FL-DeSantis signs bill, making Florida the 26th Constitutional Carry state in the country

[Occam's Banana]

That attitude is exactly why "stupid liberals" have so much power.

And they are going keep and grow that power as long as their "freak outs" continue being pandered to.

Really? Because it seems like they just lost this one. What DeSantis just signed is a reasonable compromise. You can now carry a concealed gun without asking permission.

Yes, really. I didn't say they were omnipotent, or that they always win and never lose. I said their power will remain secure and will continue to grow as along as enough people like you insist on catering to their "freak outs" (as you call them). Doing so can only confirm for them that they can get whatever they want if they just "freak out" enough about it.

Getting people to submit and comply by "freaking out" is just as effective a means of gaining and using power as passing laws is.

This is not a difficult thing to understand.

Open carry shoud be legal, but is just a stupid pointless thing to do.

No, it ins't.

Catering to the "freak outs" of people who want you to submit to and comply with their whims is just a stupid pointless dangerous thing to do.

(The paroxysms of transgender insanity we are currently witnessing is just one example of that simple fact.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

So being an expert on weapons is now a requirement for political office?

That is not what I said. (You are really good at shoving words into other peoples' mouths, aren't you?)

One does not have to be any kind of "expert" in anything (or to consult with any kind of "experts") in order to recognize, respect, and "defer" to the basic rights and liberties of others. (And when politicians like this Passidomo person literally brag about how totally ignorant they are concerning some subject on which they are passing laws, then they fully deserve to be mocked and derided for it.)

She deferred to the Sheriffs, you know the ones who would have to deal with the chaos that would occur in Florida when dudes started walking into Publix with an AR on their back and a Desert Eagle on their hip just because they can.

Bullshit.

Once police responded to enough "freak outs" that turn out to be nothing but "dudes [just exercising their rights]", the "freak outs" would stop (or the police would stop bothering to respond to them). There would be no "chaos" except in the fear-addled fever-fantasies of Karens.

Some of you just don't get it at all. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. [...]

Again with the word-shoving ...

I have not said that anyone "should" do anything at all.

But people should certainly not cater to the "freak outs" of "stupid liberals" (to state it using your own terms). Period. Full stop.

As for what other people "should" do: so long as they do not commit aggression against persons or property, then that is their business, and not yours or mine.

Deferring to Karens and letting their "freak outs" determine what you should or should not do is only going to get you more Karen-ing.

Signing compromise bills like this gets people like DeSantis elected to higher office where he can actually do some good.

"Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never jam today."

 

[RJB]

We have to live in the same country as these stupid liberals. That isn't going to change. It's just easier on everyone if you don't freak them out. If that means not walking into a walmart with a slung AR, but instead carrying a concealed glock 9, then it's fine with me. The country is so fucked up it's almost a personal safety thing. Do you really want some lefty calling the cops and getting you shot by them?

Meh. They freak out if a parent doesn't want their kid rubbing a drag queens crotch. There is nothing that we can do or not do to prevent them from freaking out. Freaking out is the whole of their existence. It's similar to posters on this forum trying to avoid causing you to freak out with TDS at the mere mention of anything to do with Trump. It's part of life these days. They should read Marcus Aurelius. Their crazy reaction is on them, not me.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As bold as criminals are these days, I don't open carry. The only advantage you have in an encounter with a criminal is the element of surprise (which favors the criminals until they make the first move, as they're the ones initiating the attack).

That is not the only advantage. There is also the advantage of deterrence.

(There is a reason, after all, why it is advantageous to post clear signage to the effect that "this home/shop/school/etc. is protected by armed residents/employees/teachers/etc." when that is the case.)

While I do agree that there is a PR-campaign benefit to getting people used to seeing law-abiding citizens doing nothing illegal with the gun on their hip, so as to make people accustomed to the idea, when you open carry it's basically telling criminals: "take me out first."

The problem is that you can count (at least in principle) the number of open-carriers who get "taken out first", or who get their guns snatched away, etc - but you can't count (not even in principle) the number of incidents that never even occur at all because someone was open-carrying and the criminal decided for that reason not to engage in shenanigans (or to do them elsewhere).

Thus, there is no effective way to compare the former with the latter and thereby come to any dispositive conclusions about whether it is "really" better or worse to open-carry. It can only be left to individuals to judge and decide for themselves - wisely or foolishly, as it may turn out.

 

[69360]

That is not what I said. (You are really good at shoving words into other peoples' mouths, aren't you?)

One does not have to be any kind of "expert" in anything (or to consult with any kind of "experts") in order to recognize, respect, and "defer" to the basic rights and liberties of others. (And when politicians like this Passidomo person literally brag about how totally ignorant they are concerning some subject on which they are passing laws, then they fully deserve to be mocked and derided for it.)



Bull$#@!.

Once police responded to enough "freak outs" that turn out to be nothing but "dudes [just exercising their rights]", the "freak outs" would stop (or the police would stop bothering to respond to them). There would be no "chaos" except in the fear-addled fever-fantasies of Karens.



Again with the word-shoving ...

I have not said that anyone "should" do anything at all.

But people should certainly not cater to the "freak outs" of "stupid liberals" (to state it using your own terms). Period. Full stop.

As for what other people "should" do: so long as they do not commit aggression against persons or property, then that is their business, and not yours or mine.

Deferring to Karens and letting their "freak outs" determine what you should or should not do is only going to get you more Karen-ing.



"Jam tomorrow, jam yesterday, but never jam today."

You are lilving in a fantasy world. The cops have to respond every single time to reports of some jackass in a walmart with an AR. Because in today's world who knows if it's just some misguided second ammendment activist or a mass shooter? Doing stupid shit like open carrying just makes everyone else's life more difficult. People like you will never understand that.

You don't like the transgenders forcing you to accept them? Well when you open carry you are forcing liberals to accept your political view. It's no different. Just fucking keep it concealed, it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You are lilving in a fantasy world. The cops have to respond every single time to reports of some jackass in a walmart with an AR. Because in today's world who knows if it's just some misguided second ammendment activist or a mass shooter? Doing stupid shit like open carrying just makes everyone else's life more difficult. People like you will never understand that.

Okay, Karen.

 

[nobody's_hero]

That is not the only advantage. There is also the advantage of deterrence.

(There is a reason, after all, why it is advantageous to post clear signage to the effect that "this home/shop/school/etc. is protected by armed residents/employees/teachers/etc." when that is the case.)



The problem is that you can count (at least in principle) the number of open-carriers who get "taken out first", or who get their guns snatched away, etc - but you can't count (not even in principle) the number of incidents that never even occur at all because someone was open-carrying and the criminal decided for that reason not to engage in shenanigans (or to do them elsewhere).

Thus, there is no effective way to compare the former with the latter and thereby come to any dispositive conclusions about whether it is "really" better or worse to open-carry. It can only be left to individuals to judge and decide for themselves - wisely or foolishly, as it may turn out.

As I said, criminals are becoming bolder. They don't fear prosecution or incarceration because of all the limp-di*ked DAs and parole boards turning them right back out into the communities. If they see a gun on your hip, it's just extra loot. CC gives you the advantage because whether they're scared of you or not is irrelevant, if they never see it coming.

In broad daylight:


(this carrier made a ton of mistakes on all counts, but obviously deterrence is overrated, at least particularly in this neighborhood. Guy's wearing no shirt, jogging pants, from a glance the ONLY things he has of value would be the handgun on his side or the headphones he was wearing, and clearly the attacker was not intimidated)

interview with the victim in the above video:

 

[Anti Federalist]

With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

On the other hand, it's refreshing to hear a politician openly and explicitly admit that she doesn't really give a damn about liberty at all (or even about "muh democracy"), but that she will instead defer [1] to whatever the "experts" [2] want.



[1] The cherry on top comes when she justifies this deference on the basis of her own self-admittedly profound ignorance of the things upon which she presumes to legislate.

[2] And when it comes to the question of how she decides which "experts" ought to be deferred to (especially given her admission of complete and total ignorance on the relevant subject) ... well, just never you mind about any of that. Rest assured that it certainly doesn't have anything to do with campaign contributions, cronyism, influence peddling, or anything of that sort. It's just a dedicated public servant's humble acknowledgement of her own limitations. It's quite admirable, really.

Passidomo was born in Jersey City, New Jersey

Tells you all you need to know about that dizzy twat.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As I said, criminals are becoming bolder. They don't fear prosecution or incarceration because of all the limp-di*ked DAs and parole boards turning them right back out into the communities. If they see a gun on your hip, it's just extra loot. CC gives you the advantage because whether they're scared of you or not is irrelevant, if they never see it coming.

In broad daylight:


(this carrier made a ton of mistakes on all counts, but obviously deterrence is overrated, at least particularly in this neighborhood. Guy's wearing no shirt, jogging pants, from a glance the ONLY things he has of value would be the handgun on his side or the headphones he was wearing, and clearly the attacker was not intimidated)

Such anecdotes do not establish that deterrence is "overrated" (let alone that it is "obviously" so [1]). At most, they only illustrate that it doesn't always work - which is something that no one has disputed. You can cite and post as many examples of failed deterrence as you like, but as I said: you can't count the number of incidents that do not occur at all because someone was openly armed.

For every "bold" criminal who may be incited by open-carry in the way you describe, there is no way to establish how many "meek" criminals are deterred by open-carry - and the fact that the number of "bold" criminals may be increasing at some particular time (and/or in some particular places) does not change this. (IOW: Even if the number of "bold" criminals increases by, say, a factor of 10, one still has no way to demonstrate that this is more or less than the number of "meek" criminals who are deterred.)

Thus, there is no provably "right" answer, and you can only open-carry or not, as seems best to you. (For example, even in the very video you posted, Correia states only that he prefers not to open-carry - not that it is objectively better not to open-carry.)

IOW: Open-carry comes with some risk X that one of your "bold" criminals may be incited, but concealed-carry comes with some risk Y that a "meek" criminal will not be deterred. Therefore, If you are more comfortable with X than Y, then you should open-carry, but if you are more comfortable with Y than X, then you should conceal-carry. That is the most one can reasonably assert with any certainty.



[1] Again, there is a good reason for the use of the signage I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The idea that criminals will target you for your weapon is the only legit reason to not open carry, I think.

Me, personally?

I split the difference: I use a Sneaky Pete holster, openly carried on my belt.

Unless you know it's a Sneaky Pete, to average boob, it will just look like a wallet or first aid kit or something.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Such anecdotes do not establish that deterrence is overrated. At most, they only illustrate that it doesn't always work - which is something that no one has disputed. (Again, there is a good reason for the use of the signage I previously mentioned.) You can cite and post as many examples of failed deterrence as you like, but as I said: you can't count the number of incidents that do not occur at all because someone was openly armed.

For every "bold" criminal who may be incited by open-carry in the way you describe, there is no way to establish how many "meek" criminals are deterred by open-carry - and the fact that the number of "bold" criminals may be increasing at some particular time (and/or in some particular places) does not change this. (IOW: Even if the number of "bold" criminals increases by, say, a factor of 10, one still has no way to demonstrate that this is more (or less) than the number of "meek" criminals who are deterred.)

Thus, there is no objectively or provably "right" answer, and you can only open-carry or not, as seems best to you.

IOW: Open-carry comes with some risk X that one of your "bold" criminals may be incited, but concealed-carry comes with some risk Y that a "meek" criminal will not be deterred. Therefore, If you are more comfortable with X than Y, then you should open-carry, but if you are more comfortable with Y than X, then you should conceal-carry. That is the most one can reasonably assert with any certainty.

I feel like we're having two different arguments here, so let me clarify my position for the record, and my closing comment:

If I'm ever in a situation where I am the victim of an armed attacker, my goal is NOT deterrence. In that moment, I could care less about bringing down crime statistics in my community. In fact, I don't care about statistics of any kind. My goal, in that moment, is to survive the encounter, and to deal with the odds I have, in that moment. Therefore, I want the criminal to be at whatever disadvantage possible. If he's armed and knows I'm armed, I have no advantage. If he's armed but he doesn't know I'm armed, there's an advantage. The type of criminal who is going to kill their victim is not likely to be the 'meek' variety, and it's the admittedly rare but still possible chance that I run into one of those, that I prefer CC.

 

[Anti Federalist]

IOW: Open-carry comes with some risk X that one of your "bold" criminals may be incited, but concealed-carry comes with some risk Y that a "meek" criminal will not be deterred. Therefore, If you are more comfortable with X than Y, then you should open-carry, but if you are more comfortable with Y than X, then you should conceal-carry. That is the most one can reasonably assert with any certainty.

Agreed...and this is subject to change based on location, type and amount of population, presence of trigger happy cops and so on.

I have no problem carrying openly way up here in the hills of NH.

My summer riding kit includes an open carry shoulder rig for my M9.

If I'm venturing into some shithole or some Karen infested suburb, then I conceal...the level of that increases with the number of potential hostiles.

 

[Matt Collins]

Passidomo was born in Jersey City, New Jersey

Tells you all you need to know about that dizzy twat.

As James Hetfield would say.... "sad but true"

 

[Occam's Banana]

I feel like we're having two different arguments here, so let me clarify my position for the record, and my closing comment:

If I'm ever in a situation where I am the victim of an armed attacker, my goal is NOT deterrence. In that moment, I could care less about bringing down crime statistics in my community. In fact, I don't care about statistics of any kind. My goal, in that moment, is to survive the encounter, and to deal with the odds I have, in that moment. Therefore, I want the criminal to be at whatever disadvantage possible. If he's armed and knows I'm armed, I have no advantage. If he's armed but he doesn't know I'm armed, there's an advantage.

I don't give a damn about statistics, either. Liberty should never be made contingent upon such things, and none of what I have said has anything at all to do with "bringing down crime statistics in [your (or anyone else's)] community".

"If I'm ever in a situation where I am the victim of an armed attacker, my goal is NOT deterrence."
​

Nor should it be your goal - by that time, it's too late.

But the whole point of open-carry deterrence is to decrease one's chances of finding oneself in such a situation to begin with.

There is some number of criminals who are not going to mess with you if they see that you are armed.

There is some number of criminals who might mess with you because they see that you are armed.

So whether you ought to open-carry depends entirely upon your personal assessment of which of those is the greater risk, in light of how much risk you are personally willing to tolerate - and not upon blanket assertions such as "concealed-carry is better than open-carry" (or vice versa). It is perfectly legitimate for other people to arrive at the opposite assessment, given how much of which kind of risk they are willing to tolerate. That is my position for the record.

The type of criminal who is going to kill their victim is not likely to be the 'meek' variety, and it's the admittedly rare but still possible chance that I run into one of those, that I prefer CC.

I used the term "meek" solely and merely to describe criminals who are apt to be deterred by open-carry (in contrast to your use of "bold" to describe criminals who are apt to be incited by open-carry). In that context, a "meek" criminal who won't bother you if he knows that you are armed might nevertheless still try to attack or even kill you if he doesn't know that you are armed. (That is, in part, why blanket assertions such as "concealed-carry is better than open-caryy" - or vice versa - are bogus.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

Agreed...and this is subject to change based on location, type and amount of population, presence of trigger happy cops and so on.

I have no problem carrying openly way up here in the hills of NH.

My summer riding kit includes an open carry shoulder rig for my M9.

If I'm venturing into some shithole or some Karen infested suburb, then I conceal...the level of that increases with the number of potential hostiles.

Just exactly so.

When it comes to concealed-carry vs. open-carry, there not only is no "one size fits all people" answer, there isn't even a "one size always fits one person" answer.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1644697426245066755

 

[Brian4Liberty]

... Republican Senate President Kathleen Passidomo also said in March that she would only support open carry legislation if the Florida Sheriffs Association supported it.

“I will support what the Sheriffs of this state, who are the experts,” said Passidomo in early March, according to The Capitolist. “I don’t know one end of a gun from another, so I certainly want to support the experts.”
...

With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

On the other hand, it's refreshing to hear a politician openly and explicitly admit that she doesn't really give a damn about liberty at all (or even about "muh democracy"), but that she will instead defer [1] to whatever the "experts" [2] want.



[1] The cherry on top comes when she justifies this deference on the basis of her own self-admittedly profound ignorance of the things upon which she presumes to legislate.

[2] And when it comes to the question of how she decides which "experts" ought to be deferred to (especially given her admission of complete and total ignorance on the relevant subject) ... well, just never you mind about any of that. Rest assured that it certainly doesn't have anything to do with campaign contributions, cronyism, influence peddling, or anything of that sort. It's just a dedicated public servant's humble acknowledgement of her own limitations. It's quite admirable, really.

And it works with other issues too. Imagine this...

Republican Senate President Kathleen Passidomo also said in March that she would only support open carry free speech legislation if the Florida Sheriffs Association Attorney General and DOJ supported it.

“I will support what the Sheriffs of this state Merrick Garland the DOJ, who are the experts,” said Passidomo in early March, according to The Capitolist. “I don’t know one end of a gun free speech from another dangerous speech, so I certainly want to support the experts.”

 

[Occam's Banana]

She deferred to the Sheriffs, you know the ones who would have to deal with the chaos that would occur in Florida when dudes started walking into Publix with an AR on their back and a Desert Eagle on their hip just because they can.

Bullshit.

Once police responded to enough "freak outs" that turn out to be nothing but "dudes [just exercising their rights]", the "freak outs" would stop (or the police would stop bothering to respond to them). There would be no "chaos" except in the fear-addled fever-fantasies of Karens.

You are lilving in a fantasy world. The cops have to respond every single time to reports of some jackass in a walmart with an AR. Because in today's world who knows if it's just some misguided second ammendment activist or a mass shooter? Doing stupid shit like open carrying just makes everyone else's life more difficult. People like you will never understand that.

Okay, Karen.

Further to this: cops don't "have" to respond to anything.

They will respond to whatever they are ordered to respond to by their paymasters (i.e., the politicians & bureaucrats who issue their checks).

Likewise, if their paymasters order them to not respond, then they won't respond.

Case in point:

This finally backfired
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQIhFR-Vi68
Decoy Voice | 08 September 2023

Austin, TX recently put a social media post on twitter asking residents to only call 311 if they robbed at an ATM. This caused backlash as news outlets began looking into the impact of defunding the police in the liberal city of Austin, even though it's in the overall conservative state of Texas.

​