Normally, I really enjoy Bob Owen's work, but this one sat with me wrong. Still it gave me a lot to think about.
It's open for debate whether or not such protests are productive or counter productive on the gun rights front. It's pretty vanilla, if insulting to the wookie-suit OC crowd.
Basically, Mr. Owens thinks that the optics of Open Carry are too provocative and kooky and will turn off sympathetic people.
Quite possible.
But this rubbed me the wrong way:
As a result of these poorly executed and often dimwitted displays, open carry is now under threat precisely because of how open carry advocates have conducted themselves. A Bakersfield, CA, news story makes that fact painfully clear: "The California Assembly is moving closer to banning gun owners from being able to carry their unloaded weapons openly in public. Over the last few months there has been an increase in the number of open carry rallies and meetings in Northern California. On Tuesday a committee moved closer to ending such practices."
I have to disagree with Mr. Owens here. But his logic, if a right becomes banned due to people peacefully, if "dimwittedly", exercising it, then it is at the fault of the people exercising it.
This is like saying if the Tea Party protests were banned because of "hateful" signage that it's the Tea Party's fault it happened.
What's worse is the comment section rapidly degenerated into an open versus concealed carry tactical argument.
Which can be summarized here:
If your open carry you have a quicker draw and the very presence of you being armed may prevent a crime.
This comes at the cost of being the first target if a crime does happen, and the lesser cost of social stigma.
If you conceal carry there is no "preventative" effect, but one has surprise and privacy. Others do not know if you are armed.
These are salient points, but they are tactical and not relevant to the topic of rights.
Having the comments degenerate into "If you carry X style you'll be dead on the floor!" is disappointing but expected. That Bob Owens the article writer joined in is even worse.
This would be like having a post about a potential high capacity ban degenerating into arguments over 9mm versus 45 acp or Glock versus 1911, and then having the author jumping in and say: ("8 shots is more than enough to get the job done as long as you don't miss.").
Or like arguing whether or not someone "needs" a semi-automatic rifle for home defense when a shotgun would do, in a thread about the Assault Weapons Ban ("Most defense situations will be under 25 yards, have concerns about over penetration, and can be accommodated with a
pump's capacity").
Yet another example: It's like being sanguine towards a semi-automatic handgun ban because you prefer revolvers ("Revolvers don't ever jam and 6 shots is more than enough in most situation.").
I thought the gun rights folk were for people having the right do decide how to defend themselves, and thus would push for more choice and liberty whenever possible.
And for full disclosure: I prefer 1911 style handguns, shotguns for home defense, and concealed carry over open carry.
But that's not the point is it?
Also there's a special irony of a man that blogs as Confederate Yankee complete with the stars and bars (and old glory) built into his header talking about provocative and offputting optics.
I don't have a problem with it, given his reasoning. But I don't have a problem with OC either.
No comments:
Post a Comment