Why do some people become frightened if they see a gun?

[Tim01]

It isn't rational.

There is no evidence to suggest that a person who is open carrying is dangerous, actually it tends to be the opposite. So a fear of a person open carrying is based on emotion in spite of evidence, much like a religious extremist.

Also, criminals are already carrying guns concealed. So there are already ACTUAL dangerous people in our environment, like it or not. So to think that guns are not around if they can't be seen, is irrational. It is believing something to be true in spite of evidence to the contrary.Very much like feeling there is something different about black people.

This is very much like being afraid of a police officer because he has a visible gun, while feeling safe with violent gangsters.


Do some people just become frightened for no good reason? Maybe it is some emotional problem, like people who are terrified of clowns, or pickles.

I'd like someone who is frightened by the sight of guns to give me an actual reason.z


I got hit by lightning once, I didn't like it. Now I have an irrational fear of lightning. My fear is at least based on something, but I still know it is irrational. I don't try to pretend it makes sense. I just am more frightened of lightning than what is rational. I admit it doesn't make sense.

[peace13]

1. It's not the gun but the *sshole holding it that worries me. n/t

[Tim01]

3. Irrational, I addressed that in the post. nt

[peace13]

17. Oh, I didn't realize that the' irrational police' had spoken.

So, you are the only one who can decide what is rational? People think all kinds of things and hear voices and have religious ideas that tell them to do things. That is why I care that a simple human can carry a gun and go off at any minute.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. What about a police officer? They carry guns.

Do they frighten you?

[rgbecker]

26. Yes, very much, Yours Truly, Rodney King.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Rodney King had his day in court.

He wouldn't have if they'd used their firearms.

[peace13]

39. Trust me, I would not poke a stick at an officer.

Now days there are any number of reasons why the official police can strike, tase, or shoot a person. Damn straight I give the law more respect than due because I do not want to be hurt! That is just the way it is. Stand in a peace line sometime. You will see and feel what I am talking about!

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I have. I've never once been hurt by a police officer.

It's possible to oppose them while being respectful, and it helps both sides.

[peace13]

54. Yet you have seen people be hurt by police.

In video or on the news or in person. Officers who have been arrested? Remember,you don't have to beat all of the children, just one if the rest are paying attention.

[cowman]

73. And you have

to admit that sometimes professional agitators show up to create an incident with police so it can be recorded to embarrass the police, not often, but it does happen. Most LEO are honest, hard working officers with the best intentions, I know because in my job I work with them frequently

[AtheistCrusader]

99. I have seen that.

I have seen police officers arrested as well. You're smearing an awful lot of people with that 'fear' brush. Most cops are perfectly normal, nice people. There is certainly a small contingent of assholes, but that happens whenever you get more than 2 or 3 people together into a group.

[Demoiselle]

89. Yes, cops carry guns.

And not so long ago, here in Philadelphia, two off-duty cops went chasing after a petty crook, or so they say. They didn't catch the crook, they shot another young man after spending a considerable amount of time listening to the young man, who was unarmed, try to convince them that he was NOT the guy they were looking for. They killed an upstanding citizen, husband son and father.
The cops have been suspended with intent to dismiss and our new DA will probably file charges against them.
Also, recently here, a retired cop known in his neighborhood as a real bully, shot and killed a young man from the neighborhood. They had an argument, initiated, according to witnesses, by the cop. The young man was unarmed. His killer has been charged, as well.

There are many fine police officers in this country, I know.

But back to your original question.
Yes, cops carry guns.
And yes, they scare the living shit out of me. Just like anybody else who "openly carries."

[teknomanzer]

27. People do not carry weapons in polite society...

Let me ask you this. Is it rational to assume that you would need to carry a weapon every place you go. Is it rational to assume that you will inevitably end up in a situation where a weapon will be needed? Is it not more likely that the person carrying a weapon is likely to use it in situations where there is a "percieved" threat?

Having a weapon around increases its probability of being used and with a gun there is a pretty good chance that it will severely injure or kill whoever or whatever it is used on.

I have served in the Army in combat arms. I was a tanker to be more precise, so I am quite used to the presence of weapons. That however is somewhat different from being in a civilian population. When I see a civilian with a weapon on their side it draws my attention. I can honestly say that there is no fear involved just a certain level of curiosity. After all yours truly, a veteran, has not carried nor owned a weapon in the 15 years since my honorable discharge. I simply do not see the need to do so. And that is a rational consideration. I do not see life threatening danger around every corner. I am not in a combat zone.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Counter-point: If you need a firearm, nothing else will do.

I carry (Concealed) because there exist certain conditions that demand the use of a firearm. First off, using it may not require firing it. A firearm can potentially escalate, or de-escalate a situation, depending entirely upon it's use. This is true of Police Officers and civilians. (technically police officers are civilians, but I'll use the rough 'sworn officer' = 'sworn soldier' comparison for simplicity)

It may be required to fend off animals. I live in 'civilized society', yet I am in walking distance from two national forests, and we get wild animals here. Civilized society also contains dogs, which may from time to time, attack humans. Firearms are an appropriate response to either situation.

It may be required to support a police officer acting in a lawful manner. In fact, my state 'encourages' this with the equivalent of a 'good samaritan' law shielding people who attempt to aid a police officer. I've added that law at the bottom for your review.

It may be required to protect yourself, or another human from imminent bodily harm.

RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or

(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:

(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or

(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or

(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.

(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or

(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.

Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.

(4) This section shall not be construed as:

(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or

(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.


<1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.>


Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." <1986 c 209 § 3.>

[SPedigrees]

56. Tell that to my fellow Vermont citizens

most of whom own and sometimes carry guns, and most of whom are polite.

I think an irrational fear of guns must be similar to those who grew up in households without pets and consequently fear dogs or cats. Fear of the unfamiliar.

[Tim01]

63. Guns and fire insurance.

I have both. I plan on never needing or using either one of them. But I have both because if I get into one of those one in a million cases where I need either one, I will really really need it.
Most of us have lots of kinds of insurance that we spend our money on and plan on never using. A carry gun is another kind of insurance.

[PavePusher]

70. Really? Another 'No True Scotsman' fallacy?

I carry weapons. And I am exteremly polite to all. This word "rational", I do not think it means what you think it means. You seem to think it means 'that which I agree with'. Your assumptions do not apply to others.

[cowman]

78. Ahhh yes

but it is better to have one and not need it than to not have one and need it. The vast majority of us that do carry are usually well trained and very level headed. For instance, if I were in a store and an armed robber came in, I wouldn't pull my gun and try to apprehend the person nor would I pull and start shooting, better to observe and report than possibly get injured or killed or get other patrons injured or killed. There is nothing in that store that is worth my life, OTH, same scenario, if the perp came up to me to do me or another patron bodily harm, you better believe I would pull and defend myself or another person. Despite certain people in the anti-2nd amend crowd, we don't walk around just waiting to shoot someone, the taking of another's life is a nightmare I hope I never have to experience again, but if I have to then at least I will have the correct tool to do so.

[farmout rightarm]

86. Why have you reneged on your oath to protect the Constitution?

And if you're not intimidated by the sight of a sidearm, why do you think you need to speak for everyone else who hasn't your perspicacity? I don't get it.

[PavePusher]

112. Are you saying that all those who carry guns are...

"*sshole"s?

You seem to be biased against the public exercise of a Civil Right... How "Progressive" is that?

[AtheistCrusader]

2. If it's holstered, and the person carrying is not doing anything aggressive,

I am not afraid.

If it's being brandished, or the person carrying is acting erratic or hostile, houston, we have a problem. (For which I am equipped to handle.)

[annabanana]

9. And yet he feels the need to carry a weapon.

Can we wonder why? What is threatening him to such a degree that he feels the need to carry a gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Need canard.

There need not be a 'need', it's a right. You have it too, provided you haven't had any constitutional rights stripped by being a convicted felon, or involuntarily commited to a mental health institution.

But, 'need' aside, he probably carries for the same reason I carry a gun. However, I prefer concealed carry, because if something bad is going to happen, I don't want a 'bad guy' to recognize me as a danger and shoot me first. Initiative is valuable.

We carry because 'in case shit'.

Same reason I carry my med kit in my truck. Or my Ambu+ face shield in my vest for CPR. All, in case shit. In case something happens to you, or to some other person. Someone I care about, or even someone I've never met before.

Firearms, to people like me, are for Protecting Human Life. Same reason a police officer carries. For people on my side, firearms are a recognizable first line of defense, and a useful tool for saving human life from predators of all sorts.


Edit: I got comma happy there at the end. Fixed.

[cowman]

21. What is

threatening me is criminals that don't give a rats ass for the law and want to do me great harm

[farmout rightarm]

85. Silly wabbit, there are no cwiminals, only misunderstood and oppressed victims of society.

You must have opted out of the memos.

[cowman]

97. Ahhh that's right

I forgot that all criminals are just misguided and misunderstood people. Thanks for reminding me.

(no disrespect intended towards you)

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacebird]

4. I have no fear of pickles, but people carrying guns actually have to power to hurt/kill me

Does that mean they will? No. But concern over seeing someone carrying a (presumably loaded) weapon is hardly irrational. People with guns CAN kill you. People in clown suits, or carrying pickles - not so much a threat as an amusement.

[rd_kent]

7. People have that power whether they have a gun or not.

[peacebird]

10. much more level playing field if we are both unarmed...

[X_Digger]

28. Big thug and small person are 'more level'?

Perhaps biology and physiognomy are wrong?

[rd_kent]

33. Really? What if the attacker is a Kung-fu master?

[rfranklin]

38. You're prone on the ground and unconscious...

It's all over before you can pull out your six shooter.

[rd_kent]

40. Why am I prone on the ground and unconscious? what are you talking about?

[rfranklin]

44. Kung fu master has taken you out...

[rd_kent]

49. But I was the kung-fu master, using my "natural fighting skills".........

Was that you who posted that the first time? I think it was!


:rofl:

[rfranklin]

52. You are Kung Fu master?

I bow in reverence.

[farmout rightarm]

84. I'm beginning to understand why the peacebird is extinct.

...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

156. "if you find yourself in a fair fight - your tactics were flawed" n/t

[Tim01]

8. People in cars have the power to kill you. But they don't. You are just used to cars. nt

[annabanana]

11. Cars are not specifically designed to hurt people. That is not their primary

purpose.

[Tim01]

15. Please admit that when you walk across a parking lot,

you are surrounded by people who can kill you, even the guy who's parking space you just stole. And please admit that when you walk across the street in the city anybody in a car to has the power to kill you.

And, please admit that if you are in a hardware store like Lowes where there are shovels and axes and sledge hammers, you are walking around people who have the power to kill you.

And please admit that if you are in a restaurant where there are knives, people there have the power to kill you. Or they can just get in their car, and kill you when you walk across the parking lot.

Pleas just admit this is true, or give me a reason why it is not.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Side point

You are more likely to die from medical malpractice, than malicious use of a firearm.

Recent statistics reveal that nearly 225,000 individuals die each year in the U.S. as a result of medical malpractice, which is currently the third leading cause of death in the country. According to a study on medical malpractice information by Healthgrades, the vast majority of hospital deaths is attributed to avoidable medical errors. More specifically, estimates show that 106,000 patients die from adverse effects of pharmaceutical drugs, 80,000 lose their lives because of nosocomial infections contracted in hospitals, 7,000 from errors in medication, 20,000 from other mistakes in hospitals, and 12,000 from unnecessary surgery. Misdiagnosis was responsible for one-third of all malpractice claims. Less than 2% of patients who incur injuries due to malpractice obtain any compensation.

And if we ignore suicides (which I assume you will not consider a threat upon your person)

In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year.

So our murder rate, with firearms (Ignoring suicides) is just barely higher than the rate of people dying JUST from unnecessary surgery.

Not germane to the overall discussion, but since pharmacists came up, and they kill roughly half as many people as firearms via simple malpractice mistakes, I don't find the comparison a laughing matter.

[Tim01]

34. You don't have any good answers, huh? Maybe you should think about that. nt

[rd_kent]

Tim had a rational argument and you have a personal attack. Very telling.

[rfranklin]

42. The cars equal guns argument is only rational in NRA land...

And if you really can't see the difference...well, I won't go for the personal attack.

[rd_kent]

45. Where is this NRA land you are referring to? Are there rides? Did they not let you in?

Was there a minimum height requirement?

[Tim01]

47. You are saying cars are no good at killing people? nt

[PavePusher]

74. Please, explain the irrationality.... n/t

[annabanana]

92. not the problem

people driving cars in the parking lot are most likely going some place and have no place in their mind the thought that I might be dangerous enough to run over

people in a hardware store with shovels and sledge hammers most likely are thinking to build something and have no place in their mind that I might be dangerous enough to bludgeon

people dining in a restaurant most likely want to cut their pork chop into edible bits and have no place in their mind that I might be dangerous enough to stab

People who want to carry a gun around have someplace in their mind that I might be dangerous enough to shoot.

[X_Digger]

98. Would you be any less dead?

The OP in this sub-thread asserted that guns were dangerous because "people carrying guns actually have to power to hurt/kill me" (sic) and "People with guns CAN kill you."

Tim responded that if the worry is people having the ability to kill you, you're surrounded in a number of circumstances each day by people who have the ability to kill you.

Then you moved the goalposts, saying it's not the ability, but the 'primary purpose'.

So, does it matter what the primary purpose of the implement is, rather than its effectiveness at killing? Dead is dead, by gun, by steak knife, by car, by sledge hammer.

[rd_kent]

35. Neither are guns. You should look up the definition.

Nowhere does it say a gun is designed to kill or hurt people.

[annabanana]

94. Well they sure are designed to hurt or kill *something*. . n/t

[rd_kent]

100. No, they are not.

A gun is designed to propel a projectile at high velocity down the barrel. Thats it. The USER determines how that projectile is used.

[annabanana]

106. Now why would anyone want to do that?. . n/t

[rd_kent]

108. Do what?

[annabanana]

127. "propel a projectile at high velocity down the barrel". . n/t

[rd_kent]

145. Becasue its fun!

Ever tried it? Target shooting really is a whole lot of fun!

[PavePusher]

72. Yet they do so several hundred thousand times a year.

Where is your call for restrictions on cars?

[annabanana]

96. (ummm There ARE restrictions on cars) . . . .n/t

[PavePusher]

103. Just as there are already restrictions on guns.

Where is your call for additional, meaningless, ineffective, unconstitutional restrictions on cars, to parallel the shrieks for additional, meaningless, ineffective, unconstitutional from some political corners?

[annabanana]

107. nobody shrieking here

You hear shrieking?

[PavePusher]

111. Well, maybe "shrieking" is a bit hyperbolic...

"wailing" might be more accurate.

[annabanana]

128. nope.. don't hear no "wailing" either. . n/t

[PavePusher]

131. Yes, all those trees completely block the view of the forest, don't they? n/t

[farmout rightarm]

90. Why is that relevant? (It isn't.)

:wtf:

[Tim01]

114. Do you become afraid when you see a person with a car?

Cars kill people. Cars kill people very effectively. People driving cars kill people on accident all the time. You really should think about that. People driving cars are so dangerous that they kill people on accident.
And people driving cars kill other people on purpose too. Not only that but cars protect the driver from harm if the driver is using the car to kill somebody else.

I'll bet you cars kill people better than handguns kill people, no matter if they were designed to or not.

[peacebird]

14. Actually cars provide a useful service for me, and yes - when I bike to work I do

pay close attention to cars on the road around me because they *can* do me harm. Guns are not soething needed in my daily life, and I rather prefer it that way. I don't "fear" the gun my son uses hunting, or "fear" the gun we use to put down varmints that eat our chickens. However I *do* worry about the person carrying a gun in a restaurant or bar. No need for one there, this isn't the freaking wild west.

[Tim01]

18. Please explain why nobody needs self defense. nt

[beevul]

66. Must be nice being a mind reader...

"No need for one there, this isn't the freaking wild west."

Must be nice being a mind reader, and being able to *correctly* determine what the needs of others are everywhere you go.


That IS what you are doing, right? Rather than projecting your own *perceived* lack of need for a firearm in any given place or time on others?


In a nut shell, presumptuous.

[PavePusher]

75. If Google works in your world...

A few minutes of browsing with it will prove you wrong.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

[cowman]

80. Not needed in

restaurants or bars. Let's ask the victims of Luby's in TX. Ask them how well that worked out for them. If just one person had a gun on them that day the carnage would have been much, much less

[SPedigrees]

58. Trust me, anyone driving a car has the same power to kill you

and it's far more likely that they might.

[Mike K]

161. A person carrying a gun can indeed hurt or kill you -

- but he can also protect you, which is a much more likely contingency and is a consideration often overlooked in armed citizen discussions. Armed citizens can and do deter street crime.

As to an armed citizen's ability to hurt or kill you, the same may be said for every citizen at the wheel of a nearby car. But you don't have the same sense of fear about other drivers because you are one yourself, so the critical element of familiarity prevails.

The propaganda efforts of gun control advocates at official and civilian levels, combined with the misconceptions and fantastic notions put forth by the entertainment media, have imparted a mystique about guns which affects a signficant percentage of Americans whose lack of familiarity with guns has fostered a wholly unfounded and unnecessary fear of what in fact are inanimate mechanical devices.

[rd_kent]

5. Hoplophobia is not fully understood.

[Posteritatis]

6. I react more to what's being done with them than the guns themselves

I have none, nor desire to, but I'm certainly not afraid of one. I would be a little concerned if I saw one being drawn with intent, and more than a little concerned if it was pointed in my general direction. Of course, intent can be fuzzy to determine at the best of times, and I'd probably wonder about ostentatious display and so on.

I got hit by lightning once, I didn't like it.

It probably makes me a bad person that I laughed at your wording here, but I try to recognize my faults. ;)

Ed. several times - argh i cna tpye gud tuday rillee..

[kestrel91316]

12. It's all about context. With the large numbers of gang members

in my area, plus a significant number of lunatics, and the occasional freeper, I am gonna play it safe and assume anybody with a gun in his hand is out to kill somebody.

OTOH, somebody with a holstered weapon in plain view in Los Angeles clearly has the right to carry such, and I don't particularly care, though I check them out to see if they look like they are an out of uniform LE person or whatever.

[Enrique]

13. I'm sometimes afraid of buses

like when I'm crossing a street and a bus goes by me too fast.

But when a bus is parked, it's not too scary.

[givemebackmycountry]

16. Yawn...

Guns, Guns, Guns.

"Maybe it is some emotional problem, like people who are terrified of clowns, or pickles".

You are actually comparing, in your well researched and passionate post, GUNS to clowns and pickles.

Last I looked, John Wayne Gacey and Dubya' Bush were the only two clowns capable of killing people, and a pickle never killed anyone that wasn't choking on it.

Pathetic.

[Tim01]

51. I don't think you are paying attention.

I was comparing irrational fears. Clowns, pickles, car drivers, gun carriers.

A fear of people driving cars is irrational. It is irrational because, in spite of the fact that a car driver could easily kill people on accident or on purpose, most car drivers don't. And car drivers are all over the freakin place.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

43. POINTING GUNS AT YOU!?!? Are you serious? nt

[booley]

115. That is kinda of how they work

I presume you, unlike me, have never actually fired a gun.

[Tim01]

123. Ah, so these are people trying to kill you.

That would be different than a person who is walking around with a holstered handgun.

I can understand you being afraid of people who are intentionally pointing a gun at you. That would scare the hell out of me.

[rd_kent]

46. wow, such irrational fear. How do you go about your daily routine?

[booley]

116. Apparently much better

then those who think even acknowledging that guns are weapons is some kind of attempt to outlaw them or put anyone who has a gun in jail.

Now, are there other straw men you would like to prop up or are we done here?

[rd_kent]

146. Hey pal, the straw man is all yours. You are the one that thinks people who carry

are out to get you, pointing their guns at you, ready to snap! That is YOUR strawman. I only asked how you get about your day living in such irrational fear.

[SPedigrees]

62. Hmmm, I've been around firearms all my life and never had a gun pointed at me.

That situation would be quite different than a person merely carrying a gun. I'd be equally terrified to see a car speeding toward me driving the wrong direction in my lane on a highway.

In autumn, here where I live, you would be hard pressed on a single day not to see hunters carrying guns, rifles in gun racks on passing trucks, etc.

[booley]

117. Slight problem

A car is not designed to kill someone.

One can argue for or against gun control. But the fact persists that guns are designed to kill something.

I've also fired guns. And I've had 2 friends killed by guns (oh sorry I mean by people... who just happened to have had a gun)

By the way, the thing whizzing above your head was the point.

Ignoring that guns are deadly weapons and that anyone acknowledging that fact as "paranoid" just makes those doing so sound stupid.

How can one trust a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who doesn't understand it's a dangerous weapon?

[Tim01]

148. 1) Guns are not designed to kill 2) It doesn't matter at all what they are designed for.

So you are wrong. AND arguing a point that doesn't matter at all. Knives were designed for cutting meat. They are marvelous at killing people, doing it quietly, never needing bullets, and never leaving bullets or shell casings at the murder scene.

Gasoline was designed for powering cars. It kills people real well.

Cars were designed to get around, they kill more people than guns.

Alcohol was designed to make people impaired, it kills more people than guns.

And human reproductive organs were designed only for reproduction, nothing else.

[farmout rightarm]

91. What exactly is a "gun nut"?

And does it make you feel superior to use terms like that? Just wondering.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. If they are pointing guns at you, they are breaking the law. Call the cops.

Otherwise, calm down.

[booley]

118. Great idea.. in retrospect

Of course it's not very effective at that particular moment.

Seriously, how is it in all responses I have gotten so far, NONE of you seem to know what guns are for or how they work?

I had to take a course to understand how to appreciate that guns are weapons and need to be handled safely before I ever fired one.

Was I only one?

[AtheistCrusader]

147. Seeing as how I have dozens, and carry most of the time

and have never had an accident, nor left any where they could be casually obtained by a theif or a child, I would say yes, I know what my guns are for, and how they work.

Why?

[Piwi2009]

151. ""If they're pointing guns at you, call the cops""

They come a lot faster if you have doughnuts.

[X_Digger]

22. It breaks all their preconceived notions and wishes..

People want to believe that crime will never happen to them, that bad things never happen to good people. People travel in their own little bubbles of bliss, thinking life is fair, good deeds will be rewarded, cheaters never win, bad deeds will be punished, and only the wicked suffer misfortune.

Look at all the shock and outrage when folks find out their neighbors were beating their kids, or their own kids were torturing the neighborhood pets. It's not so much outrage and shock at the act itself, it's the "that's just not done here" mentality being shattered that pisses them off so much.

So when a not-so-subtle reminder pops up that "Hey, it can happen here, too!", they have to scramble and rationalize the message away- only bad people carry guns without the corresponding totem of goodness- a badge- so these people carrying guns must be bad / crazy / paranoid / deluded. It's the only way they can maintain their worldview in the face of reality.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. +10. Gotta bookmark this post

n/t

[booley]

120. Yes of course

I mean, it can't be "defending" one's self with a gun requires a specific set of circumstances (including the other guy NOT having a gun) which would seem very an unrealistic way of stopping gun crime.

It can't be that it's not so much thinking anyone with a gun is bad so much as bad people find getting guns under the current set of laws really easy.

It can't be that many of those you believe think "It can't happen here" happen to live in areas where's there crime and are well aware that it can happen to us. And maybe that has helped formed our opinions.

And it certainly can't be that many of us see comments like the OP and elsewhere that compare the lethality of a gun to a car or a sword or a butter knife, that make unrealistic scenarios of how guns keep one safe that sound like they came from a western, and/or just keep skirting around the fact that guns are weapons (they have no other purpose) and think that a lot (not all but a very vocal portion) while not bad are at best irresponsible and at worst projecting.

BTW, love how you say people who disagree with your position on guns are paranoid.. when they should be instead scared shitless that any moment a criminal will jump out and only a gun can prevent it!

[X_Digger]

122. I could drive a semi through some of those holes in your logic..

Let me give this a light fisking..

I mean, it can't be "defending" one's self with a gun requires a specific set of circumstances (including the other guy NOT having a gun) which would seem very an unrealistic way of stopping gun crime.

The only set of circumstances where I will defend myself is if I'm in fear of grievous bodily harm to myself or others. That doesn't necessitate a certain weapon in the offender's hands. If I were in a convenience store picking up a gallon of milk and a gunman came in waving a pistol, or a knife, or an unlit molotov cocktail at me, I'd have reason and justification to defend myself. Why do you appear to endorse the notion that if a bad guy has a gun, one can't defend him/herself?

It can't be that it's not so much thinking anyone with a gun is bad so much as bad people find getting guns under the current set of laws really easy.

Non sequitur (it does not follow). There are 80m gun owners in the US. There are less than 300,000 crimes committed with guns each year. Therefore, the majority of gun owners are not criminals (by a HUGE margin.) The logical assumption, all other things being equal, is that a person with a gun is not a criminal. When's the last time you heard of a criminal carrying a gun in a holster in plain view? Unless you're trying to intimate some kind of secret-reverse-psychology schtick, it doesn't make sense.

It can't be that many of those you believe think "It can't happen here" happen to live in areas where's there crime and are well aware that it can happen to us. And maybe that has helped formed our opinions.

See previous point. The fact that less than one percent of gun owners commits a crime with it should guide your intellect, not what the news media chooses to push at you.

And it certainly can't be that many of us see comments like the OP and elsewhere that compare the lethality of a gun to a car or a sword or a butter knife, that make unrealistic scenarios of how guns keep one safe that sound like they came from a western, and/or just keep skirting around the fact that guns are weapons (they have no other purpose) and think that a lot (not all but a very vocal portion) while not bad are at best irresponsible and at worst projecting.

Guns are tools. Most defensive uses of guns doesn't even involve actually firing them (NCVS polling). Anthropomorphism or animistic tendencies, ascribing a moral judgement on a tool, just because it happens to be a weapon- is not logical.

I'm curious though. Of what relevance is a tool's purpose, versus its usage? If Joseph Mengele had developed a specialized scalpel just to quickly kill Jews, but in later practice modern medicine had found a better use for it, would you complain that "Oh no, we can't use that scalpel, it was DESIGNED TO KILL JEWS!"?

BTW, love how you say people who disagree with your position on guns are paranoid.. when they should be instead scared shitless that any moment a criminal will jump out and only a gun can prevent it!

Perhaps you should read my post again. I said that those who don't like having their bliss bubble popped ascribe paranoia to those who do carry, not the other way around. For the rest of your comment, you can go find someone who actually said that ("any moment a criminal will jump out and only a gun can prevent it!") and take it up with him/her.

Funny thing about that, though. There's no big red X on my calendar to indicate that a particular day will be the one I need to have a gun to defend myself. If there were, I'd just hit the snooze and stay in bed. I choose to have a means to possibly defend myself. It's not a given, nor a guarantee, but not having one when needed is a hell of a lot worse that having one and not needing it. You are free to choose for yourself. That's what rights are all about- choice.

eta: typo fix

[MineralMan]

23. Well, ignorance about firearms is part of the reason.

People are afraid of a lot of things they don't understand. It's pretty simple, really. Probably a majority of people have no experience whatever with firearms. Their knowledge of them comes from the news about people getting shot with them.

So, instead of being pissed at people who are afraid of firearms, why not attempt to educate them? And, by educating, I don't mean making fun of them because they don't know the difference between a semi-auto and a full-auto firearm or the difference between a clip and an removable magazine.

So, to sum up, they are afraid because they don't know anything about them except that people get killed by them. Nobody's educating them. It's really up to you and the rest of people who own and understand firearms to educate them, not to sneer at them or make fun of them.

It's that simple.

What I do is take them down to my basement 10 meter air rifle range and let 'em shoot holes in little paper targets. It's fun, and they like it. Then, I try to teach them about firearms. I can do this for a few people a year. I've yet to find anyone who didn't enjoy shooting at those targets in the basement. What I don't do is to respond to their comments about firearms by ridiculing them or starting some long lecture they don't care about. I teach them by showing them some fun.

[X_Digger]

41. I did this yesterday (teaching)..

.. a friend's wife, who had never shot a pistol, was worried that she had no familiarity with the handgun my friend just purchased. She had a lot of false assumptions about the safety of the handgun.

We spent about an hour going over the four rules, as well as familiarizing her with a bunch of different handguns I own. We went over the integral safeties as well as external safeties, and I explained how different models function.

We then adjourned to a local pistol range, where we went over stance, grip, sight picture, breath control, and follow-through. She got to shoot a bunch of pistols in various calibers, moving from 22lr, 380acp, 45acp, to .40S&W. By the end, we'd removed the mystery and a bunch of preconceived notions regarding handguns.

I fully expect she'll accompany us on the next trip to the range, and I foresee a browning buckmark in my friend's immediate future.

[MineralMan]

48. There ya go.

I'm just tired of all the people who feel that everyone should understand their need to carry, and who take no time to teach. Most people have no experience whatever with firearms, except to hear about people getting killed by someone using one.

That's one of the reasons I generally stay out of the Guns forum. When I try to point stuff like this out, I get mistaken for an anti-gun person. I have firearms. I've always had firearms. They're tools. That's all they are.

[X_Digger]

57. I wouldn't say 'most people have no experience except..'

It all depends on the culture and location one grew up in. In an urban household in the Northeast, not in a family involved in law enforcement / security / etc? Yah, I'd agree- those are most likely to not have experience with firearms as anything other than tools used by criminals. Urban south? Not so much. Rural anywhere? Not bloody likely. I'm sure some of it grows out of the prevalence of hunting and/or the lack of timely response by law enforcement in most rural settings, as well as a self-reliance v statist mindset.

It'd be interesting to plot gun ownership as a function of population density and geographic region, and overlay restrictive gun laws and crime rates. Might go a long way to explaining the 'talking past each other' that frequently occurs here in the gungeon.

For the most part, the pro-right to keep and bear arms seems to equate guns as tools- most frequently as tools for self-defense. We get a lot of the animistic / anthropomorphism from the other side.

[MineralMan]

67. Actually, I think that urban/suburban life in almost the entire

country pretty much means that most people don't have any firearms experience or knowledge. The majority of the population now lives in urban/suburban settings. I grew up in a rural/small town environment in the 50s and 60s, and served in the military. So, I grew up knowing about firearms, just like most rural/small town people did.

I don't think that's the case for the vast majority of the population any longer. In the urban/suburban setting, the frequency of criminal activity involving firearms is much higher than other uses of firearms. Even in Minnesota, which has a long, long history of hunting, most people in the state do not hunt and do not own firearms. Well over a majority. Not in the rural areas, of course, but the population of the Twin Cities and its suburbs are a large majority of the state's population. They hear about a murder involving firearms about once a week, and about armed robberies on a daily basis. They hear about other uses of firearms pretty much not at all, even though they may be aware of hunting as a recreational activity.

We have a shall issue CCW policy here. Yet, less than 1% of the population has a permit. So, there it is. 99% do not have permits to carry and probably don't want one. This is not atypical.

It's common for people with an interest in a subject to make exaggerated assumptions about the number of people who share their interest. I tend to think that everyone understand my passion for angling, since I know lots of people who do. Yet...the number of anglers goes down every year in Minnesota, so it's obvious that most people aren't in any way interested in that activity.

This leads people with an interest in a subject to fail to understand the complete lack of interest from most others. The subject of this thread is based on that very thing.

Of course people are afraid of guys carrying guns. They know nothing about it. They hear about people getting shot. What are they supposed to think? Then, they hear people calling them stupid for not understanding the issue. That trick never works.

[X_Digger]

79. Well, here in the 'burbs of Dallas..

.. all my neighbors that I'm on a more than nodding experience with, have at least one gun. That was also my experience living in downtown Austin, as well. Similar with Tampa, FL, but not so prevalent- a lot had to do with whether or not the person was living in an apartment or a house. So I don't think you can draw a bright line at sub/urban-ites vs everywhere else without also taking into account geography.

re angling in Minnesota- who'd want to go fishing when the mosquitoes can carry you away? :)

[Tim01]

69. It's a really good plan. And it works. Props. nt

[MineralMan]

29. Further, a non-uniformed person carrying openly represents

an unknown. Police officers have some training, and that's known to most people. The random guy with a holstered weapon is an unknown quantity. That's not to say that all cops are reasonable, rational people, and that they shouldn't be feared.

But, the random dude with a firearm takes a little thought. I'm not frightened of firearms, but the guy I don't know who's carrying openly makes me stop for a second to assess his behavior. Some guys who are doing the open carry thing are doing it because they have some sort of chip on their shoulder. That's clear from reading this forum. Those guys, I'll simply avoid, since I really have nothing to do with them. My assumption, in places like California, where open carry requires an unloaded weapon, is that they're carrying to make a show of carrying, since an unloaded firearm isn't much use for protection. So, I'm going to give the open carry guy a wide berth and go about my business without making any contact.

Indeed, it appears that you are carrying such a chip. People are afraid of firearms for many reasons. If you think about it, you might even be able to think of some of those reasons. Everyone is entitled to their own responses to things. If they're afraid of your open carry firearm, that's their right. They'll probably avoid you, which is also their right. You'll carry, which is your right. If that frightens people, well, that's a result of it, then.

[aliendroid]

82. some flaws to your statement

1. Non-uniform carriers hit their targets while police have higher rate of shooting innocents. Police with guns make me very nervous.
2. Criminals will not open carry because a criminal does not want to draw attention, so he will hide the gun, we have established that you cannot decide for the criminal if he will carry a weapon or not, he decides and he breaks the law without anyone's permission. If a criminal open carries and commits a crime it will be easy to catch him on the street. Therefore the act of open carrying is a hint that the person is law abiding.
3. People open carry in NH and vermont because it is a message to criminals, don't commit crimes here...
And it works.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Because guns walk around of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=290803&mesg_id=290834

[The_Commonist]

36. Guns are stupid.

So are gun threads.

[MercutioATC]

53. Ok, I gotta ask...do you own a gun?

...because you seem to have no issue with posting in "stupid" gun threads.

[Tim01]

60. Wow. From the horses mouth. nt

[oneshooter]

65. "Guns are stupid"

You are wrong. Guns are metal, wood and plastic, they expel a projectile at high speed. They have no soul, mind or the ability to see, think, move themselves or fire themselves. They are machines. They depend on the action, thoughts, and will of a human. Without a HUMAN they are inanimate objects. Incapable of injury.

You, on the other hand..............

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

68. Congratulations on the stupidest post in this thread. nt

[PavePusher]

76. With that attitude, I think you are in the wrong place, my friend. n/t

[aliendroid]

55. the sheep are fed false information from the media

We watch news all our lives and the news shows only negative stories about guns.
Most people are not exposed to the positive aspects of guns.

[Divine Discontent]

95. the sheep are fed false information by the NRA

and I'd sure like a detailed movie on the positive aspects of guns. I'd be able to eat a tootsie roll in the time it takes to watch some people shooting at cans with their dad.

On the other hand, I'd have to sit and be annoyed for hours watching the negative aspects that guns can take from threats, robberies, anti-(insert race, sexuality), sex attacks, and most importantly wars that are able to be started because of them (the resulting victories over evil are not at dispute, the STARTING of wars because of the availability of weapons to begin with is the problem that will probably never go away in the human race's existence)

[beevul]

105. Some examples please. N/T

[Divine Discontent]

124. really? you don't think the NRA smeared every Democratic candidate for president?

against Kerry http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x901842

against Obama http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4093644

they're dirty.

[cowman]

134. That's because

Kerry made a complete ass out of himself. He was so pandering to the gun owners and it seemed to me that he only believed the 2nd amend was for hunting. The NRA has endorsed many pro-2nd amend Dems and vilified many anti-2nd amend Repubs

[cowman]

135. Oh yeah

and Pres. Obama's record on guns is there for all to see when he was an IL. Sen. if you take the time to look it up. Thank god that when he became Pres he backed off of the losing gun control issue

[PavePusher]

140. How many of those candidates had strong records of support for the Second Amendment?

In terms of voting against stupid "gun control" laws and not just Presidential Campaign lip-service and sound bites?

Oh, yeah, none.

Oops.

[beevul]

144. On the other hand...

The nra endorsed Democrats like Brian Schweitzer and others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x173646

Furthermore, the links you provided, showed little to no actual sourced material. Both Kerry and Obama had atrocious voting records on firearms at the time of thier running for office. That is not in dispute, that I am aware of.

Voting records have consequences. On many topics. Should guns be any different?

The claim that "the amendment (SA 2619) only would have banned such ammunition (for centerfire rifles) if it had been “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability”, is true, however, opinions vary on what THAT indicates.

The same folks whom espouse the "militia" reading of the second amendment, would be quite keen after passage of SA 2619 or the like, to note (scream at the top of thier lungs) that penetration of armor as the word is used in the legislation is mostly a function of velocity, and therefore any centerfire round designed to travel at a certain velocity or higher, is BY DEFINITION designed to penetrate armor.

Think they wouldn't? The same people that wanted to ban protruding hand grips and barrel shrouds that have nothing to do with...anything?


I HAVE seen the nra cross the line. I am not saying they haven't. What I haven't seen though, is them crossing the line, and "smearing" anyone with a good voting record where guns are concerned. AKA politicians that didn't earn it.

I am open to examples, should you be able to find any.





As far as I am concerned though, if someone has a bad voting record where guns are concerned, they made thier own bed, and they've made themselves subject to being taken to task on it. And thats really just it right there. If you vote badly on the issue of firearms, you INVITE thier wrath come election time. And that of millions of gun owners. I feel no more sympathy to those that vote badly on the issue, than I do for those that can't leave rattlesnakes alone and end up bitten.

Its real simple to avoid. Hands off peoples guns and peoples rights where guns are concerned.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

59. You should cross-post this in the Pickles And Clowns forum.

[Tim01]

61. *snort * nt

[beevul]

64. One answer...

One answer is simple. It is perhaps not the only answer, but it IS one of them

"Why do some people become frightened if they see a gun?"



Because of the media leading people in what to think and believe. "The media said it, it must be true"

Because of the constant (decades long now) I.V.-like drip of brady/vpc/gunhategroup propaganda being fed into the media stream. Poison is what it is. "The media said it, it must be true"


And in a tertiary way, by people believing that they have some business...any business...determining what the needs of others are, where guns are concerned. Look no farther than this very thread for some elegant presumptuous examples.


In other words, By design. Deliberate. On purpose.



I don't doubt that some individuals have their own reasons for fear when they see a gun.

But I do doubt very highly, that the number of those individuals comes anywhere near the number of those without their own reasons as the determining factor.

[rrneck]

77. In actuality

a gun is more than just a tool.

It's a symbol of a whole pile of cultural and emotional responses to its function. When people see a firearm, they bring with them their understanding of that symbol exclusive of its purpose by design or the reason for its possession. When we talk about a firearm, or legislate its role in society, we are really discussing its reason for being. And that reason can change depending on the direction it's pointed and why. That's why discussions of firearms are so circuitous.

We all tend to fear the unknown, and the solution to fear is understanding.

[aliendroid]

87. you know, i'd worry about someone who doesn't have some fear of guns

I'm a gun lover

but people who have no reservation around guns make me nervous.
A little fear and respect is necessary and it makes sure people don't make mistakes while handling the gun.
I've shoot guns all my life and I am still a little nervous about what they can do if you do not handle them correctly, kind of like a car; when you drive a car you don't try to read a magazine at the same time or try to smash the brakes and get it to skid at 70 mph just to see what happens, some morons might but most people don't, you have to handle the car correctly or you'll kill someone.

but people who are gun-phobic need to go to a psychologist.

[rrneck]

93. True that.

Unreasonable fear is, well, unreasonable.

I often wonder how many posters here who express dislike for firearms are reacting to bad experiences with them. How many of them have lost friends or loved ones to guns and are still traumatized about it? It's hard to tell, and if I sense that there may be some trauma there, I typically won't give them a hard time about it.

Of course, some people are just assholes...

[PavePusher]

104. Valid, relevant point. +1. n/t

[farmout rightarm]

83. We pay policemen to carry guns and they are completely safe. Except when they aren't

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=11947356

[Divine Discontent]

88. not the gun but the wielder. it can kill you from a distance from

ricocheting past it's intended target (that happens a lot in the big cities), or by someone mistaking you for someone else, or because they want to rob you.

I don't know the wackjob walking around me that could kill me from behind just because they are being ordered in their initiation rights to shoot, and me having a gun sure ain't gonna protect me from that.

So, until I know WHO is holding the gun - I am bothered by the sight of someone carrying one.

Good question, thanks.

[PavePusher]

109. Do you feel the same way about everything else that could kill you?

Or are you as oblivious to non-gun threats as the majority of the Citizenry?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

155. Seriously though, I AM afraid of old people who drive.

And teenage girls. Possibly groups of teenage boys as well.
I avoid driving next-to or behind those people on the freeway.

[Tim01]

113. Realistically?

Criminals are not going to walk around with a visible gun. If you see somebody picking up a Big Mac with a gun on their belt, they are probably nobody who is a criminal. The guy in line with no visible gun, and the prison tattoos, watch out for him.

And I hate to keep going back to the car analogy, but anybody who is a wackjob can kill people anytime they want to.


Would you agree that if a wackjob sees you crossing the parking lot and wants to kill you, he can do it? People simply don't behave like that very often. Some lady a while back ran over I think it was 14 people on purpose, and I think they never did figure out why. But the point is that in spite of the fact that millions of people could just mow down people anytime they wanted to, they don't. Almost everybody has the power to kill people every day, but they don't.
Occasionally a wackjob will mow down 14 people, but it is very rare for humans to behave that way.


What if a wackjob walks into a hardware store and picks up an ax? They can start killing people right away. It just doesn't happen very often.

[Divine Discontent]

125. guns are used to kill a gazillion percent more than cars. they just need mass control, and massive

penalties for abuse, or obtaining illegally. I think guns should be legal, just highly controlled. They're easy to hide, unlike a car, and people can sneak into a church service quietly and kill a bunch of liberal Christians/spiritualists like what happened from that Fox News nut in Tenn. a few years ago.

[Tim01]

130. Just tell me that a person in an SUV couldn't kill people, just say it.

The person in the SUV could kill more people in the church parking lot than the other church shooter who was gunned down by one of the parishioners before he could shoot anybody else.

How about a person in a car at a crowded strip mall? It has happened.

People are right now going around with the power to easily kill other people. They have the ability to easily kill right now.

[PavePusher]

133. Ummm, nope.

Cars kill approx. 45K people per year. I will grant you that most are probably "accidents".

Guns are used to kill approx 30K people per year, with approx. 16-17K of those (note-more than 50%) being suicides.

Sounds to me that something which is not designed to kill is approx. a 300% greater threat than something that is "designed to kill".

So, your argument fails through basic math.

[Divine Discontent]

137. oh, c'mon, you know what I meant. let's at least be honest in our discussion.

intentionally murdering someone with a car, what, maybe a few hundred times a year? versus tens of thousands.

and that's not the point. guns are tiny and can be hidden easily, are used as the deadly weapon of choice by criminals to commit their crimes that guarantee they get whatever they want.

I don't disagree with you that guns shouldn't be legal, it's just the teaching that I feel is missing in schools about what will happen if you use a gun in a weapon, and then it shouldn't be easy to go buy a gun quickly.

[cowman]

136. Your saying

that Fox News caused this asshole to open fire, Fox News may be a lot of things but I think they didn't cause this idiot to go kill people

[Divine Discontent]

138. brainwashing does wonders on people.

[PavePusher]

141. You are correct... I hope you like the taste of irony... n/t

[Divine Discontent]

150. I'm thrilled you believe there is such a thing as brainwashing then.

Fox Noise has been doing it for 10 years... The level of putrid insanity that comes out of that political gossip channel is staggering. I can't imagine how people watch it every day for hours on end. No wonder these tea bag nuts are carrying guns near our leader and acting like, 'what??? it's my right!'

All of them are being rallied up into a tornado by the incessant code words used against Democrats.

[PavePusher]

152. Fox is not the only network pumping a propaganda machine...

But you knew that didn't you?

Have you watched MSNBC lately? Ick.

And what is wrong with the peaceful, legal exercise of Civil Rights? Even the President doesn't seem to have a problem with it, at least in his public statements. Why should you?

[Divine Discontent]

157. Silly argument to state that the president doesn't have a problem with something so I shouldn't.

But you haven't read my posts then, because I'm for gun ownership. I answered the question posed and presented some painful points that make it obvious why people think guns should be banned. Using vehicles as a weapon is a joke of an argument to present when guns are so easy to obtain, hide and use to kill. That's my point. You and the rest of the gun-lovers put too many words in people's mouths. And again, just because the president says something, I don't have to support it. He's against some things I'm for, and I think that's wrong of him. I am for black people to have the right to be president, but there's tens of millions of Americans that think they shouldn't if polled secretly. I'd expect the same progressive mind from him on all the issues.


Happiness is a warm gun! Hope you had fun with your gun this weekend. :) :sarcasm:

[cowman]

142. Brainwashing

What the fuck are you talking about. Your saying Faux News brainwashed this idiot into shooting up a church? This idiot was already mentally unstable so I don't think it would matter what news station he was listening to and how do you know what news station he was listening to?


Facts please

[Divine Discontent]

149. I don't talk to people who swear at me.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5377631_history-brainwashing.html

[annabanana]

102. If so many people WEREN'T frightened when they see a gun,

how many people would stop carrying guns?

[PavePusher]

110. Why would they stop? n/t

[annabanana]

126. My guess is that more than one of the pistol-packin' poppa's

get a little, you know, thrill, making people nervous...

[PavePusher]

132. Maybe they do.

So what?

Lots of people get a thrill from disturbing others with any number of acts or objects. What makes gun special in that crowd?

[paulsby]

160. as do some people by the way they dress

whether provocatively exposing flesh, or having mad fashion sense

[rrneck]

119. Is unusual the same as scary?

If I see someone carrying open they will warrant increased scrutiny. But that's partly because it's so unusual. I've lived in places where almost everybody I knew owned a gun, but I think I've seen somebody carrying maybe once or twice. And I ain't no spring chicken.

If the individual in question is acting normally, no sweat. If he or she starts behaving erratically and makes me nervous, that's another matter. Since I don't carry I'll be leaving, and he'll have to shoot me in the ass cause that's the last part of me he's gonna see.

[proteus_lives]

121. Gun Mystique.

Created by the movies, tv and the Brady Bunch types.

I'm always surprised by how little people who don't own guns or didn't grow-up with them know about them.

[X_Digger]

129. Even better..

.. how much folks whose exposure to guns is the popular media _think_ they know about guns.

[proteus_lives]

139. Yeah. Like holding a pistol sideways.

That one bugs the fuck out of me!

[cowman]

143. You know

I tried that once just to see if I could do it. Couldn't shoot worth a shit

[Katya Mullethov]

159. The site picture seems odd .

But I can do it well enough if I try .

If you want to show any sense of style at all , you have to hold your arm up above your head (not quite vertical) and bend your wrist pointing the muzzle " down" . That shit dont fly .

[Remmah2]

153. People also fear mice, snakes and spiders.

It's a combination of conditioned learning and fear of the unknown.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

154. Ignorance... I think.

Your conclusion is based on the fact that the people in question are informed people. I believe that many people do not realize carrying a gun concealed or open is legal for those who are not police officers. Therfore, given such pretenses, when a gun is observed on someone who is not an officer the logical conclusion is criminal. If you saw someone with a blackjack or sitchblade on thier belt, what would your gut instinct be?

Alot of people need to realize that much of the population does not care about firearms. They feel they don't need them or will never encounter one and therefore don't feel the need to read up with the laws and policies pertaining to guns. Can't blame 'em, really - guns are not a part of thier lives so why should know any better than media protrays. I don't know all of the ATF policies and federal laws pertaining to running a firearms store as a business because I do not ever plan on running a gun store... I would say my ignorance on the matter is justified and logical.

As for people who know the laws...
If they are still "scared" when they see a gun and no other intimidating/justifying actions then they are illogical.
Prehaps a heightened level of awareness regarding that individual might be prudent, but "fear" is not neessary.

[Glassunion]

158. Depends...

Am I carrying it or let's say someone more like Andy Griffith?

Is it the gun or the person?