Yeah...It's Loaded...

[Gutshot John]

I can see we are not going to be able to understand each other on this point. Do you realize, though, that your first sentence here could have come directly from Sarah Brady's talking points?

Oh so I'm Sarah Brady now?

Suffice to say you're way out of line.

Forgive me if I don't view an iPhone as a lethal weapon. The horror.

[Gutshot John]

At what point does "has a gun" become any more of a valid indicator than "being black"? Statistically both have some merit as a "probable indicator" but why should we accept one and reject the other?

No, being black on its own isn't a valid indicator but like everything else it depends on context.

Being dressed as a thug however might be one. White or black.

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of context?

[Skyyr]

The right to [...] bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infringe (verb): Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy"

Looks pretty clear to me.

[SteyrAUG]

No, being black on its own isn't a valid indicator but like everything else it depends on context.

Being dressed as a thug however might be one. White or black.

Why is it so hard to understand the concept of context?

I also just read your earlier statement a little more carefully. So I guess our debate would come down to what you consider "out of context."

What makes an armed person "out of context?"

[Palmguy]

I also just read your earlier statement a little more carefully. So I guess our debate would come down to what you consider "out of context."

What makes an armed person "out of context?"

Precisely. And the northeastern perspective of "context" is a hell of a lot different than red state context (generally speaking of course).

[Gutshot John]

I also just read your earlier statement a little more carefully. So I guess our debate would come down to what you consider "out of context."

What makes an armed person "out of context?"

Context is a lot of different things, there isn't any hard-and-fast criteria. That's what context is. It's situationally dependent and relies heavily on common sense. You acknowledge that OC makes you a more attractive target than CCW and yet "context" is still a mystery?

You spoke about a black person being a reliable indicator without giving any context.

Would I look at a black person dressed and acting like a thug differently than I would a black person dressed like a businessman. Obviously. Would I look at a white person dressed and acting like a thug differently than I would a white person dressed like a businessman. Obviously. Would I look at a white or black person walking around the woods with a gun differently than I would a white or black person walking around downtown Pittsburgh with a colt .45 on their hip? Obviously. Even in the woods I've seen people do some dipshit things with firearms so forgive me if I tend to be a bit more cautious and wary. It's born of experience.

Even still gun laws in my "blue" state of PA are a lot more liberal than many "red" states and yet that makes me Sarah freakin Brady? If you're not giving a second look at people you notice are armed, whether OC or CCW than I'd submit your head is not in the game...no matter where you came from and no matter where you are. Does that make them criminals? Of course not, it just makes them a potential threat until they prove otherwise.

OC neither makes you tactically wise nor a stauncher defender of gun rights. Apparently that's too much for other people to wrap their heads around.

[SteyrAUG]

Context is a lot of different things, there isn't any hard-and-fast criteria. That's what context is. It's situationally dependent and relies heavily on common sense. You acknowledge that OC makes you a more attractive target than CCW and yet "context" is still a mystery?

Well first I didn't say OC makes you a more attractive target. I simply acknowledge there is both a deterrence and a risk factor and I think the risk factor is strongly canceled out by the deterrence factor, simply put there are much easier ways for criminals to get guns with far less risk to themselves.

Second, if you cannot define the context when somebody who simply "is armed" becomes potentially "good or bad" then it should be of no more merit than other factors like race.

You spoke about a black person being a reliable indicator without giving any context.

And I didn't say that. What I said was:

"Statistically both have some merit as a "probable indicator" but why should we accept one and reject the other?"

There is a big difference between being a "statistically probable" and a "reliable" indicator, especially in the context of my statement where I have pointed out that society seems to accept on but reject the other when neither are actually "reliable."

Would I look at a black person dressed and acting like a thug differently than I would a black person dressed like a businessman. Obviously. Would I look at a white person dressed and acting like a thug differently than I would a white person dressed like a businessman. Obviously.

No issue with you there.

Would I look at a white or black person walking around the woods with a gun differently than I would a white or black person walking around downtown Pittsburgh with a colt .45 on their hip? Obviously. Even in the woods I've seen people do some dipshit things with firearms so forgive me if I tend to be a bit more cautious and wary. It's born of experience.

And that is where you lose some of us. Let me try this.

I'm assuming you have no problem with those black and white businessmen walking around downtown lawfully armed IF they were concealed. What is it about those same exact people, armed with the same exact weapons, that concerns you if they are suddenly no longer concealed?

Now anyone can be careless (and thus dangerous) with a gun. But the same can be true of a car. Do you freak out every time you walk down the street and those same people drive a car past you? Statistically your fellow citizens are far more likely to kill or injure you with their car than with a gun.

For me if I see a person with a gun and they aren't doing anything to suggest reckless behavior they don't scare me. In fact I'd usually rather be on the street with them, their gun in holster out in the open, than in traffic with them.

Even still gun laws in my "blue" state of PA are a lot more liberal than many "red" states and yet that makes me Sarah freakin Brady? If you're not giving a second look at people you notice are armed, whether OC or CCW than I'd submit your head is not in the game...no matter where you came from and no matter where you are. Does that make them criminals? Of course not, it just makes them a potential threat until they prove otherwise.

I notice them all the time. That is why I find the notion of CCW with no OC absurd. None of them are fooling me. I see people CCW all day, every day. And if their guns were suddenly in an open carry state that wouldn't change anything for me because I'm aware of many armed people around me. The difference seems to be, they aren't doing anything to concern me, so I'm not afraid of them.

As for "being in the game", I consider EVERYONE a potential threat. They don't need to be openly armed for me to assess them when they seem to be paying undue attention to me, my belongings or simply getting too close for comfort. And that is why I'm armed.

OC neither makes you tactically wise nor a stauncher defender of gun rights. Apparently that's too much for other people to wrap their heads around.

You are correct. But it also doesn't mean you are making a tactical error and it doesn't make you any more or any less a defender of gun rights than concealed carry. It is nothing more than an additional option that would be more practical for some.

[Gutshot John]

Well first I didn't say OC makes you a more attractive target. I simply acknowledge there is both a deterrence and a risk factor and I think the risk factor is strongly canceled out by the deterrence factor, simply put there are much easier ways for criminals to get guns with far less risk to themselves.

I disagree.

Second, if you cannot define the context when somebody who simply "is armed" becomes potentially "good or bad" then it should be of no more merit than other factors like race.

I disagree. This is only a question that can be answered by the individual. If you're cool with people walking around with guns on their hips, hey that's your skin, you bear the consequences if you're wrong, not me.

And I didn't say that. What I said was:

"Statistically both have some merit as a "probable indicator" but why should we accept one and reject the other?"

A distinction without a difference.

There is a big difference between being a "statistically probable" and a "reliable" indicator, especially in the context of my statement where I have pointed out that society seems to accept on but reject the other when neither are actually "reliable."

I didn't say it was a reliable indicator of anything. I simply said I'd give them a harder look as they make my threat meter go up. I don't think it's rocket science to understand that a man (or woman for that matter) with a gun, represents a greater potential threat than a man or woman without one. Why? Because if they aren't armed they're at a disadvantage to me. The tactically sound approach is to conceal that knowledge from them as much as possible.

And that is where you lose some of us. Let me try this.

I'm assuming you have no problem with those black and white businessmen walking around downtown lawfully armed IF they were concealed. What is it about those same exact people, armed with the same exact weapons, that concerns you if they are suddenly no longer concealed?

Again I have no "problem" with someone who open carries. I'd simply give them a harder look, because they represent a greater potential threat, just as I'd give someone I "busted" in CCW a closer look. That doesn't mean they're bad people, that doesn't make them crooks. It just means I'm looking at them as a greater potential threat than those that don't carry.

Where I do have a problem is the use of open carry to make a political statement rather than any tactically sound reason. You might be a badass amongst your gun-owning friends, but you're not winning any friends on the other side of the argument and indeed probably making them dig in their heels.

Now anyone can be careless (and thus dangerous) with a gun. But the same can be true of a car. Do you freak out every time you walk down the street and those same people drive a car past you? Statistically your fellow citizens are far more likely to kill or injure you with their car than with a gun.

It depends on the context. If they're driving like ****ing assholes than certainly. Do I walk down the center of the road even if I have a right to...no.

For me if I see a person with a gun and they aren't doing anything to suggest reckless behavior they don't scare me. In fact I'd usually rather be on the street with them, their gun in holster out in the open, than in traffic with them.

You're conflating concepts. Do I curl up in a ball and freak out and call the cops? No. Do they get extra scrutiny? Yes.

[SteyrAUG]

I disagree.

So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry? Why?

I disagree. This is only a question that can be answered by the individual. If you're cool with people walking around with guns on their hips, hey that's your skin, you bear the consequences if you're wrong, not me.

But they already ARE walking around with guns on their hips. The only real difference is IF they are concealed or carried openly. How does open carry make them a threat suddenly?

A distinction without a difference.

Actually there is a very large difference between being "statistically probable" and a "reliable indicator." It is the difference between "probably" and "definitely."

I didn't say it was a reliable indicator of anything. I simply said I'd give them a harder look as they make my threat meter go up. I don't think it's rocket science to understand that a man (or woman for that matter) with a gun, represents a greater potential threat than a man or woman without one. Why? Because if they aren't armed they're at a disadvantage to me. The tactically sound approach is to conceal that knowledge from them as much as possible.

And how do you KNOW they aren't armed? When you carry concealed, do people know you are armed?

Again I have no "problem" with someone who open carries. I'd simply give them a harder look, because they represent a greater potential threat, just as I'd give someone I "busted" in CCW a closer look. That doesn't mean they're bad people, that doesn't make them crooks. It just means I'm looking at them as a greater potential threat than those that don't carry.

And on that I have no problem. But earlier you seemed to have a problem with those who carried openly as if there was something wrong with them or open carry.

Where I do have a problem is the use of open carry to make a political statement rather than any tactically sound reason. You might be a badass amongst your gun-owning friends, but you're not winning any friends on the other side of the argument and indeed probably making them dig in their heels.

And how do you determine which is which? If I see a guy walking to his car with a gun on his belt how do I tell if he simply didn't want to wear a jacket because it is warm out or if he is making a political statement.

As for anti gun people not liking it, do you consider how Democrats will feel when you vote Republican? When I exercise my rights, I really don't take time to consider those who would deny me my rights and I don't are what they might think about it.

It depends on the context. If they're driving like ****ing assholes than certainly. Do I walk down the center of the road even if I have a right to...no.

But that isn't what I said. I said driving past you on the road while you walk down the sidewalk. If you are walking down the center of the road you are the one putting people at risk.

You're conflating concepts. Do I curl up in a ball and freak out and call the cops? No. Do they get extra scrutiny? Yes.

Again, no problem with that. But you have consistently suggested it is wrong and that nobody should do it. Now if you are revising / clarifying your position that it is just another "caution indicator" to you then we have nothing left to debate. I can live with that.

Perhaps it is because I grew up around guns and people who carried. When I see an armed person, I usually assume he is NOT a criminal or else his weapon would be hidden. Open carry tends to invite police inquiry from time to time (goes with the territory / cost of the ride) and you better be able to pass inspection. So to me a visible weapon usually equates to "good guy."

Also almost more than any other grouping, firearm owners tend to be responsible and law abiding. They have a lot to lose if they act like a jackass with a gun in their possession. So when a see a guy with a handgun on his belt, I see "one of us" more than I see a yellow flag. Now it isn't ALWAYS the case, but in my experience it usually is.

[Gutshot John]

So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry? Why?

Not what I said though I always appreciate putting words in my mouth.

But since you went there... police officers receive training in weapons retention and almost always use retention holsters when carrying in public. These women aren't and I'd bet the vast majority of OC types don't either.

But as you say police officers are targeted for their weapons and I'd prefer to make myself as small a target as possible. I question the judgment of those that call attention to themselves in this way.

But they already ARE walking around with guns on their hips. The only real difference is IF they are concealed or carried openly. How does open carry make them a threat suddenly?

Oh sheesh.

The fact that they are armed makes them a larger threat than someone just carrying a cell phone. The fact that they chose to carry openly without using much common sense, the proper gear or the proper training makes me question their judgment. Armed and stupid is more dangerous than just plain armed.

Actually there is a very large difference between being "statistically probable" and a "reliable indicator." It is the difference between "probably" and "definitely."

Not at all. You're arguing pointless semantics. A person isn't a "definite" threat until that person pulls their guns and starts threatening me, at which point, game on.

And how do you KNOW they aren't armed? When you carry concealed, do people know you are armed?

Most don't seem to, but then that's the point. Hence the word "concealed". If I notice a gun than I pay closer attention. Does that mean I'm foolproof? No. Does that mean that the person isn't a threat? No. It just means that I see a person OC or bust them CCW, I'm paying closer attention. However that logic cuts both ways.

And on that I have no problem. But earlier you seemed to have a problem with those who carried openly as if there was something wrong with them or open carry.

That depends on what you mean by "have a problem." Am I going to approach and berate them? No. I do have a problem with people OCing to make a political statement. It's unwise and does nothing to advance the cause of gun rights and quite a bit to make people dig in their heels. I simply question their judgment.

And how do you determine which is which? If I see a guy walking to his car with a gun on his belt how do I tell if he simply didn't want to wear a jacket because it is warm out or if he is making a political statement.

Does it matter?

As for anti gun people not liking it, do you consider how Democrats will feel when you vote Republican? When I exercise my rights, I really don't take time to consider those who would deny me my rights and I don't are what they might think about it.

What about those that haven't made up their minds? Those people that might support CCW or gun rights but then see people walking around like cowboys and think WTF?

But that isn't what I said. I said driving past you on the road while you walk down the sidewalk. If you are walking down the center of the road you are the one putting people at risk.

If someone is driving down my residential block recklessly than yes I have a problem with it. If they're slowing down and obeying the narrow confines of my street and watching for the children there, than no I don't have a problem with it. In either case would I walk down the center of the road even if I have a right to? No I don't but I see people doing it all the time. That doesn't make them bad people, it just makes me question their judgment, even if they aren't doing anything else.

Again, no problem with that. But you have consistently suggested it is wrong and that nobody should do it. Now if you are revising / clarifying your position that it is just another "caution indicator" to you then we have nothing left to debate. I can live with that.

People can do or not do whatever is in the law to do or not do. What I have said repeatedly is that just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should do something.

Perhaps it is because I grew up around guns and people who carried. When I see an armed person, I usually assume he is NOT a criminal or else his weapon would be hidden. Open carry tends to invite police inquiry from time to time (goes with the territory / cost of the ride) and you better be able to pass inspection. So to me a visible weapon usually equates to "good guy."

It depends on the context. I grew up around guns too but I was taught having guns means exercising more caution, using more brains than just being a badass.

I've seen more than enough NDs in gunstores/gunshows, I've had shots taken at me and my Dad while walking in the woods, I've seen more than a few unethical hunters in my time that I don't tend to trust anyone with a gun until they prove to me they're capable. In my experience most firearms instructors, most firearms classes and the 4 cardinal rules of gunhandling are geared around this concept...and yet people still **** this up with startling regularity.

"Good guy" doesn't equate to "smart guy" which is all I've tried to say through all of this.