As the pendulum swings, we see a glimpse of sanity on the horizon

[Straw Man]

239. Different pictures.

1. Not people scattering at the sight of every gun. Do they scatter now at the sight of guns? Why should that change? With OC they have a better chance of risk assessment and are able to make choices based on such assessment. Some may have no issue while others may choose to take a different route or drink in a different bar or pray in a different church. Pretty much the same choices that smokers and non-smokers have. Everyone has their own set of values and sometimes one may feel offended by the actions of another. We accommodate those differences by being respectful of them. That's how a functional society works

So more like just slipping around the corner discreetly? Is that what you would do? I find that just as humorous.

The smoking and non-smoking analogy isn't apt because standing next to a smoker causes measurable harm, while standing next to a person who has a firearm causes none. Trust me. I've done it, as have you.

Please don't lecture me on how a functional society works. I live in one. I've seen some truly dysfunctional societies, and this one, for all its flaws, isn't like those.

2. I mentioned "demonstrable need" in respect to the issuance of CC permits. Let's not be naive, we all know that handguns are tools of violence. If you desire to hide one on your person, using a claim of self protection, then you need to demonstrate that need to the satisfaction of a panel, such as I described earlier. If you are denied the permit, then your option should be OC. I have noticed that OC organizations push their agenda on the premise that CC does not act as a deterrent and I agree with them on that. CC just ups the ante and should meet a very high standard. An example would be someone who has received credible threats, or a plain clothes police officer going into a situation where an armed suspect is believed to be.

Who's being naive? Who has ever denied that? You keep dodging questions about the criteria that determine "need." What are "credible threats"? Must one have already been attacked? Will this panel be able to field the manpower to investigate threats and determine their "credibility"?

I'm sure you are aware that there is such a thing as random and unexpected violence. Why would you deny people access to an extremely effective protection against it? But you would allow open carry by those who fail their vetting? And you believe that would promote public safety? I find that bizarre.

3. I don't suffer from unreasonable fear. I have a normal survival instinct, which keeps me alert to anomalies. I do not get queasy walking through crowds, but I stay alert and don't lower my guard. I'm a sailor. I wouldn't survive very long if I didn't stay alert or suffered from queasiness. Having grown up and worked LE in the UK, I am well acquainted with concealed weapons, thankfully not handguns.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I find your aversion to firearms to be something akin to a phobia.

You seem convinced that I want to impinge on your rights. Not so. Your right, as you and the corrupt SCOTUS determine, is to be able to carry a gun. It does not have to be concealed. That is not a right, but a privilege enacted by weak state legislators cowering to the NRA, the gun lobby and it's minions.
I would like to see it no longer be a right to carry a handgun, but that is wishful thinking on my part, at least in my lifetime.

And yet you persist in denying that you are a "gun grabber." You hold my rights in contempt: that becomes clearer with every post. You have essentially outlined the slippery-slope approach to a total ban on handguns. Let me paraphrase: "I don't want to impinge on your rights, but they were granted by a corrupt court and I look forward to the day when they cease to exist. Here's my proposal for the first step in the evisceration of those rights."

NB: If you want to continue this conversation, and hopefully grow from it, then please leave out personal snark like

Why would I ever want to substitute your fear-driven and authoritarian strictures for my own good judgement?

You seem to have no compunction about calling my actions fear-driven. Why am I supposed to accord you more respect than you accord me? As for "authoritarian," I can find no more accurate way to describe your attitude.

You are free to quit this exchange at any time, but don't pretend it's because your delicate feelings were hurt. I asked a legitimate question: Why should I value your estimation of my fitness to carry firearms over my own? What reason would I have to wish that the laws governing me were stricter and more arbitrary? Is that the worldview you are asking me to "grow" into? Save your breath.