Certain firearms forums can be valuable sources of information. But, with so much "free" speech out there, one must be careful of what some people will say. After a long series of posts discussing the pros and cons of carrying a concealed handgun with a round chambered or not, a person I characterize as a troll (one whose main purpose is to troll for an argument) posted some non-sense and I replied. I am posting this here as an example of what to watch out for should you visit Internet forums.
The following is my reply to the posting troll. His prior comments are in quotes:
If I was still a moderator here, I would lock this thread. The subject has been thoroughly discussed, pro and con. Now, contrary to what one poster says, some are indeed "throwing fuel on the fire." That is the sign of a forum troll. Someone who is throwing fuel on a fire for no purpose other than to start, or keep arguments going. Flame wars we call them. To make my final point here, which is not about how one should carry - that ground has been well plowed already, - but to illustrate the way in which a troll operates, I offer the following:
"At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire; I'll argue that doing "what works for you" is without question the correct way to carry."
Fuel on the fire. That's the first big clue. "Without question" - don't bother to question my view because you can't, it's self-evidently right.
"My main concern is having a weapon on my person in case I need it, while absolutely minimizing the chance of a AD."
This is not a logical proposition. To absolutely minimize the 'chance' of an AD, and still have a weapon on one's person, that weapon should either not be a firearm, or should be completely unloaded with the magazine, or cartridges, out of the gun. The two conditions (weapon on my person) and (absolutely minimizing the chance of an AD) are mutually exclusive as a 'main concern'. For a discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of carrying a firearm with a round in the chamber, the poster's assertion is not at all relevant.
"To walk around with "one in the pipe" when there is no immediate threat is foolish in the extreme."
Another bald assertion with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Where is the evidence? Just because one says something is true, does not mean it is. And, note embedded within the "foolish" statement is the secondary assertion, also without basis in fact or evidence (unless, I suppose one is a mind reader or fortune teller), is the statement "when there is no immediate threat".
"This isn't the movies. I'm not a cop."
No, and no one who has addressed this topic in a serious vein has said so. Why is this statement here? To denigrate the other more serious and thoughtful comments to the level of gullible people who get their information from the movies. This is condescending in the extreme.
No, you are not a cop. But plenty of cops, and there are a few on this forum, do not share your views.
"The chance of an unprovoked, bolt-from-the-blue attack is virtually zero."
Another baseless assertion. The literature will easily demonstrate that many, many attacks are, from the victim's perspective, unprovoked and 'out of the blue'. The same thing I guess. While the victim may feel the attack is unprovoked, be assured that the attacker has reason for his or her actions and favors the 'out of the blue' approach. The less time the victim has to respond, the better for the attacker.
"An AD is always a possibility."
This is essentially an empty statement. We already know this and it is a main reason this thread began in the first place. Possibility? So is the fact that Elvis is alive and married to a space alien. But, I doubt it. A car accident is always a possibility, and that's why most folks wear seat belts and buy insurance.
"Every gunshow I attend forbids loaded weapons, permit or not. Yet ADs happen at gunshows with great regularity. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not researching the subject very well."
How many gun shows has the poster attended? He does not say. What does "great regularity" mean? "Researching the subject"... I see no facts here, no research, no cites to support this claim. Again, the poster hopes you will take his word for something because he says it is so.
"So weigh your options. Consider the consequences. The risk to reward, you might say. Then do what works for you, that is cetainly my course of action."
This is the first time that actual "options" have been mentioned. This is a good idea. In this I agree. I also agree that this is a question of risk assessment. However it should be noted that risk is relative to the one assessing it. What might be very risky for me, is not so much for another person. It's not a one size fits all proposition.
"I don't expect any minds to be swayed, but just wanted to keep this rather interesting thread going!"
At last! The reason for the poster's long-winded, rambling and illogical statement is revealed. It is true. This post was not intended to sway or influence minds. It's purpose is to keep this thread going. Fuel on the fire.
I think the thread has long outlived its usefulness to a good gun forum. I will not be posting in it further and would suggest to the moderators that they be aware of trolling posts like the one I've discussed and lock this thread so we can move on.
I believe the thread is now locked. Don't get sucked into arguing with a troll, and use your common sense for all "advice" given on the internet public forums.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment