While you are correct about premise #1 being incorrect, it does not logically follow that there is an excuse for buying into it, thus making the conclusion logical, the false premise withstanding.

Confusion of reality with the fiction of forms of entertainment or the fiction of misrepresented news items is not an excuse for not knowing better, when only a modicum of logical thought would have exposed the false premise.

Therefore, no! I don’t understand it.

People need greater exposure to openly armed law abiding individuals first.

You really can’t understand how people, whose main exposure to large groups of armed people not in uniform are Spegghetti Western Lynch mobs and the Crips and Bloods, are scared?

Really?

Do I agree with it? No. Does it follow logic? Sure. The premises are flawed as all get out, but the conclusion does logically follow.

1) Non-Uniformed armed groups (often called gangs) are up to no good.
2) This was a non-uniformed armed group
Therefor,
3) This group is up to no good.

Given the first two premises, the conclusion is logically valid. The problem is that premise number 1 is false and therefor so is the conclusion.

I don’t even understand how anyone could sympathize with the viewpoint of the illogical. I can sympathize with the individual who is so obviously impaired, but I can’t work up any enthusiasm pretending I give a damn about an illogical reaction to reality.

It’s probably not the open carrying, per se. One person, by himself, open carrying is unusual, but not scary. Ten people, scattered, open carrying would be highly unusual, and considered curious, but probably not scary. Ten people, acting as a group, however, conjures images of “Wild West Posses” which could easily be seen as scary by many people.

Do I think it’s effective? I think it’s debatable. To be honest, I’ve never seen anyone who wasn’t plainly a cop or security open carrying Pennsylvania during the course of my ordinary business. I do think it tends to put people off. You can argue that’s not a rational reaction, but people are not rational.

I do think it ought to be legal, and that the police should know the law. I think the greatest use of open carry is to train the police on how to deal with armed citizens, which not a small fraction of them seem to have issues with.

I am curious as to why it wasn’t appropriate. No one in the article ever says. There are threats at Zoo’s. The animals in the cages sometimes get loose and not all the animals are kept in cages; some walk through the front gate. I wouldn’t go back to the Washington D.C. Zoo without a long gun and some friends with long guns which is probably why I only went that one time.

But why wasn’t it appropriate? The cops open carry all the time. That doesn’t seem to bother anyone. Off duty cops carry all the time. That doesn’t seem to bother anyone. Highly unprofessional, overweight, slobs of off duty cops carry all the time. That doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

Is it maybe because it scares the kids? My kids would be wondering if their real daddy had been kidnapped by aliens if I didn’t have at least one firearm and a knife or two on me. My kids would probably have asked the people what kind of pistol they were carrying. Maybe they should get better kids?