at the evidence it is clear Cooper did not mean it this way. Had he meant to use it to simply excuse the gun control side as unworthy of examination he would have simply flung the term as a counter and walked away every time he was confronted with a pro gun control argument. Sadly for you, there is no instance of Cooper countering a pro gun control argument by saying anything resembling “You’re just a hopolophobe” and walking away. In fact it was quite the opposite, he was expressing his disgust that the gun control side can’t be rational to save their lives. They see guns or pro gun issues and run completely on emotions, I mean lets use you as exhibit A, you haven’t formed a rational logical argument yet.

          The jackass whose name I must not utter here due to clownish pedantics invented a faux-intellectual term to motivate the basest of instincts. Without ever recognizing it, I’m sure.

          Hey, if you are gonna replace all your logic with opinion for argument, why not close out with a good strongly worded opinion, right?

          Now, I assure you I know more about logical fallacies than you could learn with weeks of research. You have been guilty of a great deal of logical fallacies, as I proved in each individual case. Your attempts to counter by using quickly garnished internet knowledge has backfired, as it always does. It is best for you if we return to discussing the actual topics, those being Open Carry and the “hopolophobia is a socially backwards term” argument you introduced but have as of yet failed to prove in any way whatsoever. Note, I am not giving you a free pass to fling about more logical fallacies, and if you do I will point them out and counter them. I am saying lets not bore the readers and further make you look foolish by continuing to discuss your past fallacies.

  3. avatarKW says:

    The gun and the badge have become the tools of power for the govt in this country. Letting citizens exercise their constitutional right to open carry essentially negates one of the biggest tools separating US from THEM.

    There was a time in this country when tough individuals knew and practiced their rights. You had to be a VERY tough individual to be a cop knowing that you would encounter people on equal ground. Your power came from the written law supported by the people. The folks who built this country and fought for the freedoms it was established on would be sad indeed to see the modern era of a nation of sheep herded by gun toting, doughnut eating bullies.

  4. avatar2yellowdogs says:

    The “argument” of Sheriff Scott is so counterintuitive that it hardly needs refuting. If we’re strictly looking at this from a law and order perspective no LEO would say that it’s more dangerous to have citizens carrying openly than concealed.

    But that’s not really what they’re talking about in this argument, is it? No, not it’s not. The objection to open carry is a thinly veiled attempt to hang on to some level of control of firearm ownership and use in a world where the opponents are clearly losing that battle. The banners love their Cassandra-like predictions of Dodge City shootouts and it will ever be thus. Just because one of the predictors is dressed in blue doesn’t make it any more accurate. But that won’t reduce the weight and prominence given to them by the media and undecided and uninformed Joe Citizens.

  5. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    I’m with Sean and Aaron on this, and I can’t even begin to say how I truely feel(lucky for us that Magoo knows how all ordinary people feel cuz he’s so smart) because RF’s job is already tough enough. I used to have a kinder gentler side, but I kicked that lil bastard to the curb because it was starting to drive me nuts.

  6. avatarJavier E says:

    Having asked a few police officer friends this question. One with twenty years said this, “I prefer to know who has one as opposed to not knowing. Also I know I can’t be everywhere at once.” Another said his job would would probably be made easier because more criminals would think twice before attacking an armed citizen.

  7. avatarRalph says:

    All hail Magoo, the voice of the average American! Does he have ESP so he knows what every average American is thinking? Let’s put his superpowers to the test — hey, Magoo, what am I thinking now?

    • avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

      I know exactly what you’re thinking Ralph and your a BAD BAD MAN. If RF knew what you were thinking you’d get banned for life(I’d give you a medal but that’s just me).

  8. avatarKW says:

    Hey Ralph, I actually DO have ESP and those thoughts had to be deleted from this thread. ;-)

    By the way does anyone know if Cee Lo Green is performing again tonight at the Oscars??

  9. avatarKW says:

    Taela. A place where they don’t have guns and disputes are never settled by force:

    http://www.taela.net/utopianSocieties.html

  10. avatarJayson R says:

    After watching the video of the guy walking around with his AK47 I’ve been wondering “if I’m at a convenience store and a dude walks in carrying a gun. How long should/will I wait to see if he raises the muzzle and starts shooting?”

    It almost seems like open carry folks are depending upon others, like me, to correctly perceive their intentions. If I encounter a stranger with an obvious weapon the threat assessment I make about their intentions will be made more quickly than if they weren’t obviously armed. Showing off something that could kill me is really going to rush my decision making. Now, maybe I’d guess right and maybe I’d guess wrong, but the outcome of a split second decision could ruin lives.

    Makes me wonder how many unseen buses are they out there for open carry folks?

    • avatarSport Shooter says:

      Jayson, stop and think for a second. I believe you already know this but are for whatever reason not visualizing it.

      I am assuming by the innuendos in your post that you CC. As a fellow CCer, I am willing to bet that like me and most other CCers I have talked to, after CCing for a while you start to get a pretty good indicator for whether someone else is CCing or not. Does knowing someone else is CCing that is a total stranger make you nervous? It doesn’t for me, unless they are doing a little to much firearm fondling. The same is really true for OC, the guy with an AK slung over his back muzzle safely point down is not really a threat unless he is doing to much firearm fondling. That is because you instinctively know that if they aren’t fondling it they aren’t nervous about it, and if they aren’t nervous about it then they don’t have the wrong intentions for it, same as with CC.

      Second, criminals have one thing in common that is true right down to the very last one of them. They love the upper hand that surprise gives them, and they are looking to get away with the crime which means drawing as little attention as possible. For this reason criminals always conceal their weapons as best they can until it is time to commit the crime, indeed many go to the extreme and keep the weapons concealed during the crime occasionally leaving victims wondering if they were armed at all..

      Guy runs into supermarket with hood over his face AK in hands finger on or near the trigger, he is there to do bad. Guy walks in with AK securely slung over back and never touches it or even seems to know it is there, he clearly means no harm. If he does scare you it is only because we are being conditioned to be frightened.

    • avatarRalph says:

      If the rifle is slung over his shoulder, I think you’re safe. If he pulls it from his waistband, you’re in trouble.

      • avatarBuuurr says:

        Good point, Ralph. However, I have to add something. I don’t think the man that can conceal a rifle in his waistband need worry about even needing to use it. What a massive man he would be;)

  11. avatarstateisevil says:

    Open Carry> Concealed Carry. Why?

    1. Strong, as in panzerswine stong, deterrent to common BG’s.
    2. Norms guns in society. Celebrates freedom and fact we don’t live in a police state.
    3. Comfort

  12. avatarPaul R says:

    I’m a little late to this party but I have to admit that I’ve never understood the open carry sentiment. From a tactical viewpoint its a loser as the bad guy crook type person knows you have a gun and can formulate his plan around that. Maybe he picks someone else but maybe he just wants your gun. Or maybe you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a spree shooter shows up; guess who is the first to get shot?

    I’m not against open carry and if that’s what you want to do, by all means have at it. I think I’ll continue to conceal though.

    On another front, why do you guys continue to humor Magoo with well thought out comments? He is an obvious provocateur and should be ignored.

    • avatarstateisevil says:

      It MAY be a tactical mistake IF a bad guy sees the gun AND is still determined to carry out whatever it is he wants to do. You may conceal carry and be the first target anyway. You may not be the target and still struggle to draw the weapon.

      What is more likely is that he won’t notice you have the gun in the first place ( there are documented example of this) or that he’ll wait until the hard target leaves the vicinity.

    • avatarSport Shooter says:

      I open carry only when I have to. Which is actually fairly often I have come to realize. My favorite guns are those designed for maximum range, usually sniper rifles. These guns tend to be big which causes me two problems, I need tall safes and CC is out of the question. You can conceivably conceal a AK 47 or an AR-15. But try as you might, you aren’t going to conceal a scoped K98 or a SVD.

      So why would anyone carry those guns you are probably asking yourself right now. Well, I typically walk to the range I shoot at most. It isn’t far but I do from time to time get strange looks from people I don’t know that I pass along the way. As far as I know none have called the cops, or at least the cops have never shown up and harassed me. I am of course always CC at the same time, and I am usually not alone which may make it better or worse. Two or three guys with two or so rifles each walking down the street could be initimidating. Oh and I live less than half a mile from a school which is actually what concerns me most about someone calling the cops while I am on my way to or from the range. But as I said, some strange looks, but never any trouble.

      But here is the thing, I have never seen a gun range with a private inclosed garage, maybe they exist I don’t know. But any time you wan’t to shoot your guns (which you should do frequently if you wan’t to keep your skills up), you are going to have to open carry for at least a short duration in public.

      Now don’t get me wrong, anyone who freaks out about someone with a gun in the parkinglot for a range is obviously a grade A moron. But think about this. If they can ban open carry, how are you going to get your guns to the range or just about anywhere else? I suppose you could use cases, and I have some really nice cases (but I only use them for long range transport). It would make it extreemly hard for us to buy, practice with, sell, trade, repair, and show off our guns if they could ban open carry.

  13. avatarMonte says:

    Open carry is Power Projection.

    It’s that simple.

    Cops in uniform open carry. The uniform says authority. The Glock says power to project that authority.

    Open carry by civilians is the same thing. Power Projection.

    But the powers-that-be can’t have Joe Civilian projecting power. It’s seen as simply a holster away from brandishing.

    Some states don’t have a problem with Open Carry. Most do. It all comes down to the appearance of power. Who should have it. Who should not.

  14. avatarMagoo says:

    These discussions often slip into the abstract so maybe a concrete example will help. I’ll use the recent post at TTAG about the man with the with the rifle performing the 2A demo.

    In the 26 years I have lived in my current home, I have never seen nor have I ever heard of a person walking down my street open-carrying a firearm. (Diverse middle-class neighborhood in a good-sized Midwestern city, typical crime rate.) Not once, ever. And that is exactly how I like it. Right there is the exact number of people I want strolling past my house open-carrying a firearm: zero. Perfect.

    And if I see someone carrying a rifle here, you bet I’m calling the police and reporting it. As I am certain all my neighbors will do as well, including the ex-marine state trooper who lives across the street and the fellow gun enthusiast next door. Not because we are “hopolophobics” but because we don’t want people walking our street with firearms.

    And we expect the police to stop this individual, engage him, and neutralize any possible threat. I’m sure the rest of the neighborhood feels exactly the same way. Just to make sure I’m not off base or out-of-date in my views, I asked four of my neighbors over the past few days. The universal reply: Oh, hell yes. They’re calling the cops.

    My cop neighbor immediately shifted into investigation mode.”Uhh, why is the man carrying a rifle?” he asked. To exercise his Second Amendment right, I replied.”The Second Amendment allows him to keep and bear a gun case,” he said. “Hasn’t the idiot ever heard of gun safety?”

    The nice older lady who lives two doors down suggested they taser the man on general principle and then arrest him for lying on the sidewalk. In my view that’s harsh but I can appreciate her perspective. She’s lived here since 1958.

    That’s how welcome you are open-carrying a firearm in my neighborhood.

    • avatarAnon says:

      And that is exactly how welcome blacks used to be in certain neighborhoods as well.

      Were you intentionally trying to demonstrate your own bigotry, and the bigotry of your neighbors, through that cute little anecdote, or was that just a happy coincidence?

    • avatarRuffRidr says:

      “In the 26 years I have lived in my current home, I have never seen nor have I ever heard of a person walking down my street open-carrying a firearm.”

      I’ll ask the obvious question, is open carry even allowed in the state you are living in? Has it ever been allowed in the 26 years that you have been living there? Do you live on a busy street that has lots of foot traffic?

      • avatarMagoo says:

        Open carry, shall-issue concealed carry. Fairly bustling for a residential-only neighborhood with lots of young families and little kids, usually playing in the daylight hours.

        A number of folks in the neighborhood are gun enthusiasts and sportsmen, but none of us march up and down the street with our firearms. What’s up with that, hmm. Cooper invented the term hopolophobia to describe an irrational fear of guns. Firearms don’t scare me but the new breed of gun loons give me the creeps. What’s the word for that?

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          “What’s the word for that?”

          I think the term is “irrational”.

    • avatarSport Shooter says:

      In the 26 years I have lived in my current home, I have never seen nor have I ever heard of a person walking down my street open-carrying a firearm. (Diverse middle-class neighborhood in a good-sized Midwestern city, typical crime rate.)

      This does not mean it has not happened. I doubt highly you have someone posted 24 7 looking out a window to monitor everything that goes on. I have a German shepherd that pretty much accepts this is her full time job, but even she misses passersby from time to time. Even if it is illegal where you live, it still may have happened. For example two of your neighbors may be hunting buddies, hunters like to leave real early in the morning, so one neighbor may have carried one or more firearm openly to another neighbor while you were busy snoring away. And gasp … the firearm didn’t decide to leap out of its owners hands, come kick your door down, and kill you where you sleep, guess they are slipping in their evilness.

      Not once, ever. And that is exactly how I like it. Right there is the exact number of people I want strolling past my house open-carrying a firearm: zero. Perfect.

      So you don’t enjoy having a cop come check that everything is kosher in your hood from time to time? You know they open carry don’t you?

      This is your opinion of course. I have people stroll past my house open carry all the time, they are either going to hunt or they are going to the range. It never bothers me, and in fact makes me happy to know we still have a few of the rights our founding fathers spilled their blood to give us.

      And if I see someone carrying a rifle here, you bet I’m calling the police and reporting it. As I am certain all my neighbors will do as well, including the ex-marine state trooper who lives across the street and the fellow gun enthusiast next door. Not because we are “hopolophobics” but because we don’t want people walking our street with firearms.

      Well then for your sake I hope open carry is illegal where you live. Calling the cops to report legal activities is itself illegal, not to mention you are harassing the law abiding citizen by displaying your bigotry this way.

      And I am sorry, but how exactly does bigoted statements like the one made above, where you clearly think your comfort is more important than the legal rights of another in any way prove your are not irrationally paranoid of firearms? This is a prime example of you and apparently your neighbors acting exactly like hopolophobes. Why don’t you want people walking down your street with firearms? Because you have an irrational fear the firearm is out to get you.

      Man I hope for your sake you live in a state where OC is illegal, I don’t know many “Midwestern” states that are, but if it isn’t then all you have proven here is that you and your neighbors are all irrational fools.

      My cop neighbor immediately shifted into investigation mode.”Uhh, why is the man carrying a rifle?” he asked. To exercise his Second Amendment right, I replied.”The Second Amendment allows him to keep and bear a gun case,” he said. “Hasn’t the idiot ever heard of gun safety?”

      Wow, if this exchange did take place and OC is legal then your cop friend is the idiot. There is absolutely nothing in the second amendment that mentions a case. And, in many states, if you have a gun in a case and you are carrying the case that is considered concealed carry, which can get you in much bigger trouble if you are not allowed to conceal carry. Also, carrying a gun in a gun case can be far less safe than carrying it on your back. A gun on your back is always aimed at either the sky or the ground, a gun in a case is always aimed down the street one direction or the other. Gun safety is always about assuming every gun is loaded and keeping it pointed in a safe direction, so your cop neighbor is the idiot, do yourself a favor and don’t take advice from him in the future.

      The nice older lady who lives two doors down suggested they taser the man on general principle and then arrest him for lying on the sidewalk. In my view that’s harsh but I can appreciate her perspective. She’s lived here since 1958.

      The nice old lady is even dumber than your cop friend. In most (probably all) states using a taser on someone who has done nothing to warrant it is a felony assault, even if the cops do it. Two things here, if I am walking down the street rifle safely slung over my shoulder (unloaded of course) and a old lady comes running out and hits me with a taser, as soon as I can I am pulling my CC gun and she is getting two .40 rounds to the chest and one to the head. After being tasered without any provocation, it is safe to assume the person has really bad intentions for me and my personal safety, so I think any Jury would clear me for defending myself with the only weapon at my disposal. So I hope your old lady neighbor called her grandkids and told them she loved them first.

      But seriously, are you still trying to prove hopolophobia is not an accurate description of gun control people? I mean your neighbor, as you point out, is so irrationally paranoid of firearms that she is either willing herself or wants someone else to go out and shock someone with what can be a lethal shock simply because she knows they have a gun. Sounds to me like a poster child for hopolophobia. And your apparent acquiescence of it also makes you a perfect fit for the hopolophobe definition.

      That’s how welcome you are open-carrying a firearm in my neighborhood.

      Well congratulations, you have successfully disproven your own argument by loosing track and instead proving that you and your neighbors successfully meet the defined requirements to be considered hopolophobes.

      And for the record, your neighborhood sounds to me like a backwards society, so it is possible we could make a case that all societies of hopolophobes are backwards societies, I mean what kind of rational person wants a gun carried far less safely and carried illegally just because they are afraid to see it? Or worse, wants everyone with a gun electrocuted. If I were you, I would consider moving.

  15. avatarMagoo says:

    “This does not mean it has not happened. I doubt highly you have someone posted 24 7 looking out a window to monitor everything that goes on. I have a German shepherd that pretty much accepts this is her full time job, but even she misses passersby from time to time. Even if it is illegal where you live, it still may have happened. For example two of your neighbors may be hunting buddies, hunters like to leave real early in the morning, so one neighbor may have carried one or more firearm openly to another neighbor while you were busy snoring away.”

    As a hunter who often goes hunting with my neighbors, leaving early, riding together, etc, I have to ask: So what? What does any of that have to do with someone open-carrying a firearm down the street and deliberately looking for attention?

    Especially a stranger with an AK-47 and a serious need to act out, as referenced in the video?

    Mall ninjas are not wanted or needed in our neighborhood. We have lots of small kids around here. They are free to play in safety and we like that. You guys can go march up and down some other street playing movie action hero. Even if I had the slightest confidence in your ability to handle a firearm safely, which I do not, we still don’t want guns carried openly in our neighborhood. If I wanted to live in Afghanistan, I’d move there, wouldn’t I?

  16. avatarSport Shooter says:

    As a hunter who often goes hunting with my neighbors, leaving early, riding together, etc, I have to ask: So what? What does any of that have to do with someone open-carrying a firearm down the street and deliberately looking for attention?

    Ahh, see you have arrived at exactly my point, you just don’t realize it yet. I would bet that while walking to your neighbors house to leave for the hunting trip you were open carrying your rifle, if not you at least one of your other friends. And there was nothing at all wrong with it, you clearly did not have evil intentions.

    So, now hopefully you see that not everyone open carrying is out to do harm. But if you look back at your previous posts, every one of them include you making it clear that anyone who practices Open Carry is bad, crazy, deserving of serious shock, etc. So we have made progress.

    Especially a stranger with an AK-47 and a serious need to act out, as referenced in the video?

    He is a stranger to you, but if you used a little comprehension while watching the video you will discover he is in his own neighborhood and he is anything but a stranger there.

    Also, he is not acting out, he is demonstrating that he can’t exercise his legal right without being harassed by nitwits and the power hungry cops the nitwits summon.

    We don’t know the full story in the video. We know he open carries a lot, we know he can’t get a CCP in a state where getting a CCP is difficult at best, and we know he is walking from his house to his wife’s work to retrieve his car.

    What we don’t know is, does he have a stalker, or someone who has been threatening him, what was he doing before walking to get the car, where does he plan to go in the car, and a whole lot more. For example, what if he intends to drive to the range to practice some with his AK. It is perfectly legal for him to carry his AK to get his car, so why shouldn’t he, especially if he is going somewhere the AK needs to come along (be kind of hard to practice at the range without the gun)? Sure you could say he could go, get the car, drive back to the house and get the AK, then drive back past where he got the car to the range, then drive past where he got the car again to drop the AK of, then drive back to his wife’s work and walk home. Gosh what an inconvenience when he is well within his right to just carry it there.

    Mall ninjas are not wanted or needed in our neighborhood. We have lots of small kids around here. They are free to play in safety and we like that. You guys can go march up and down some other street playing movie action hero.

    Now you have invented a boogie man that does not exist.

    Mall Ninjas (and here I thought you disliked referent-free labels, guess you meant only when aimed at you, typical) do not as a rule open carry. The ninja part infers they like to have their weapons concealed.

    People who open carry also do not do it to “march up and down the street playing movie action hero”. You are simply poisoning the well, and are doing it with false facts (and I use facts with the loosest of loose, interpretations because in all your posts you have yet to produce an actual fact). People open carry for a reason. Whether the reason is they are going hunting, they are going to the range, they are going to the gun store to get their gun fixed, they are proving they can’t open carry without being harassed, or they wish to feel safe for whatever reason. Never have I seen or heard of anyone practicing open carry to play movie action hero unless cameras were rolling and they were actually movie actors. Since you made the statement, the onus falls on you to prove it, and here is a hint: even though it is your opinion the man in the video is playing movie action hero, he clearly is not. We are going to need facts not a bunch of instances where in your opinion that is what was happening. Good luck with that, you are going to need it.

    Even if I had the slightest confidence in your ability to handle a firearm safely, which I do not,

    And here we see your real problem. Since you clearly own guns, and clearly wish others did not, you are really nothing more than one of those selfish egomaniacs who think only you know how to be safe with guns. Clearly this is a fantasy that is only true in your mind as you have made several suggestions that are in fact unsafe things to do with guns. As is generally the case with people like you, because you are believe yourself the only one capable of safely handling firearms, you likely have had no training on actual safety, refuse to listen when others provide safety tips, and are actually amongst the most unsafe gun owners. I am glad I don’t live on your street, because I bet you would be moronic enough to aim a gun at me when/if I did walk down your street open carry.

    we still don’t want guns carried openly in our neighborhood. If I wanted to live in Afghanistan, I’d move there, wouldn’t I?

    Fortunately for me, this is America and your opinion doesn’t matter. Unfortunately for you, this is America and I am well within my legal right to march up and down your street with a gun on my back (unless you live across the street from a a school). If you want to live in a neighborhood where that can’t happen, you could move to North Korea.

  17. avatarMonte says:

    Anecdotes? Okay. I grew up in South Dakota. You could sit down at the greasy spoon any given morning in Deadwood or Belle Fourche or Custer, and while you were ordering your eggs and bacon, four or five ranchers — all strangers to you — would walk in, take a seat at the counter, and never have the courtesy to leave their 45s in their trucks (shock!). Nope. Just walked in like John Wayne, all dusty from a hard morning’s work, with their Ruger single actions right out for the world to see.

    Was I scared?

    Was I supposed to be?

    These were fathers, business men, deacons…just regular guys with one of the tools of their trade at their hip, opposite the Leatherman.

    Nobody looked twice. Not even the sheriff sitting two booths over.

    It’s all what you make of it.

    Come to think of it, sitting there, sipping on my grown-up coffee next to my dad, I never felt safer.

  18. avatarMagoo says:

    Sport Shooter says: “So, now hopefully you see that not everyone open carrying is out to do harm. But if you look back at your previous posts, every one of them include you making it clear that anyone who practices Open Carry is bad, crazy, deserving of serious shock, etc. So we have made progress.”

    No, I’ve never thought open carry was intrinsically bad, not in the least. I’ll open carry — where appropriate. It depends mainly on where I am. Context is everything. But for gun loons, there is no geographical context; boundaries don’t exist. If they can’t carry everywhere they please, their Second Amendment rights have been violated. There’s no sense of measure and zero compromise: typical extremist thought.

    What you don’t seem to understand is I’m not calling for the government to restrict your behavior. I am asking you to regulate your own behavior — have some regard for both the rights and wishes of the rest of the community, not just for yourselves. Some days, this forum is like reading one long meeeeeeee.

    I posed a scenario in which a stranger carries an AK-47 through a residential neighborhood in the middle of the city. Of course I’m going to call the police. Any sensible person will call it in. In our neighborhood it’s an unbelievably extraordinary event, as in effectively never. It can only mean a couple of things and they are all bad. But according to you, this level of response is “hopolophobic.” Now, could be it’s just you or one of your buddies out playing tactical dressup or performing Second Amendment theater, and granted, you are primarily a menace to yourselves. But since we don’t have any of you lovable knuckleheads around here, apparently, we have no way to know that. We’re calling it in and the reasons are entirely rational.

    So sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you are claiming the right to unnecessarily threaten people and then call it “hopolophobia,” like there is something wrong with them for not wanting guns parading around in their own neighborhood. Get real. That is not realistic, or respectful of the community you are allegedly trying to get along with. Please think a little larger than yourself. Is any of this getting through?

  19. avatarSport Shooter says:

    No, I’ve never thought open carry was intrinsically bad, not in the least. I’ll open carry — where appropriate. It depends mainly on where I am. Context is everything. But for gun loons, there is no geographical context; boundaries don’t exist. If they can’t carry everywhere they please, their Second Amendment rights have been violated. There’s no sense of measure and zero compromise: typical extremist thought.

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe we are unwilling to compromise because when we do we are asked to compromise again and again until we have compromised all our rights away.

    What you don’t seem to understand is I’m not calling for the government to restrict your behavior. I am asking you to regulate your own behavior — have some regard for both the rights and wishes of the rest of the community, not just for yourselves. Some days, this forum is like reading one long meeeeeeee.

    I read all the posts here, yep all 49 (the count before I make this) not once did someone say they wanted to open carry just to piss you off. Nor did anyone say they wanted to open carry just to open carry. In fact, rereading everything with this in mind was actually enlightening, because I found the only one screaming “meeeeeee”, is you. You really are the king of projection aren’t you.

    I posed a scenario in which a stranger carries an AK-47 through a residential neighborhood in the middle of the city. Of course I’m going to call the police. Any sensible person will call it in. In our neighborhood it’s an unbelievably extraordinary event, as in effectively never. It can only mean a couple of things and they are all bad. But according to you, this level of response is “hopolophobic.” Now, could be it’s just you or one of your buddies out playing tactical dressup or performing Second Amendment theater, and granted, you are primarily a menace to yourselves. But since we don’t have any of you lovable knuckleheads around here, apparently, we have no way to know that. We’re calling it in and the reasons are entirely rational.

    You are hopolophobic because you make irrational gun controlish statements like “It can only mean a couple of things and they are all bad.” Really, all bad? Well I already gave you a few I don’t think are bad several, but apparently you comprehension skills have failed you again. So, please explain how “walking to the range” is bad? How about “walking to the neighbors house to go hunting together,” how is that bad? Or maybe you are walking to the neighbors to go to a gun show and try to sell a gun, or to a gun shop to get it repaired, or just going over there to show him your new gun; how are any of those bad? They are only bad if you are irrational and pro gun control, thus you are clearly a hopolophobe. If you don’t like being a hopolophobe, or find it degrading, the solution is simple, either stop being irrational or keep your irrational pro gun control statements to yourself. If you are going to be the hopolophobe, stop crying when people identify you as one.

    So sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you are claiming the right to unnecessarily threaten people and then call it “hopolophobia,” like there is something wrong with them for not wanting guns parading around in their own neighborhood. Get real. That is not realistic, or respectful of the community you are allegedly trying to get along with. Please think a little larger than yourself. Is any of this getting through?

    Wearing a unloaded rifle on your back without touching it is not threatening anyone. Aiming it at someone and/or mentioning or insinuating you will shoot them is threatening, are you capable of being rational enough to notice the difference? Apparently not, and this is why you earn the hopolophobe badge.

    As to thinking larger than myself, one of us is trying to infringe on the others legal rights, here’s a big hint: it isn’t me.

  20. avatarMagoo says:

    Sport Shooter says: “Wearing a unloaded rifle on your back without touching it is not threatening anyone.”

    Of course it’s threatening. First, only a second or two separates normal carry from directing the muzzle on someone. This is what occupying forces do as a show of force, and I don’t recall asking for a self-appointed posse ignoramus to patrol my neighborhood. As Monte said a bit up this thread, “Open carry is Power Projection. It’s that simple.” I’ll give him props for honesty.

    Back to our hypothetical example. Imagine a young mother and her two small children playing in their front yard. And now, a sight she has never seen in her life except on the nightly news: Here comes one of you Nimrods up the street with a tactical rifle, practicing his “Power Projection.” Sling carry, muzzle down, just like the dude in the video. Think. Step outside yourself for one second, if you can. At that moment, her fear for the safety of her children is complete, profound, and entirely rational. She just got an adrenalin dump you’ve never experienced playing combat games.

    What is your response? To call her made-up silly names, like hopolophobe. Oh sure, like she’s the one with the problem with society. You stay classy, Sport Shooter. Hmm, in a previous post you were threatening to put three rounds in a little old lady, .40 caliber as I recall. Two to the body and a head shot, I believe. Nice. Sure, why get slightly out of breath trotting away from an elderly woman when you can just plug her where she stands? I ask this with all sincerity and no offense, but how should I assess this? Just another harmless mall ninja running his mouth, or is he really the vicious psychopath he wants people to think he is?

    These are among the questions I must ask myself if I see one of you walking down my street with a firearm. For example, I can’t just assume your open carry weapons are unloaded. I read the gun loon forums. Some folks don’t know safe practice while others openly flout it for the spurious tactical advantage. I have no irrational fear of firearms; that’s ridiculous. But I have every reason to be afraid of you guys. You warn me every day. Heads up, loose shells on deck.

    Now, according to you, I am also a hopolophobe — despite being a gun enthusiast for 45+ years. So it turns out a hopolophobe is not one with an “irrational fear of firearms” but simply anyone who disagrees with you. See how that works?

    A reminder about the word hopolophobe — there is no medical or psychiatric term for an irrational fear of firearms, no such medical condition. To society at large, a healthy fear of firearms is entirely rational. The term hopolophobe was invented not by a doctor but by an extremist gun loon named Jeff Cooper.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.