Why the hypocrisy on handgun capacity?

S

Sigkid79

New member
I’ll give you an example.

I have an uncle who edc’s a Glock 17 along with 2 spare mags. 51 rounds! This is his setup whether out to dinner or throwing out the trash. When at home he carries his firearm and keeps a spare mag in each and every single room in the house. Even the bathroom. This has been his routine for 30+yrs.

If not “paranoid/psychotic” what would you call it?
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
Generally one starts to worry about possible mental health problems when the issue begins to affect a person's ability to do the things they enjoy doing or the things they need to do in order to function properly as a person and as a part of society.

Different people assess risk differently, and different people see the issues associated with carry differently. There's a temptation is to look at a person and say one of three things:

1. That person prepares more than I do so they are paranoid.
2. That person prepares the same as I do so they are normal.
3. That person prepares less than I do so they are naive/foolish.

The reality is that there's a broad spectrum of response levels that are all "normal" in the sense that they don't actually indicate a mental health problem.

If your uncle is able to do the things he enjoys doing, is able to function properly as a person and interact normally with others then assessing him as mentally ill based on the fact that he carries more often and carries more ammo than you would is probably a bit of an overstep.

The thing is, I think a lot of people have a warped perception of how hard it is to carry and therefore they assume that a person who carries a lot more than they do must be motivated by some mental abnormality. The reality is that if one takes the time to get quality equipment (belt, holster, etc.) and picks a gun that's reasonable for them, then carry is so simple and comfortable as to be virtually a non-issue.

An important factor is how a person normally dresses. A person who wants to wear minimal and tightly fitting clothing is going to be restricted more in terms of what they carry without significantly altering their mode of dress. A person who normally wears jeans and non-slipover shirts that aren't especially form-fitting is going to have more latitude in terms of what they can carry. It's not hard to see why someone in the former category might have a completely different idea of what's reasonable to carry compared to someone in the latter category.
 
T

TunnelRat

New member
JohnKSa said:
Different people assess risk differently, and different people see the issues associated with carry differently. There's a temptation is to look at a person and say one of three things:

1. That person prepares more than I do so they are paranoid.
2. That person prepares the same as I do so they are normal.
3. That person prepares less than I do so they are naive/foolish.

The reality is that there's a broad spectrum of response levels that are all "normal" in the sense that they don't actually indicate a mental health problem.
Click to expand...

This is very well said, thank you for sharing it here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
J

jetinteriorguy

New member
Sigkid79 said:
I’ll give you an example.

I have an uncle who edc’s a Glock 17 along with 2 spare mags. 51 rounds! This is his setup whether out to dinner or throwing out the trash. When at home he carries his firearm and keeps a spare mag in each and every single room in the house. Even the bathroom. This has been his routine for 30+yrs.

If not “paranoid/psychotic” what would you call it?
Click to expand...
Well prepared.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Reminds me of an old joke,

officer stops a car driven by a little old lady. Asks if there are any weapons in the car....

She replies that she has a .38 in her purse....
and that there's a 9mm in the console...
and a .357 in the glove box...

Officer asks her. "Lady, what are you afraid of?"
her reply is classic...

"not a damn thing, officer...not a damn thing!"
:D
 
C

cslinger

New member
The uncle story reminds me of a practical shooting local match thing I did many years ago. The basic premise was you start at a grill like you are at a barbecue and as soon as you close the lid it starts a couple moving targets and the stage. Basically you engage like three targets outside and then have to clear "your house" so to speak. The long and short of it was there were like 10 tangos all in.

The whole time I was running that stage all I could thing about was, who the hell did I torque off so much that they would send 10 people to kill me and if I had actually done so, I damn sure wouldn't be out in the back yard having a barbecue. :D
 
S

stinkeypete

New member
The problem with holding the opinion that anyone not armed is " Under armed, under prepared, and possessing a suicidal death wish" is that it leads to the logical conclusion that every visitor to the USA should have the right to carry a firearm to preserve their life.

Our constitutional rights are not exclusive to citizens, as it was written by a bunch of guys at a time when NO ONE was a citizen. That concept had not yet been explored.
 
S

seanc

New member
JohnSKA
1. That person prepares more than I do so they are paranoid.
2. That person prepares the same as I do so they are normal.
3. That person prepares less than I do so they are naive/foolish.
Click to expand...

Joining this thread late, but I had the same take, although from the old George Carlin joke about driving that I told my kids when they started driving and I remind them of often:
Anyone driving faster than me is a maniac!
Anyone driving slower than me is a moron!
Also, everyone that passes you or you pass is thinking the same damn thing!

Moral of the story: Find your own lane that you're comfortable with.

From the get-go, I still don't understand the premise of there being a capacity hypocrisy. My G19 caries 15+1 rounds, my G30S caries 10+1. I don't care what your pistol or revolver caries. If I ever need to use a gun, I hope I don't miss to much under pressure. I can think up scenarios as good as anyone else, but I don't know how many people that "some day" encounter will have, how close they'll be or how often I'll be on target. I'm a pretty good shot and I can light 'em up pretty well out to 15 yards at paper targets. The only times I had bullets incoming, I was able to hunker down and didn't have to return fire. I wasn't confronted with a face I had to end. Hopefully won't ever.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
The problem with holding the opinion that anyone not armed is " Under armed, under prepared, and possessing a suicidal death wish" is that it leads to ....
Click to expand...

people who are unable to recognize sarcasm...:rolleyes:

Our constitutional rights are not exclusive to citizens, as it was written by a bunch of guys at a time when NO ONE was a citizen.
Click to expand...

I think this one is going to come down to how you define terms. First off, until well into the 20th century ALL OUR LAWS were "written by a bunch of guys".

Next point, our "Constitutional rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution, which itself states that they are not the only rights we possess.

I believe that "Constitutional rights" do apply to citizens and that we, by choice, extended them to non-citizens as a matter of courtesy and policy, and not because of a specific written law requiring us to do so. The legal requirement of "equal protection under the law" came about well after the writing of the Constitution.

Natural Rights, also referred to as "God given" rights, apply to everyone. But as no right is unlimited, our legal framework determines how, when, and where those rights may be expressed, for citizens and non citizens alike.

Also remember that "bunch of guys" who wrote the Constitution were the representatives of the people, delegated to that task, well AFTER we declared our independence from Great Britain and considered ourselves a sovereign nation.

And, lastly (for now ;)) our Constitution grants no rights. Read it carefully. It recognizes certain God given (Natural) rights and it contains a lengthy list of what our government can, and cannot do regarding those rights.

It does NOT grant any rights.
Our Founders did not believe that government had the power to grant rights. I fully agree with that.
Don't you??
 
R

Rob228

New member
And, lastly (for now ) our Constitution grants no rights. Read it carefully. It recognizes certain God given (Natural) rights and it contains a lengthy list of what our government can, and cannot do regarding those rights.
Click to expand...

Not to turn this into a history lesson but several of the founders were adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, believing that putting them in writing would in fact limit our rights.
 
R

reynolds357

New member
Rob228 said:
Not to turn this into a history lesson but several of the founders were adamantly opposed to a Bill of Rights, believing that putting them in writing would in fact limit our rights.
Click to expand...
Correct. The rights were seen as God given. They believed if a govt could give rights, it could take them away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top