What’s the difference?

The mass shooting(s) and open carry demonstrations have me wondering what is the difference between the people who choose one vs the other.  In the end both are trying to empower themselves.  Both seem to have irrational fears and hatreds.  Is there a difference in kind or is it just a difference in degree?  I don’t know.  I suspect it is the ameliorating and exacerbating factors.  What does the person have to live for?  What avenues can they expect will actually let them feel powerful?  How can they actually conquer those they fear and/or hate?  The murderers seem desperate, as if they think they have no other reasonable route to achieve the power they crave.  The open carriers however don’t seem to be at the point.  They are otherwise happy suburbanites, simply malcontent that they aren’t cowboys and worshiped for it.  But how far will they go if simply carrying a big gun around doesn’t get them what they want?  What if the looks of fear and disgust no longer give them their fix?  What happens when they realize that a lot of that disgust is people thinking they are pathetic losers?  I hope nothing happens and am sure the vast majority of these people wouldn’t decide to assuage their insecurities by killing a lot of people.  But if even one does, that’s one too many.

Advertisements

12 responses to “What’s the difference?”

  1. 3boxesofbs says :

    The mass shooting(s) and open carry demonstrations have me wondering what is the difference between the people who choose one vs the other

    You mean besides the ethical, moral and legal distinction of one group following the law and the other being murderous thugs?

    Both seem to have irrational fears and hatreds.

    If you believe that, you really don’t know any one who advocates for Open Carry. It isn’t irrational fears (unless you are projecting your own) or hatreds; it is trying to regain the legal rights and liberties we shouldn’t have lost.

    Carrying a firearm isn’t about hating anyone; it is about the recognition the government can not be there to protect everyone and the understanding it does not have a responsibility to protect the individual.

    What does the person have to live for?

    A Wife, 3 Kids, dozens of friends, a good job, enjoyable activities such as reading, computers, shooting. A decent job, house, cars; Ten thousand things I have to live for — just like you. The difference is accepting and acting on the responsibility for my own safety.

    It’s really twisted and sick to compare the mass murderers (like the UCSB who recognized that the presence of firearms could stop his rampage) with those advocating for a legal right. Guess that says more about your mindset and world view then it does about those who Open Carry.

    Bob S.

  2. lwk2431 says :

    “Both seem to have irrational fears and hatreds.”

    You don’t get out much do you? Don’t know many people outside of whatever circle you inhabit, and I hesitate to ask what that is.

    People in Texas staging protests (yes, that is what they are) are seeking to amend the law in Texas to allow open carry of handguns as is legal in many states. In Texas they can legally carry a long arm, and that is the mechanism of their protest, not some perverted desire to scare people (like you).

    A lot of people in Texas have concealed carry permit. If you are in Texas in public you will pass people, perhaps quite a few, who are legally carrying a loaded handgun, and more than likely they are not nearly as subject to fear and paranoia as you are.

    lwk

  3. fallend says :

    First two comments I’ve gotten. Congrats. Kinda disappointed though with the “I know you are but what am I?” A couple bits of delightful humor though, thanks for that.

    If you believe that, you really don’t know any one who advocates for Open Carry. It isn’t irrational fears (unless you are projecting your own) or hatreds; it is trying to regain the legal rights and liberties we shouldn’t have lost.

    Carrying a firearm isn’t about hating anyone; it is about the recognition the government can not be there to protect everyone and the understanding it does not have a responsibility to protect the individual.

    I’m sorry you seem to live in such a lawless chaotic place. Stay safe cowboy.

    You don’t get out much do you? Don’t know many people outside of whatever circle you inhabit, and I hesitate to ask what that is.

    You do realize you have written this in these here tubes of the internet right? Everyone is here. That includes responsible gun owners as well as the not so responsible gun owners, the wannabe cowboys and the bigots.

  4. 3boxesofbs says :

    I’m sorry you seem to live in such a lawless chaotic place.

    And I would say I’m sorry to see you living in denial of the possibility of being a crime victim. During a person’s lifetime, there is an 80% probability they will be the victim of a violent crime.

    And the consequences of being the victim of a violent crime can be devastating, not just for the individual but the person’s family also.

    I do notice how you don’t try to refute any of my points or those of lwk2431 but attempt to ridicule us. People differ in values and perceptions; show my how my perception of the risk of crime and the consequences is wrong. Show me how I’m so off base that the simple carrying of a firearm is not only not worth the inconvenience but also endangers others (if you can).

    Tell me how standing up for rights we once enjoyed and don’t harm others is wrong. Don’t just say it is, build an argument that will convince me. If you can.

    Bob S.

  5. fallend says :

    Hmmm, I don’t intend to get in the habit of doing other people’s homework for them. Nor deviating so far from the topic of the OP. (If you are actually interested in having a discussion about rights and regulations of guns I have a previous post where that would be more on topci) And to paraphrase what many has said, logic will not convince someone against a position they don’t hold logically. If you were basing your position on logic you’d be looking for not only the current chances you will ever be in the course of your entire lifetime a victim of a violent crime (crime rates have fallen since that 80% from several decades ago btw) but also the chance of being a victim of a violent crime that you would be able to prevent by having a gun and the chances of a gun accident. Do your research on those and the odds don’t favor having a gun to protect oneself or others from attack.
    Also, ridicule is actually a very good way to refute points and make one’s own. Saying that however, only two points, as it were, were actually relevant to the OP. First was your sharing what I presume are your reasons for living, which doesn’t counter my ponderings unless you are a mass murder. The other (see below) reinforces some of my observations. Everything else was either Non Sequitur or the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” tactic.
    The OP was my observation that two groups of people (greatly generalized, I’ll admit) seem to share some psychological traits and reliance, though in different manners, on firearms. And then wondering about the different reasons for the two outcomes. The portion of your first post I mocked and the lead in of your second post demonstrated that you do in fact have a fear that you seem to rely on firearms to assuage. I don’t know if you are one of the people who participates in open carry displays, but you seem to wish to represent them.

  6. 3boxesofbs says :

    (crime rates have fallen since that 80% from several decades ago btw)

    BUNK. Yes, Crime rates have fallen but not 80% – could you show me where you got that statistic?

    But to address the point; yes crime rates have fallen – in general. Not every area has seen that decrease. Nor does it change the consequences of being a crime victim. My carrying a firearm harms no one. So the only issues is the hassle I want to put up with for the low probability / high consequences of being a crime victim.

    From Gary Kleck’s book “POINT BLANK: GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA”

    Keeping a gun for home defense makes most defensive gun owners feel safer, and most also believe they are safer because they have a gun. The belief is not necessarily a delusion. People who use guns for self-protection in robberies and assaults are less likely to have the crime completed against them (in a robbery, this means losing their property), and, contrary to widespread belief, are less likely to be injured, compared to either victims who use other forms of resistance or to victims who do nothing to resist. (Criminals take the gun away from the victim in less than 1% of these incidents.) The evidence does not support the idea that nonresistance is safer than resisting with a gun.

    The portion of your first post I mocked and the lead in of your second post demonstrated that you do in fact have a fear that you seem to rely on firearms to assuage.

    And now with only a few words on the screen you can psychoanalyze me. You are apparently a man of many talents. Too bad all of them are off base.

    Sorry but I don’t ‘rely on firearms to assuage’ my fears. It isn’t fear that led me to my decision but rational analysis of the facts, statistics, odds and ethical concerns. And that is the biggest point you continue to miss or ignore. I’m pointing out the difference and you don’t acknowledge that murderers don’t worry about the rational, legal or ethical issues while those who carry, even Openly do so.

    Your OP was a blatant attempt to smear Open Carry activists by linking them with murderers. Tacky and childish.

  7. lwk2431 says :

    You might find the following article on my blog apropos to your mindset:

    A Nation of Cowards
    by Jeffrey Snyder

    http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/a-nation-of-cowards/

    Some quotes:

    Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won’t be there at the moment you actually need them.

    Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special “crime-free” zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.

    Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

    (note: this was written I believe in the 1990s).

    lwk

  8. lwk2431 says :

    fallend writes:

    “… also the chance of being a victim of a violent crime that you would be able to prevent by having a gun and the chances of a gun accident.”

    According something like 13 major studies it appears that quite a few people every year do exactly that, prevent a crime with a firearm.

    “Do your research on those and the odds don’t favor having a gun to protect oneself or others…”

    The odds are that a police officer will never have an opportunity to shoot a criminal in an entire career. Some do of course, but the majority never do. They still carry guns because if you do need one, there is no substitute and at the point the odds are irrelevant.

    lwk

  9. fallend says :

    (crime rates have fallen since that 80% from several decades ago btw)

    BUNK. Yes, Crime rates have fallen but not 80% – could you show me where you got that statistic?

    I’d invite you to very carefully reread what you quoted and your own post just prior. Also, I am only judging you by what you’ve written here. If you don’t want people to think you fear being a victim of a violent crime and own a gun in the belief it will protect you from such, then perhaps you should stop saying that.

    As to the quoted stuff, who are you trying to convince? Assertions coming from someone else doesn’t make them any truer than when you assert them yourself.

    Finally:

    Your OP was a blatant attempt to smear Open Carry activists by linking them with murderers. Tacky and childish.

    Aww, poor cowboy has had his fee fees hurt.

    You might find the following article on my blog apropos to your mindset:

    Nope, fearmonging doesn’t really do much for me. Nor is most of that in any way relevant to the OP.

    According something like 13 major studies it appears that quite a few people every year do exactly that, prevent a crime with a firearm.

    Wow, impressive. Like 13 major studies? That’s super-duper-mega convincing. So what’s the statistic and how does it compare to the statistics of gun accidents?

    The odds are that a police officer will never have an opportunity to shoot a criminal in an entire career. Some do of course, but the majority never do. They still carry guns because if you do need one, there is no substitute and at the point the odds are irrelevant.

    You actually think this is relevant to.. well anything? Also, “opportunity to shoot a criminal”? Really?

  10. lwk2431 says :

    “Aww, poor cowboy has had his fee fees hurt”

    It seems that your primary form of argument is what I what call the logical fallacy of the argument from ridicule.

    “Nope, fearmonging doesn’t really do much for me.”

    Your loss. Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards” is one of the great classics that everyone should read, unless they are afraid to find out that it applies to them.

    “So what’s the statistic and how does it compare to the statistics of gun accidents?”

    Professor David Hemenway, a Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, has estimated defensive gun uses at 55,000 to 80,000 per year. Of course that school has received millions of dollars from Michael Bloomberg so there is some reason to be suspicious of his motives (since he frequently authors anti-gun research).

    Dr. Gary Kleck in the 1990s did a study that placed it at 2.5 million with 400,000 lives saved every year. However homicides at that time were twice what they are now. Many other studies have come up with values in between those two. Well upwards of 100,000 a year is probably a very conservative number based on the available research.

    Of course it is obviously very difficult number to quantify because lives saved are not nearly as easy to count as corpses.

    “Also, “opportunity to shoot a criminal”? Really?”

    Yes, that is correct. Some police officers will certainly see their share of violence in a career, but the majority will not be called on to use their firearms in the line of duty. In fact a police officer is more likely to shoot himself (suicide) than shoot a criminal. I guess they get to see some things don’t give you a rosy view.

    lwk

  11. fallend says :

    It seems that your primary form of argument is what I what call the logical fallacy of the argument from ridicule.

    You can of course call things what you want. In this case it paints you as being ignorant of argumentation and logical fallacies. I will however continue to ridicule the ridiculous and save substantive replies to substance.

    Your loss. Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards” is one of the great classics that everyone should read, unless they are afraid to find out that it applies to them.

    Classics? You seem to have some novel usages of words and ideas. I mean it is a rather interesting sample of absurd quixotic bloviating, but not particularly relevant to reality, and certainly not relevant to the OP.

    Professor David Hemenway…

    Ah.. actual substance. I’m fine w/ the 100k+ a year. Glancing back over the genesis of this point however, I’m not sure where it would go that would be relevant to the OP either. If you’re just wanting to contest the specific statement I made that you partially quoted that’s fine, and this is a start. You’ve got a long way to go though.

    “Also, “opportunity to shoot a criminal”? Really?”

    Yes, that is correct. Some police officers will certainly see their share of violence in a career, but the majority will not be called on to use their firearms in the line of duty. In fact a police officer is more likely to shoot himself (suicide) than shoot a criminal. I guess they get to see some things don’t give you a rosy view.

    Again with the novel usages. And again with the irrelevance.

  12. lwk2431 says :

    “You can of course call things what you want. In this case it paints you as being ignorant of argumentation and logical fallacies.”

    However I do know bullshit when I see it. 🙂

    regards,

    lwk

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: