Open Carry Catfight

Open Carry

Open Carry - Which I approve of!

Announcement: I support open carry.

Most of us gun people are aware of the Michigan man who took a shotgun into the kids/teens section of the public library.  And the idiot who took an AR15 into a Ponderosa.

Some have said that the shotgun kid had no choice but to have a shotgun, since he could not (since he was under 21 when the shotgun incident occurred) carry a handgun.  Yet here he is with a pistol on his belt standing outside that same library.  There goes the “he HAD to carry a shotgun since he couldn’t carry a pistol” argument, since he is STILL not yet 21.

(more)

I am not the only person who has a problem with the behavior of some open carriers.  But, to make an important distinction, I am not the only dedicated gun-rights activist who has a problem with it:

Sebastian of SnowflakesInHell

SaysUncle

Breda

Reminder Announcement: I support open carry.  Really.  I am not kidding.  I really do.

Another stalwart champion of gun rights has also come out against this stupidity.  Clayton Cramer says what I and many other gun people are feeling.  Here is a money quote, but read the whole thing:

If you are carrying a gun to make a political point — and especially if you are carrying a long gun into the children’s section of the public library — well, you’ve succeeded. You’ve convinced everyone in the library that your pet issue is more important to you than the peace of mind of every kid and adult present.

The open carry zealots steadfastly refuse to admit that there is a very real chance of negative consequences resulting from open carry activism.  They make quiet, tepid, perfunctory disapproving statements about the shotgun kid and other foolish open carriers, but immediately start loudly attacking those who do not leap to the shotgun kid’s defense.  “Fudd” is one of the more polite terms that has been used to describe Breda, me and others who think the shotgun kid’s tactics are bad publicity for the gun rights movement.

I personally have been called a “dick”, an “asshole” and other insults, despite the fact that I did not engage in any ad hominem attacks against the person who said those things to me.  Now, I am not terribly bothered by it.  I have dealt with young children’s tantrums and the shrieking hissyfits of teenage girls, so an indignant activist attempting to smack me with a rhetorical purse is not going to upset me.  And his feigned indignation when I expressed a desire to kick the shotgun kid in the ass (not “kick his ass” but rather “kick him in the ass”) was pretty funny, in a hypocritical let’s-change-the-subject-to-your-threats-of-violence-because-I-am-losing-the-argument sort of way.

My position remains the same: inflammatory open carry hurts the cause of gun rights more than it helps.

Yet Another Reminder Announcement: Seriously, I support open carry.  No joke.  I am researching my state’s laws on open carry.  I might even do it myself soon.

The open carry activists insist that since there is no “proof” (yet) of negative consequences, therefore no such consequences can occur.  As a rational adult, with considerable experience in the world, I am able to put aside my desire to have a society that accepts all open & concealed carry choices and see the world as it is, rather than kidding myself into thinking that being more radical with open carry will automatically help the cause.

Scaring undecided people will push them farther towards the gun-grabber’s position.  And that is a bad thing.

I truly want to have open carry become a commonplace act, with no legal or social drawbacks attached.  But all of these in-your-face open carry incidents are hurting the gun rights movement.  Just as some claim that there is no proof that these incidents have incurred negative effects (despite the negative media attention and the restraining order and impending lawsuit against open carriers in Michigan, and the proposed ban on open carry in libraries), there is no proof that these incidents are helping.

I won’t stop calling people who act like the shotgun kid “attention whores”.  Because that is what they are acting like.

We gun people have limited political capital to bring to bear on the system.  If we have to fight a bunch of legal battles because of foolish open carry practitioners, we will be in a weaker position to fight against real threats like Senator upChuck Schumer’s proposed requirement for background checks on all firearms purchases.

UPDATE:

Idiot open-carries an AK-47, gets to meet the cops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUd_00Xrf_U&feature=player_embedded#at=22

Listen to him yap about what he is doing, and why.  Then ask yourself if this is someone you want to represent the gun rights movement to the general public.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • email
  • RSS

Related posts:

5 Responses to “Open Carry Catfight”

  1. Linoge says:

    Good to see that you have no problems flinging logical fallacies and blatant assumptions about on your own weblog with the same reckless abandon you do on others’. Keep up the good work… you do yourself proud!

    • GunNutmegger says:

      …says the pottymouth who likes to call names.

      You “claiming” that something is a logical fallacy doesn’t mean that it “is” a logical fallacy.

      But clearly you are unable to separate fact from bluster while having a temper tantrum. Thus, all of your absurd claims in the comments of your site.

      Why don’t you call Clayton Cramer out, too? He is saying the same things I have said on Robb Allen’s blog.

  2. Linoge says:

    You are absolutely right, and given the blatant reading comprehension problems you have repeatedly and incessantly displayed on every other weblog I have had the misfortune of stumbling across your comments, I guess I have to hold your hand and walk you through them here as well.

    False Dichotomy: it does not matter whether you said “kick his ass” or “kick him in the ass so hard he would be wearing it as a hat” (what you actually said – one has to wonder why you incompletely quoted yourself); you threatened physical violence against someone you do not even known over a difference of opinion. Not only does that play perfectly into the anti-rights nuts’ stereotypes, it demonstrates a marked lack of maturity and self-control on your part.

    Appeal to popularity: “Just because these folks oppose this specific instance of open carry, I am justified in my atrocious behavior while opposing it as well.”

    Stereotyping: On more than one occasion, I have seen more than one “open carry zealot” admit that certain behavior can result in negative consequences. Whoops.

    Negative Proof Fallacy: You follow that stereotype right down its rabbit hole, and put forward the belief that since there is no proof that “these incidents” are helping, they cannot help.

    And then your entire argument revolves around a Perfect Solution Fallacy to boot…

    And, logical fallacy or not, we have the pot calling the kettle black (you attacking me for doing exactly what you have done, only you used the term “jerk” and I used the term “asshole”), your lies (there was nothing feigned about me accurately pointing out that my weblog’s Terms of Use strictly prohibit criminal activities and threats… and, no, you are nowhere near important enough for me to have adjusted them just for you), and your inability to take what you seem to have no problems dishing out.

    But, hey, you just go on calling names and playing the victim card… Makes your abusive behavior on other people’s weblogs look that much more pathetic.

    • Gunnutmegger says:

      Your stubborn determination to distort and misinterpret the facts is fascinating to me.

      “it does not matter whether you said “kick his ass” or “kick him in the ass so hard he would be wearing it as a hat””

      Actually, it does. There is a huge difference between threatening to “kick a person’s ass” (inflict a serious beating using multiple blows which might involve more than just kicks) and threatening to “kick someone in the ass” (a singular kick; and the cultural relevance of a “kick in the ass” is well-documented).

      I don’t understand how someone could not understand that clear distinction, unless they have some ulterior motive for pretending to be ignorant. Like, not having any factual basis for their complaints, and needing some bogus offense to be offended about.

      “(what you actually said – one has to wonder why you incompletely quoted yourself)”

      Why not? Because it was not relevant. The colorful description I attached to my desire to kick the shotgun kid in his ass was written for humorous effect.

      Much the way you use turns of phrase like “Good to see that you have no problems flinging logical fallacies and blatant assumptions about on your own weblog with the same reckless abandon you do on others’.” to sound witty and learned.

      Well, it would be, if it worked as you intended. It did not. I mean, why would it be “good” if I was doing what you said? Misusing phrases does not make you look witty.

      “Not only does that play perfectly into the anti-rights nuts’ stereotypes, it demonstrates a marked lack of maturity and self-control on your part.”

      But dragging a shotgun into the kids section of the public library, and bringing an AR15 into a Ponderosa does demonstrate those qualities?

      ““Just because these folks oppose this specific instance of open carry, I am justified in my atrocious behavior while opposing it as well.””

      I have never said that. Which makes you a liar for claiming that I did, or ignorant of the proper use of quotation marks.

      And, would repeatedly calling someone an “asshole” and a “jackoff” qualify as “atrocious behavior”?

      “On more than one occasion, I have seen more than one “open carry zealot” admit that certain behavior can result in negative consequences. Whoops.”

      You “forgot” (I am being generous) to mention that the “admission” is tentative & qualified, and immediately followed by a declaration that there is “no proof” and that no negative consequences will actually occur.

      Not an admission, in other words. A half-admission, followed by a de facto denial.

      The open carry equivalent of a Clinton Denial.

      “You follow that stereotype right down its rabbit hole, and put forward the belief that since there is no proof that “these incidents” are helping, they cannot help.”

      Once again, I never said that, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as meaning that.

      The point I was making is that the lack of proof of negative consequences is held up by open carry zealots as justification for their actions, but they refuse to address the lack of proof of the “positive consequences”.

      Hypocrisy on the issue of proof, in other words.

      “And then your entire argument revolves around a Perfect Solution Fallacy to boot…”

      It does? What is it, and when did I say it?

      “And, logical fallacy or not, we have the pot calling the kettle black (you attacking me for doing exactly what you have done, only you used the term “jerk” and I used the term “asshole”)”

      I have never called you a “jerk” or any other name. I called the shotgun kid and his ilk jerks in my comment on your post on Feb 21 at 15:41, but I never directed any epithet to you. Please, link me to where I called you a “jerk”. If I did it, I will apologize.

      And once again, you have repeatedly referred to me as an “asshole” and a “jackoff”. Do you understand what hypocrisy is?

      “your lies (there was nothing feigned about me accurately pointing out that my weblog’s Terms of Use strictly prohibit criminal activities and threats… “

      Pointing out the terms of use wasn’t feigned, nor did I claim that it was. But your shock and indignation was. “unprovoked threats of violence” LOL, do you believe that bringing a shotgun into the kids section of the public library is not provocative?

      “and, no, you are nowhere near important enough for me to have adjusted them just for you)”

      When exactly did I make that request? Or did you once again make something up out of thin air?

      “But, hey, you just go on calling names”

      LOL, you really are blind to your own behavior, aren’t you?

      “playing the victim card…”

      You are the one with the persecution complex, not me. All of these imaginary insults that you believe I hurled at you are making you irrational.

      In your current state of mind, you are a liability to the gun rights movement.

  3. Gus says:

    Nice Catfight.

    My take on the whole issue? There are such things as manners, and temperance.

    Have any of you see the bodybuilder on the beach who flexes his muscles whenever someone is looking? Or met the guy who brags about being in Special forces? This kid is such a guy.

    The right to carry a weapon comes with an unwritten obligation to do so responsibly, and not wave it on other’s faces just to make a point.