How About A "Thirdly"?
"Secondarily, open carry offends some people--especially people that don't like guns. You might not care if you are offending people that don't like guns--but those people vote. Do you really want to take a person who doesn't think about guns, and make them think negatively about gun owners? I don't."
Even the title of Clayton Cramer's article is misleading, "Washington State Open Carry Ban". There isn't one. Hunting would certainly become more difficult if there was one? But, whatever...
The above linked paragraph and the one just before it in his article, starting with "I don't have any need to carry a gun openly in Washington State..." pretty much sum up Clayton Cramer's slant on open carrying in Washington State. Why a supporter of the 2nd Amendment thinks a "need" should be present before exercising a right, I'm not sure.
Either way, if Mr. Cramer feels the "need" to include his above linked fearful paragraph, why he didn't also include a description of the positive PR that can come about from open carrying is very telling towards his slant on the subject. I have open carried in Washington State, (and no I didn't exactly feel the "need" to do so), and I would say the positive reactions are just as high, if not higher then Mr. Clamer's unlikely fear that a gun fearing wuzzy will see someone peacefully open carrying and that would in turn make someone more afraid of firearms. (This would also be opposite of the laws of human nature--we tend to become more comfortable with things that we are exposed to more ofte. Even extremely dangerous activities are scoffed at by those thrill seekers that do the activities often, skydiving, anyone?)
This leds me to Thirdly, the paragraph Mr. Cramer felt wasn't "needed":
Thirdly, open carry arouses interest in some people--especially people that are sitting on the fence of the firearms debate or those who have never been exposed to firearms at all. You might not care about setting a positive example with firearms for others to see--but those people vote. Do you really want to take a person who doesn't think about guns, and make them think positively about gun owners?Yes, in fact I do.
Either way you look at it, I don't have a CPL/CCW issued by the State of Washington, nor will I ever willingly submit to this government's infringment upon my basic human right. Does this mean Mr. Cramer wants me disarmed? His fear that open carrying would cause a gun bigot to vote for even more gun control laws leds me to believe he might want me disarmed.
Good luck with that.
And his further BS shouldn't be allowed to slip past either: "Open carry protects only the person carrying the gun; concealed carry protects everyone." Wow! Why is it that crime doesn't happen when police are around then? Is it the big, shiny, scary badge? Or the gun behind that badge? You decide. All citizens not intent on violence towards others who are in the immediately area of anyone peacefully open carrying are protected as well--either directly, if it comes to that, or indirectly through a criminals desire to find easier targets. Mr. Cramer, stick with the history lessons.
Mr. Cramer's idea that open carrying does not protect the "pretty young lady walking down the street" might be true if open carry were the only method the state ALLOWED for the "pretty young lady" to carry a handgun and her holstered .38 didn't match her pretty white dress. But I've yet to hear this subject even brought to the table--if the state corrects this "dangerously vague statute" and allows open carry they might just take away the ability to conceal carry???
Well, damn, if that's the case, we should have given up long ago... for fear that master might beat us MORE.