[Osborn F Enready]

Shawmutt said: Anecdotal evidence. In most of those cases, there's no way to prove what would have happened if a gun wasn't there, and the stories were told by the "victim", and wide open to cognitive bias.

Regardless, they are recorded events where guns were used to deter or stop crime from happening once crime was intitated. I wasn't intending to prove what would happen if a gun wasn't there, but intending to prove what DIDN'T happen because a gun WAS there.

Shawmutt said: The way I see it, if someone wasn't killed, a gun wasn't used in self defense.

Thats an odd way to look at it.

Shawmutt said: Again, let's look at the stat of justifiable homicides--192 in the entire U.S. during the entire year of 2005! Hardly the nationwide epidemic gun proponents want us to think.

Did I say anything of a nationwide pandemic? I said it was a right to keep and bear arms, and a right to competent defense. It is a fact that arms are used by criminals in this nation everyday to further crime, which is why it should be obvious the people have the right to protect themselves equally to this threat. This is the basis for why police are extended the right to bear arms openly on duty.

shawmutt said: Two anecdotal answers to your anecdotes and gun-cite: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (just as bad as your links but of the opposite flavor) and the fact that I've lived over 11,315 days without the need to carry a gun.

I am not saying you will die without a gun strapped to your hip, ankle or shoulder. I am saying if you ever need one, and don't have it, you won't have much need or time to complain about not having one when you needed it. Your choice, and mine, and I choose differently.

Shawmutt said: These are clearly cases of the availability heuristic. By using misleading vividness you are trying to prove the occasional occurance the rule.

All of these things happen, and have happened in society in nations around the globe, and our own. The level at which one protects oneself from the real and tangible threats, of varying level of statistical occurrence is the ability, and obligation of the individual.

Shawmutt said: I still have yet to see a logically sound argument for OC.

The logical argument is that people aren't startled when the well concealed weapon is occasionally exposed and causes panic, including during traffic stops, or other daily activities.

Open Carry is neither here nor there for me, its variation of a theme. I see no difference between open or concealed carry that justifies a significant change of perception of the role of armed citizens exercising their rights, and doing a service to the public via their actions whether acknowledged or not.

Shawmutt said: OC/CC is a privilege, not a right.

Yea, according to some people.