It resembled most any Sunday afternoon picnic in Bronson Park. Except most of the people assembled around tables filled with watermelon and grilled goodies had firearms in holsters strapped to their waists.
The Glocks and the Smith & Wessons remained holstered but visible during a three-hour Open Carry Picnic designed to raise public awareness of what organizers called Second Amendment rights in Michigan to openly carry a firearm in most places.
The Gun Guys published a post on this, in which they pulled no punches.
Gun Lobby Accelerates Crusade to Normalize Abnormal Behavior By Openly Carrying Handguns.
One of the commenters on the Kalamazoo site really expressed his ideas. liam9903 had this to say.
These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock. I'm sure you could find a nutty Ron Paul supporter or racist rapture waiting survivalist in the group if you looked a little deeper. Most "2nd amendment advocates" shouldn't be aloud scissors much less the right to carry their gun around in public.
I must admit, at the risk of bringing a firestorm of comments down on my head, I agree pretty much with what the Gun Guys said, and even a little bit with Liam. I don't think it's normal behaviour to carry a gun, and picnics like these which are designed to "raise public awareness," seem like an attempt to make the abnormal normal.
What Liam says, this question of inadequacy, never fails to elicit the strongest negative reaction from the pro-gun crowd. Sometimes I wonder if the ones who complain the loudest about that are the truly "inadequate" ones. Anyway, here's my take on it.
Gun-toting guys who talk about self-defense, are usually living in a fantasy world. The vast majority of these guys, I would bet, never need their weapons for self-defense. It's just an idea, a fantasy, like the one about fighting off the government gun-confiscators. It's an adolescent male fighting fantasy.
More than the gun owners who are trying to compensate for something lacking in their personalities, I'm concerned about the ones who truly shouldn't be trusted with even a pair of scissors. I'm talking about the heavy drinkers, the drug users, the violent and irresponsible, the ones with anger issues. All these, combined with the inadequate ones, present a very real danger to themselves and others. But, unfortunately, they have all the guns they want as well as the support of all the other gun owners. You guys are nothing if not loyal to one another.
Meanwhile, here's the real problem. The more guns there are, the more get stolen, sold to the wrong people, and worst of all misused for suicides and homicides. Research we've all heard about says it's much more likely that a gun in the home will be misused than used for self defense.
So, although I can see that law-abiding people carrying guns at picnics is not a problem, per se, I think there is a serious indirect problem with it.
What's your opinion? Do you think it's more likely that your gun will be used properly for self defense one day, or that it will be used improperly as an object of theft or misuse? Don't you think most of the people who have had guns stolen or misused said the same thing?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
You do realize that there's also a huge 1st amendment proponent to open carry as well?ReplyDelete
Freedom of expression & association are also at play here.
And you know what Mike? If you think OC is "abnormal behavior" then don't OC. It's your choice. You may not like it, but these folks have a right to OC, they've chosen to do so, and they're doing nothing more than having a picnic with friends while exercizing a right.
What is it that makes this so threatening to you and your ilk? Could it be you're projecting your own fears and inadequacies upon others?
And are you seriously saying there's a risk of these guys having their holstered gun stolen while at such a picnic, therefore they shouldn't carry?
The drivel from Gun Guys is pure, unadulterated bigotry.
These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock.ReplyDelete
You know Mike, this bigot (with whom you agree, birds of a feather and all) actually has a point.
I do carry a gun because of certain "inadequacies." I carry because I have CP, and that puts me at an immediate physical disadvantage should I need to defend myself without a weapon. I carry because my physical strength is inadequate if there are multiple attackers.
What about Women Mike? It's a biological fact that they have less upper body strength than men. Do you agree that they're "too pathetic to even mock" as well? Are they compensating? Yes, they're compensating for being smaller & weaker than most men.
What about folks like Breda? Is she a "nut job?" Should she be ridiculed for compensating for the fact that she wears a prothesis.
"I think there is a serious indirect problem with it."ReplyDelete
You're right. It shows which people are irrationally afraid of objects in lieu of using the rational part of their minds.
Those people have serious problems.
The "Gun Guys". Another paid shill for the anti-gun lobby.
BTW, the 'small penis' comments are the final refuge of the anti-gun crowd when they can't make any defensible arguments.ReplyDelete
It truly shows how desperate you've become.
All those (presumably loaded) guns around, and not one word about any deaths, wounds, or even threats. Sounds dangerous as all get-out, alright.ReplyDelete
As for Liam, with his "to pathetic," and "shouldn't be aloud"--have him get back to me after he learns English.
Women who carry firearms are what, compensating for freakishly large clits?
Is that your belief?
The people at the picnic stated that they wanted to increase public awareness about people carrying guns.
Not exactly something easily accomplished if they were carrying concealed, no?
The point of this is that people in this country are already surrounded by people carrying guns when they go to grocery store and yes, when they go to a public park.
Open carry just increases the awareness of this fact.
Exactly what they intended to do.
My reply is over on my site.
Care to comment over there?
I promise not to moderate your comments out of existence.
There are 250 million guns in the US. Approximately 0.012% of them are ever used to kill someone.ReplyDelete
So to say it's much more likely that a gun in the home will be misused than used for self defense is fallacious at best.
It's no different than saying that by leaving your house, you'll be more likely to catch swine flu than not. While that may be true, your chances of catching swine flu are statistically irrelevant.
Aztec, What do you mean "fallacious at best?" And that comparison to catching the swine flu doesn't work at all.ReplyDelete
Here's the thing. The defensive use of a gun is an extremely rare thing. The misuse of that same gun is less rare. That includes misuse by you the owner, by a family member, by a thief who breaks into your house. One of these acts is statistically more likely to happen than your using the gun to save the day.
One way to deal with this as a pro-gun person is to exaggerate the numbers of DGUs. If you believe Kleck that there are 2.5 million of them each year instead of 100,000, then you've got an argument.
The other way is to diminish the numbers of suicides, accidents, aggressive acts on the part of gun owners and the number of thefts. Or they sometimes just insist that it's not the gun that's at fault, it's the people.
I don't buy any of that. I say guns cause more harm than good.
Here's the thing. The defensive use of a gun is an extremely rare thing. The misuse of that same gun is less rare. That includes misuse by you the owner, by a family member, by a thief who breaks into your house. One of these acts is statistically more likely to happen than your using the gun to save the day.ReplyDelete
Ignoring the fact that statistics do not have any bearing on my rights, are you going to prove all the crap you just said, or is it all just unfounded assertions?
You used the word "statistically" but where are you statistics, where's your proof?
"Aztec, What do you mean "fallacious at best?" And that comparison to catching the swine flu doesn't work at all."ReplyDelete
I say it's fallacious because it's a misleading comment. Both misuse and the firing of a firearm in self-defense are extremely rare events.
And if you count the defensive uses of a firearm where it's not fired, the number of self-defense uses vastly outnumber the incidences of misuse.
And, since you refuse to accept official statistics from the FBI et al. why should we trust yours?ReplyDelete
"Gun-toting guys who talk about self-defense, are usually living in a fantasy world. The vast majority of these guys, I would bet, never need their weapons for self-defense. It's just an idea, a fantasy, like the one about fighting off the government gun-confiscators. It's an adolescent male fighting fantasy."ReplyDelete
MikeB, have you ever heard the saying "Its better to have -insert item- and not need it, than it is to need -same item- and not have it." I will concede that depending on where you are, and what you do, the chances of actually needing to draw a firearm might be low. However, it is a bad time to figure out that you need one, when you are being robbed, raped or murdered.
Also, a bit of advice, please pass this onto "Liam," if he cannot debate a subject without tossing insults, or attacking those with opposing views, he needs to stay on the porch. Of course you get your tights in a twist when people toss insults your way, and I cannot blame you, so do not do it yourself. It is hypocritical.
To be honest I got a good laugh about the comments you two put out there. Good laughs are hard to come by these days, so I want to thank the both of you. I would thank him in person, but I do not have a link to the gun guys blog.
Malakh, I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. That must describe the mentality of many gun owners. The problem is in order to justify such a position they ignore or actually deny the tremendous collateral damage their guns do.ReplyDelete
You know, I think I could accept more easily someone who admits and agrees to the flow theory and the gun availability theory and says "I don't care, I'm keeping a gun anyway," than what most of the pro-gun guys do which is ignore and deny.
The problem is in order to justify such a position they ignore or actually deny the tremendous collateral damage their guns do.ReplyDelete
Bullshit Mike. I'm not ignoring or denying anything. My guns have not done ANY "tremendous collateral damage." Not only that, but I don't have to justify my position. My rights are my rights, I don't have to justify their exercize to you or anyone else, regardless of what you believe about "collateral damage" or "gun flow."
And by the way, a gun is an inanimate object, it cannot DO anything on it's own, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
Mike W. beat me to it, and stated a position that is identical to my own. If I am forced to pay a trillion dollars (or quadrillion, for that matter) for each person harmed by my guns, I can afford to do that easily--and I am far from wealthy.ReplyDelete
"I could accept more easily someone who admits and agrees to the flow theory and the gun availability theory"ReplyDelete
Of course you could because someone who agrees to it is just as ignorant on the subject as you are.
It's not ignorance Third it's outright bigotry and contempt for our Constitutional Rights.ReplyDelete
MikeB can hardly be called ignorant. He's been presented with the truth and has chosen bigotry and contempt.
Please inform me of how many people have been injured by the guns I posess.ReplyDelete
A ball park esstimate is acceptable.
FYI...I own alot of guns.
If you are unwilling or unable to answer my question, ask yourself why?
Kaveman and Mike W., The fact that your specific guns have not been misused has nothing to do with it. Your situations are just 2 out of 50 million or more depending on whom you quote. I'm always talking about the percentage of that 50 million that do result in misuse. If you're not among that group, I hope you keep it that way, and I hope you stop taking my talking about them so personally.ReplyDelete
Mike, If I advocated having you castrated because a "significant percentage" of men misused their "equipment" to commit rape would you take it personally?ReplyDelete
Mike W., Are you saying that taking your guns away from you is comparable to castration? Don't you think you're being a bit melodramatic?ReplyDelete
Why do you and some of the others have to continually resort to comparisons to make your point? It's either cars or computers, now it's castration. Why don't you just make your point directly. I don't think anyone in these discussions is so dumb or illiterate that they really need the benefit of your comparisons to understand your point.
OK MikeB. We have at highest, about 15,000 people murdering others w/ guns each year. Assuming each and every one were a legal firearm owner at the time (they weren't, over 80% nationwide are prohibited persons) and using your 50m number (short about 30m btw), that puts the number of people becoming murderers at .03%. Note the decimal.ReplyDelete
Would you support a plan that would reduce gun crime by nearly 30% that only effected one portion of the population?
"Mike W., Are you saying that taking your guns away from you is comparable to castration?"ReplyDelete
No, not at all. I'm merely using your own logic and applying it directly to something other than guns?
Why? because it shows just how absurd your position is.