05-29-2021, 02:52 PM
(05-29-2021, 08:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah I definitely never do appendix carry. I like dominant side or, occasionally, small of back. None of this is because I'm too fat to comfortable appendix carry.
Haha, whatever the reason it's good that you don't. I got heavy to the point that one day my belt buckle dug uncomfortably my gut. That was a wake up day.
(05-29-2021, 08:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I suppose in Fred's hypothetical case, he was referring to situations in which police would have a motive to "determine."
Too bad he is no longer with us; his contributions to the thread would have enriched our discussion.
Oh, Fred left? Who will fill the daily quota of word twisting and prevaricating? But seriously folks, if you have PC to investigate someone then their open carrying or not is irrelevant. Unless the open carry is the reason for the PC, which it couldn't be if open carry is legal.
Quote:Well sure, frontier towns' racial segregation would have been an endorsement of bigotry. But while I get Mickeypoo's reference to inflated mask warnings in Texas, your allusion to segregation escapes me.
I have a hard time believing that. You used frontier towns as an example of gun control as a positive, I simply pointed out the flaws in your analogy.
Quote:My point wasn't that whatever frontier towns did was cool (which appears to be the point you refuted, slam dunk), but rather that their gun laws might have followed from extra gun play which went with open carry. Ergo perhaps Texas is about to relearn that lesson, if there was such. We can't sort that out from Old West segregation issues?
Or, it might have been due to the general lawlessness of the frontier. After all, how many train robberies a year do we get now versus then? I'm willing to go out on a limb and say fewer.
Quote:LOL I'm not the guy who invented the "Good-man-with-a-gun" trope. I'm just the guy who referenced it. In any case, I posted a picture of a female carrying, so I know they do it. Just the wrong way, as you pointed out.
Who said you were? I was pointing out that your example is indeed a "worst case scenario" and even so, how it could, and likely would, be resolved without the confusion you apparently feel is inevitable in such a scenario.
Quote:I'm wondering--if law enforcement shows up to see people shooting at each other in a crowd, will they really issue commands to surrender, or will some at least shoot to protect? We've all seen some videos in which time-to-comply is pretty short even when no one is shooting at anyone. And what will happen to the guy who doesn't hear or is desperately defending himself?
So, you think that law enforcement will respond to an active shooter event, witness two parties exchanging gunfire and then just light absolutely everyone up without issuing any commends to cease, i.e. law down your weapons and get on the ground?
Quote:E.G., suppose the original shooter keeps shooting at the good-men-with-guns--can they be counted on to lower their weapons on police command? You envision a much more orderly mass shooting than I do. Mine is less regulable by command.
Indeed, you imagine, as you said, a "worst case scenario". Seeing as how open carry and shall issue concealed carry has existed for some time in many states maybe you can provide us with just one real life example that fits your doomsday scenario?
Quote:In any case, my example wasn't just about what happens when the police get there, but also about all the good guys who may be shooting before that.
It happens more often than you probably realize. An armed citizen stopping a criminal during the course of their crime is not exactly an unheard of event.
Quote:That "it could happen already" seems not a good defense of the new law--or maybe you agree people should not be encouraged to carry weapons while going about daily tasks that don't involve hunting or the shooting range.
I've made my view on this eminently clear throughout the years.
