I understand your position, it's just that research has shown that many criminals commit crimes of opportunity and will find an easier mark if they see someone open carrying a firearm. This has been gone over ad nauseum... if you disagree, then I would surely invite you to show me instances where someone carrying openly in any of the other 42 states allowing it have had their firearms forcibly taken away by an unarmed Bad Guy who then used the acquired weapon to commit a crime of pure opportunity, not planned beforehand. For instance, BG sees Joe Blow carrying his .45 in a belt slide at the convenience store, decides to steal the gun and then robs the store or uses the gun in some other offensive manner. Should be easy to find such a circumstance, I would think, if it were even a passingly common occurrence. Wouldn't you?
If you think the average person in OK who has gone to the trouble of obtaining a permit to carry by jumping through the legislature's hoops hasn't done enough, then you are free to lobby your legislators to make the requirements tougher and the renewal requirements more stringent. In the medical profession, we are required to present proof of ongoing education when renewing our licenses. Perhaps you think it should be required to do the same in order to exercise our right to carry a firearm as a means of self-defense. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm suggesting that if you think we as a general population are not responsible enough to exercise the right our Founding Fathers attempted to guarantee us, you should lobby for more control of firearms.
Personally, I think we as citizens have a duty and responsibility to train our children and friends in the proper use of said tools... the fact that many haven't and don't is what has led us to the condition we are in today - namely, fighting for the restoration of a right that we never should have let be infringed. I generally fall in the camp of punishing bad behavior, not restricting the rights of those who behave responsibly and respectfully.
Your choice of verbiage in the above statement is directly designed to belittle those who hold a different opinion than yours and is similar to the use of hyperbole to exaggerate a situation. It is neither logical nor respectful, and as such, diminishes your own credibility. We all do it to a certain extent, and it is certainly your right, but when we are trying to hold a logical conversation, I think it's out of place. My opinion, of course.
This is the argument against the SYG laws... that we have a responsibility to retreat, rather than a right to go about our business without bothering other people. Lawyers ask rape victims why they were at that party, why they consumed alcohol, why they dressed in a provocative manner? Injecting the threat of deadly force to diffuse a potentially life-threatening situation in a defensive manner is a far cry from attempting to intimidate another party in an offensive manner in order to gain an advantage in some way.
If someone is trained in the martial arts, is adopting a "ready pose" with hands up and legs apart preparing for a physical conflict when threatened considered irresponsible? Shouldn't that person instead retreat and attempt to remove himself/herself from the situation? What about drawing a knife for defense, or even a taser, which has in some cases been deadly? Hands can be considered deadly weapons when sufficiently trained. Is picking up a nearby piece of wood, pipe or a rock when you are threatened considered brandishment of deadly force? Should one find another way to defuse the situation? Do we have a right to go about our business?
A poster on this board talked about being accosted by a unknown man at the gas pumps early in the morning, and having drawn his weapon and aimed the laser on the man's chest before the aggressor decided to pursue his actions in another locale. When threatened by this man, should he have simply gotten in his car and locked the door, letting the gas pump continue to fill his car? This opens another potentially dangerous situation... say the assailant decides to pull the hose and spray his car with gasoline? This would leave him at a SEVERE disadvantage... being trapped in a car with an assailant outside spraying gasoline on it. Not a good thing. Should he have been required to simply retreat into the store to watch the BG hose his car down with gasoline or even take his car? If the keys were not in it, simply allow him the opportunity to burglarize his car without any recourse but calling the police and waiting for them to arrive (presumably long after the aggressor has departed the scene)?
In other words, is using the threat of force to de-escalate a situation acceptable, or must we retreat at all costs until there is no other option but the use of deadly force? This is the basis of the SYG argument, IMNSHO. You're free to argue it however you like, but belittling others who are engaged in a discussion with you isn't helpful, again, IMNSHO.
I'm not sure about you, but I think a guy assaulting me with with a can of mace IS deadly force... it places me in imminent fear of death or severe bodily harm. All it takes is a good shot of OC spray to severely incapacitate me and reduce my ability to defend myself effectively - this puts me at their mercy and potentially could be easily killed. The world is replete with stories of people dying after a single blow to the head, or a single punch. In my opinion, nearly any average-sized adult male presents a viable and credible threat of deadly force - even unarmed - should they attempt to initiate a physical altercation. All it takes is one lucky punch or kick, people... and you're on your back and dazed, at their complete mercy. I hope to never end up in that position.
And I am prepared to present that defense in court, should the need arise - while I hope it never does.
