THE DAILY FUDD: E259: “Flipside of 258 — Home stowage vs. on-person carry.”

In TDF 258, I discussed “pouch carry” and open carry, including in the home. Following that study, I conducted another in which I relied on hidden arms stowed strategically around, rather than CCW on my person, in the home. Like the previous one, this study showed two sides. I quickly found that sometimes stowage can be more convenient. MUCH more convenient. On the other hand, there was the issue of securing the stowed arms from unwelcome discovery by others.

However, it was a few fairly benign but unusual incidents that led me relatively immediately to the more “counter-fudd” leaning on the matter – and on purely tactical grounds. The primary ones involved meeting a neighbor for the first time. I have since confirmed that he is no threat, yet circumstances at the time gave an, uh, odd – not expressly threatening, but still odd – initial impression. (Turns out it’s “herbal.”) Facing this unknown quantity, I stood there, dealing with an uncertain situation, able only to fidget with a pocketed cell phone (an object which, as noted in the previous study, could be mistaken for a weapon). I was in the same situation as the transplant California couple in the video linked to before in terms of options should be event turn negative (see vid for solid Babylon Bee entertainment). And it gave severe food for thought.

The result was, after another day or so of consideration and further practice as described above, and wargaming out scenarios, that my study has reaffirmed the jocular wisdom (albeit generally concealed) below:

The truth is, we never know when a dangerous event might strike. There are enough weaknesses we have due to whatever reason that to create more is nonsensical. That neighbor may not have been as benign as he was. Thus, while strategic stowage has its place – see the previous study regarding heavier-than-CCW usage – on-person CCW does in most circumstances hold more benefits than liabilities. 

But don’t be religious about it. Practicality and propriety take priority. Just sayin’.

—————

Additional point: The aforementioned incident also demonstrated to me just how far away what’s on your cell phone screen might be read. Be careful about exposing that to strangers in public.

TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index.  https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html

Another Orwellian “mistruth,” which another writer misses.

This regards the article from the American Institute for Economic Research, “Orwell Exposes the Cowardice of Journalists and Intellectuals,” which overall is worth the read. The writer uses George Orwell’s work, “The Freedom of the Press,” as a springboard for launching against the forces currently acting to censor discussions, such as journalism, “science,” and other areas where Woke PC has gained a foothold. He quotes this statement critical of journalism, but misses or ignores an odd misstatement by Orwell. Notice:

“If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.”

The last two words: “public opinion.” Yet, it is not “public opinion” that is being discussed as a censoring force or motivation, but rather forces in politics, business, society, or media running COUNTER to the public – “enemies of the people.”

I have sometimes noted that Orwell in his famous “Big Brother” statements actually got things right, but in a way he didn’t imagine. “Freedom is slavery,” for instance. The truth is, it is “freedom” that enables those Woke PC forces to engage in their censoring, and thus to attempt to corrupt and subvert “public opinion.” While perhaps all Orwell meant was to distinguish between government and private forces from a British standpoint where the big forces stand over the common PEOPLE as representing the “public,” it nonetheless stands as a bit of a misstatement. His original writing is of admittedly mixed value – keep in mind, he did show a bit of Leftist-Socialist influence – but in the punchline quote he actually reverses the situation. While not “Teabrainery,” I wish the writer of the American article would have noticed that.