See, to my mind, he just fits the definition of idiot. Mostly because airports are tricky places as far as security goes in the first place. Why would you deliberately do something like that.

Yeah yeah, I read the article about why HE says he did it. That doesn't mean his reasoning is sound.

V,

People have been known to get so wrapped up in a cause that they become over zealous and behave inappropriately, sometimes even criminally. When that happens the person both distracts and detracts from the cause they advocate. In this case, it seems more likely that he was trying to draw attention to his cause when his untoward behavior, secondary to poor judgment, made him the focus of attention. I'm inclined to call it an affective behavioral disorder; or, say he's an idiot (as Aliantha implied) rather than simply call it attention whoring. There are too many other ways of gaining just as much attention without the toll this incident will take on that person's future.

There are attention whores who use firearms as a means to that end to be sure; but, not everyone who would open carry is one of them. There are valid reasons for open carry and there are misguided reasons that people have for open carry. Neither automatically constitutes attention whoring. Look at it this way: most of the people who would open carry believe it would be fine for everyone to open carry in which case they would just blend into the crowd, without distinction. It's only because they're in the minority that they're getting the attention and it's often unwanted attention. Just don't make the mistake of thinking you can get them to abandon their principles by labeling them attention whores because of it. That makes you no better than the idiot who showed up at the airport with a rifle.

I made a statement within the context of this thread. It wasn't a blanket statement meant to cover all cops, hunters, etc. This began as a thread about carrying guns around in everyday situations and included pictures showing soldiers with guns in a bar. Foot even said "For the most part, no one has a reason to walk around visibly armed. "

It's a thread about walking around visibly armed. And that was what my comment was aimed at. I used the words "attention whore" because it's a shortcut that I thought everyone understood. Maybe I should have said "making a statement" or "wanting to be noticed," but it's really all the same.

V is explaining it well. Yes, it's more burdensome to get a concealed carry permit, so there are logistical reasons for doing an open carry, but the point of open carry is that all can see that you are armed. It's about being noticed.

Seems to me, there are only two reasons -- if you're not law enforcement -- to openly carry a firearm.

1-You live in a place or circumstance where there is a great likelihood you'll need to self-defend.

2-You desperately want to be noticed.

If you live in Utopia, Anystate, America, and you have a rifle slung across your back or a pistol holstered at the hip, you're probably an 'attention whore'.

If you live Ruraltown, Anystate, America, and you lug around a rifle or pistol, you may have practical reasons for doing so (though it's more likely the rifle will be in a rack in your truck and the holstered pistol hanging from that rack).

Again: all this open carry nonsense (the growing movement, the dangers involved, the protection of second amendment rights, etc.) is just another marketing deal foisted up by those uber-vocal minorities I mentioned up-thread.

Simply: there are folks who can profit (in one way or another) from the 'controversy' and so they (those profit-minded folks) generate the issue (inflate tiny little blips into big honkin' blimps).


As for concealed carry: I'm against it. If Joe wants to carry (for whatever reason) let it be openly.

The very first line of BigV's Reuters link:

That line puts him (the researcher) in the category of protester/demonstrator. Firmly in 'attention whore' territory. "Look at me, know what I think, think like me, please."

Not all, but, a great deal of them, yes.

Most likely aye lol.

Both books are horrible, imo. Lot of it is nothing to do with child rearing and everything to do with lambasting liberal politics - including some very anti-gay and racist stuff.

But I was mildly less pissed off when I realised he'd done one for the girls as well as one for the boys, and that the one for the girls was not about raising subordinates.

Okay, perhaps I will inject my opinion here.

I am pro-gun, just to get that out of the way. Concealed or open.

A gun is a tool, a particularly deadly one, yes. But still a tool. I have guns. I have ever since it was legal for me to own them. I am a careful, conscientious (sp?) user. I cannot currently carry concealed due to the fact that my PA permit expired and I am unable to jump through Texas' hoops due to my job. I also camp.

Ever had a boar charge at you? I have. Nasty, brutish animals they are. For me to draw a handgun from concealment takes approx. 1.2 seconds. From my hip, approx. .5 seconds.

When a dangerous animal is charging you at 35 mph (their approximate running speed), they can cover a considerable distance in .7 seconds. In brush, you cannot see them until they brek concealment, roughly ten feet from you. Someone who is good at math, tell me how long it takes for an angry boar to go ten feet while I have to see it, react and draw, aim and fire. That 3/4 second suddenly becomes very long indeed. Enough to get you gored badly.

When out camping in the brush, I carry openly, including trips for food and other supplies. No one blinks here. If I were to try to conceal a large handgun in Texas heat, I would be required to completely cover the weapon, necessitating a cover garment such as a jacket or the classic photog's vest. Not a very smart thing to wear in 100+ heat. And likens one to carrying a sign reading "concealed gun here!"

Most of the discussion so far has been predicated upon the need/desire to shoot PEOPLE. Not all dangerous predators have two legs. There are several here. Coyotes, boars, mountain lions, snakes and more. They won't listen to a warning or brandishing. You either shoot them or they git you. No quarter given.

The argument that open carry in some areas is a bad idea has some merit. It is, or should be, up to the individual to exercise good judgement in choosing open or concealed. Unfortunately, not everyone chooses wisely. For example, in a quiet suburb, running to the 7-11 for a soda and bread is probably not a place to carry the old .45 openly. Going to visit grandma in North Philly for supper might be a better place to have it readily accessible. But then again, bringing the family to Luby's for supper sounds like a pretty safe thing and leave the hogleg at home, but you might be wrong. Dead wrong.

To hear glatt tell it, the advantages of not having to draw a weapon from a concealed position on your body, when there's a great likelihood you'll need to self defend, does not exist. Only your second rationale exists.

To hear glatt tell it, being opposed to concealed carry as a rationale for open carry does not exist. Only your second rationale exists.

To hear glatt tell it, a concealed carry permit, some states in which all associated costs can equal a week's worth of groceries effectively depriving poor people of their 2nd Amendment rights, will be called just a logistical burden; so, it might as well not exist either.

Well it seems that glatt has summarily dismissed anything other than "the point of open carry is that all can see that you are armed" which now allows him to equate that solely with "It's about being noticed".

Let's not dare get into the fact that military and police open carry even when they DON'T want to be seen, that the advantages of the technique increases their chances of survival, and that civilians may want to follow suit to save themselves and their families. No no no, don't consider adversity, transparency, technique and tactics, or anything else glatt knows nothing about relative to carrying firearms. Civilians aren't supposed think about these things: they're just supposed to be ... like him ... not an attention whore!

Of course, of course. :hug:

With all due respect to glatt: poop on him.

;)

*shrug*

Wedge issue will be a wedge issue.

A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, (atomic) wedgies for any one still wearin' drawers.

I think we are talking about the differences between inconspicuous and alarmingly conspicuous carry, both of which fall under the generous umbrella of "open."

Question...Where or when is open carry really a necessity ? In all of my 52 years living in the Midwest (mostly Indiana), I haven't yet seen a gun being carried or used in a public setting.

It's ten years (for shame!) since I was last in the US, but I have a vivid recollection of seeing a gent walking in Cody, Wyoming, with a gun on his belt on a June evening.

I have to say that I found it an 'eyebrow raising' moment.

A couple of minutes after I'd seen him, I heard gun shots and naturally feared the worst. Thankfully, it turned out that it was a gunfight reenactment which is performed six nights a week.

We're just not used to that sort of thing over here. :eek:***

Cody, Wyoming: Daily Street Gunfights

*** Open carry, that is.

Clarification: The gent I had seen wasn't a participant in the reenactment. He was a private individual just going about his business.

Posted in a bit of a hurry. Apologies.

We have to be careful about attributing peoples reasons for carrying. The US is a big country that is hardly united in its political outlook. Guns are potent symbols for everything from a tradition bound basic farm/ranch tool, to a symbol of resistance to a changing world, to a symbol of authority, to a symbol of resistance to authority, to a symbol of evil incarnate. Personally I find conceal carry to be a reasonable statement of individual self-reliance and open carry to be an attempt to intimidate, but these are instinctive responses based on how people in my region comport themselves.