Open carry is setting us back. IMO


PDA






G.A.Pster
April 21, 2010, 07:46 PM
Although I strongly support the right to open carry.

Just think for a moment.

It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.


It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate.:evil:

You’re not going to win-over anyone over who’s on the fence with open carry.
You’re not going to convert the mildly anti.

The only upside I see is people you see all the time (like your barber, or coworkers) and who know you by name may eventually see that you have a gun and know that it’s ok that you have a gun, and you're not a nut, but that's just you not everyone else.


But other than that only downsides.


And if you still insist on doing it
If you’re slinging a gun over your shoulder make it a
Bolt action rifle (without a scope) or a double barrel shotgun, not an AR15, AK pattern or some other easily vilified gun.

And don’t wear BDUs, or a beret, or a boonie hat, or other clothing that makes you look like some kind of Soldier of Fortune wanabe you should look like everyone else.

And openly show your support for something everyone else supports, like a pink breast cancer pin.
So that you have a common goal with other non-open-carriers.



Anyway rant over. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Open carry is setting us back. IMO" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 07:50 PM
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I think a degree of tact and judgement applies, but I'm not going to tell anyone when they can or cannot carry within their rights and the law.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 07:52 PM
What you ARE going to do is inform people who otherwise were oblivious that there are people willing to stand up for their rights, and didn't even know it was legal. To say that the bad outweighs the good is, to say the least, subjective.

General Tso
April 21, 2010, 07:53 PM
Unfortunately, I agree with you.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 07:56 PM
Him or me?

Big Boy
April 21, 2010, 07:59 PM
And don’t wear BDUs, or a beret, or a boonie hat, or other clothing that makes you look like some kind of Soldier of Fortune wanabe you should look like everyone else.

Is this what you think most open carriers do? There is about one percent of people who open carry who actually carry rifles, and I've never seen it done in military garb. In fact the only times I've seen rifles carried are in demonstration.

The average open carrier, such as myself, straps on a gun just like every concealed carrier in the world. Wearing the same clothes as every one else. The only difference is that our gun is on the out side of our waist band.

It's a right. Exercise it or lose it. What's the point in having the right to open carry if it's frowned upon and no one does it? Why do certain pro gun people think it's bad to do? Cause it might scare the anti's. Why are anti's scared? Because they don't think guns are normal things. They don't see them as tools. They see them as scary, self acting devices of murder and mayhem. Open carry puts it in the normal world and forces people to see them and interact with people they know are carrying. Then they have to go home that night and realize "woah I saw a guy with a gun and didn't die." Most people who are against guns simply don't understand them, have only seen pictures of them, and only heard about them in the news. That is why they are scared.

Most don't do it to demonstrate, at least I don't, I do it because it's my right, I don't need a license to do it, and it's easier than hiding it. A bonus is that it introduces people to the fact that there are safe responsible people in the world who carry guns.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 08:09 PM
This is a sentiment that comes from political correctness. There is no right to NOT BE OFFENDED.

NavyLCDR
April 21, 2010, 08:17 PM
The average open carrier, such as myself, straps on a gun just like every concealed carrier in the world. Wearing the same clothes as every one else. The only difference is that our gun is on the out side of our waist band.

Exactly! +1 The only difference between the concealed carrier and I is where our shirt gets tucked in.

Or, we could say this:

Concealed carry is setting us back. IMO

All concealed carry does is hide the positive side of carrying a firearm from the general public. The anti-s are going to proclaim from the mountain top every negative incident involving a firearm out there. The person who conceals their firearm is doing nothing to advance our cause because all they are doing is hiding the positive side of firearms from public view.

The concealed carrier is showing no one the importance of the right to self protection. They are doing nothing to normalize the image of a person carrying a gun, in fact, they are showing the public that the gun itself is something that is so inherently abnormal that it must be hidden from view.

In addition, the concealed carrier is condoning and supporting the idea (in 47 states at least) that it is perfectly acceptable to take a right - the right to bear arms and provide for one's own protection - and turn it into a privilege that the state can not only regulate, but collect a tax on as well. A right is an activity that one is free to engage in without the need for government permission or taxation. The concealed carrier is not exercising any right at all (again in 47 states), but is demonstrating that they are willing to bow down to a government that refuses to acknowledge the right to self protection and in the place of that right forces citizens to pay for the government's permission to protect themselves.

http://www.wineberserkers.com/images/smilies/1974_eating_popcorn.gif

Cosmoline
April 21, 2010, 08:18 PM
It's shocking the first time you see it, then it gets to be routine.

unloved
April 21, 2010, 08:35 PM
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270671

leadcounsel
April 21, 2010, 08:54 PM
It would be easy to agree with the OP, but I actually disagree. Pro-gun and pro carry gain from having peaceful folks carry openly because it becomes more routine over time and others are desensitized to it.

However I do see that certain events could harm the gun community and I worry that someone will be planted as a pro-gunner by the anti-gun folks and cause a stir.

For me personally I would only open carry in unique situations/locations.

RatDrall
April 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
Anyone offended by an openly worn weapon needs to grow up.

Anyone worried about what said people think needs to worry less about what others think and go back to their business.

ccw_steve
April 21, 2010, 09:07 PM
I don't post here often, but I feel compelled after reading the OP's thoughts.

For years I agreed with the OP: open carry is good and legal, but many antis use it as leverage against the 2nd Amendment and therefore people who OC are just causing us trouble.

However, my opinion has changed tremendously in the last year or so. There are two reasons that come to mind:

1) The open carry movement has done more to put gun rights at the forefront than ANYTHING any other gun organization or gun movement has EVER done.

What other gun movement has news channels, tv shows, and the average person talking about gun rights in an open and public forum? Every night I turn on the TV, I hear "OC this" and "OC that". Thank God that some of us (RKBA'ers) finally had the balls to actually practice what we preach (by bringing gun rights into the spotlight).

2) When I CC every day, NO ONE KNOWS! This is a spin off of point #1, but it is the reason I first started thinking of open carrying. I wanted to get people talking about gun rights, but protest marches and firearms purchases did nothing to convince the average Joe. With open carry, people are instantly polarized: "Yikes, that guy has a gun!" or "Good for him, supporting our rights!"

The second reaction is desirable, but at least the 1st reaction is something we can DISCUSS with said person. If we are hiding in the background (or even trying to blend in as the OP suggests) then we are doing NOTHING to further RKBA. We need people to start talking, that is the only way progress will be made.

I haven't open carried yet, but I have been more than impressed with the type of people who do: polite, respectful, and knowledgeable people who are willing to be demonized for our rights.

I sincerly hope that in the future, I can to grow a pair and be willing to stand up for the rights I claim to support.

NavyLCDR
April 21, 2010, 09:16 PM
2) When I CC every day, NO ONE KNOWS! This is a spin off of point #1, but it is the reason I first started thinking of open carrying. I wanted to get people talking about gun rights, but protest marches and firearms purchases did nothing to convince the average Joe. With open carry, people are instantly polarized: "Yikes, that guy has a gun!" or "Good for him, supporting our rights!"

Actually, most of the reactions I get are questions:

Do you have to have a permit? Is that legal? Etc....

I was standing at a bus stop once when this younger woman from quite a distance away asked loudly, "Is that a gun?". I tried to ignore it, when she walked up and asked me directly, "Is that a gun?" Then we proceeded to play most of the questions. At the end she said, "Wow, I didn't know that, I can't wait until I am 21, I'd sure like to be able to carry one!"

I would say of the question askers, about 75% go away with a lot more positive feeling about it when they are presented with knowledgeable answers given by a "normal" person doing "normal" things in everyday life.

Well, time to put my gun on, head to Wal Mart to find a "thank you" card and probably get dinner at Burger King...

Bluehawk
April 21, 2010, 09:23 PM
Unfortunately, "open carry" has now prompted a new Bill in California (who's not surprised??) making it a crime in many instances.
I need to move the hell outta here!!!!!

MikePaiN
April 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
As I said before, I don't and won't OC. Only time sidearms are going on is if SHTF, there is a breakdown in rule of law or at a shooting competition.
This is based on my opinion and choice.
As far as OC and the law goes....every single one of us better pocket our opinions and egos and get 100% behind defending the right to OC.

One-Time
April 21, 2010, 09:38 PM
Its only setting us back because people keep selling out for some of our rights and dont want all of them

bigfatdave
April 21, 2010, 09:43 PM
Some people aren't clever enough to figure out on their own that guns do not automatically create violence.
Those people have to be shown guns in public that are not causing violence, it is educational.

Too bad if someone gets scared or offended, they are just taking too long to get the lesson of OC.

G.A.Pster
April 21, 2010, 09:46 PM
“Anyone offended by an openly worn weapon needs to grow up.

Anyone worried about what said people think needs to worry less about what others think and go back to their business.”

Indeed, they do need to grow up.

But we are the minority, until we’re the majority our goal should be to win converts.

You can’t force your opinions when you’re the minority, you’re the one that gets bullied.
.............

and to clarify: I don’t think that most people who open carry are Soldier of Fortune wanabes or carry an AR15, I’m just saying that would be about the worst thing you could do.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 09:58 PM
I will compromise. (I have posted to this effect before.)

For example, if I am out with my dad in the desert towns by Utah's west desert getting fuel for the ATVs, I will likely have my 1911 on my hip. Walking past sheriff deputies. No one says a word. There was one incident last fall when I was in such a place, in a convenience store paying for gas, and I overheard a guy sitting at a booth say to his friend; "I hope he has a permit for that thing." I thought about correcting him, but I decided not to. I figured, if he is really worried, he will speak up, or go look it up for himself. It isn't difficult to find out. I didn't feel like starting a shouting match on the opening morning of deer hunt.

Say I'm walking down 400 south in Salt Lake City. This is the street that goes past the courthouse, the city/county building, the new library, and lots of restaurants and coffee shops on the way up to the U of U campus. I can walk straight to the campus open-carrying, perfectly legal. BUT, if there is a crowd whose feathers don't need to be ruffled, this is them. This is where the hemp-wearing street philosophers hang out, and many of them are probably blissfully unaware that I can carry. I don't need to awaken them, because they might remember to show up and complain now when they otherwise had other things to worry about. Not helpful. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, say I am walking down the same street carrying concealed, and there is another guy carrying in the open, and someone decides to heckle or confront him? Should I criticize that person for being insensitive, or should I yell back at the heckler; "Leave him alone. He is within his rights and the law." I would of course support the carrier.

A few weeks ago Nick Moyes (the president of the republican student group at Utah Valley University) was hassled by the campus police for open carrying. (I started a thread on this.) He recorded part of the confrontation and posted it on youtube. At the time, there was legal grey area, because state law on brandishing was unclear. There was a bill on the governor's desk, waiting to be signed, which clarified that just because a person HAS a gun, and someone SEES it and doesn't like it, doesn't mean that the person was BRANDISHING the gun. A couple of weeks later, the governor (I believe as a direct result of this incident,) made up his mind and signed the bill. This is a POSITIVE result of a citizen sticking his neck out, risking personal loss, and making a difference for our side.

Where there is legal and perceptual progress to be made, we have to be the ones with the fortitude to make sure it gets done. I an tired of being defensive and ashamed for being a gun owner.

ssblair
April 21, 2010, 10:00 PM
I'm all for the positive publicity effect of getting people to recognize that not everybody that has a gun is a nutjob and that guns should be "normal", but I wont openly carry unless I'm at a shooting competition.

Why? Because I think its a defensive faux pax; if there is a bad guy around with murderous intent, I dont want to be the first guy he shoots at because openly showing that "hey, I can shoot back" makes me the primary target.

Also, in a world where it can be difficult to keep everybody at arm's length from all directions, I would be concerned about somebody separating me from my weapon by one means or another, and using it against me or a loved one. Or worse yet, they follow me home, then burglerize my house for my guns when I'm not home.

I would rather be incognito, with a surprise for any bad guys that try to do something bad in my vicinity.

OC as part of an organized demonstration is OK by me, but I probably won't be carrying due to reason #3 above.

Gouranga
April 21, 2010, 10:10 PM
On the surface, I can back the OP on his opinion. That being said, where does it end? If my pocket knife scares people, do I need to stop wearing it? If carrying a baseball bat to the ball game scares folks, do I stop? Should I always keep my crowbar hidden even when using it? What about my tool belt. That framing hammer is pretty big...could scare someone.

OC is not for me, however, an OC weapon poses no more danger than the weapon I carried IWB all day today. I refuse to be one of those who supports CC and shoots down OC. IMO, it is like the "gunner" who supports HIS 12 gauge but tells me my handgun should be illegal. We are pro 2A or not.

These OC guys have brought some open debate. I personally welcome it. Given honest and open debate 2A will win.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 10:17 PM
There is no right to NOT BE OFFENDED.That's not the point. The point is that when people are offended they often take action. That action sometimes results in restrictions upon the people that offend them. It's undeniable that open carry has, in certain cases, led to increased restrictions on open carry due to people being offended by it.Anyone offended by an openly worn weapon needs to grow up.I agree. Unfortunately that's also beside the point. If you offend people you'd better be sure that you can handle whatever they dish out. I'm talking about people pushing for increased restrictions on carry (open or otherwise) as a result of being offended.Too bad if someone gets scared or offended...Yes, it's especially too bad if those scared and offended people have a representative in government who shares their view and is sympathetic to their fear and offense. And it's REALLY too bad if they can pass laws to prevent their scared and offended constituents from being frightened and offended by open carriers in the future.If my pocket knife scares people, do I need to stop wearing it?In some contexts it might be the prudent to conceal it. In other wisely chosen situations carrying it openly might provide an avenue to educate someone.

This all comes down to being prudent. It comes down to understanding that if you offend/frighten/irritate too many people you can end up hurting yourself and others who share your views.

So am I against open carry?

No. But it does have the potential for negative outcomes and those who open carry need to be aware of that potential and do what they can to prevent it. It's in their best interests (assuming they wish to continue open carrying) and in the best interests of all gun owners.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 10:24 PM
OR, it forces people who didn't realize that it was legal to understand that it is here, it isn't going away, and it isn't impacting their lives in any way. We must be willing to risk to make changes.

G.A.Pster
April 21, 2010, 10:29 PM
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean they’ll respect it its like trapping, and hunting.


If you want it to stay legal you don’t put a bloody deer on the hood of your car, and you don’t trap where you’re going to catch someone’s pet (even if it is their fault) or where your catches will be visible from the road.
Because it will ruin it for everyone, and have farther reaching implications.

They think “I feal threatened and intimated, and I can't believe that’s legal we better fix this loop hole” and then they ban CC too and then on from there.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 10:32 PM
OR, it forces people who didn't realize that it was legal to understand that it is here, it isn't going away, and it isn't impacting their lives in any way. We must be willing to risk to make changes.Didn't you read my post?

If you offend and frighten enough people it CAN go away. Laws are not carven in stone. If enough people mobilize they can get laws changed.

Second, it's incorrect to say that fright and offense don't impact a person's life.

I agree that there can be positive outcomes but it's foolish and shortsighted to pretend that there can be no negative outcomes.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 10:36 PM
I'm just imagining Rosa Parks' conversations with her friends and family. She was so fed up with acquiescing to those who would deny her rights. Imagine what they told her.

"But you will make people angry."

"We are making progress, why make waves?"

"You will make so many people angry, you will do more harm than good."

"You're not changing anyone's mind."

"It doesn't matter if you're in the back of the bus, you still get there, don't you?"

"Just leave them alone. We are better off if their feathers aren't ruffled. Irritating them will only make them be active when they wouldn't have before."

This sounds so cowardly and ridiculous, the idea that this was the correct way to assert your rights is laughable. You only have the rights you are willing to exercise.

and JohnSka, you obviously didn't read all of MY posts.

jmortimer
April 21, 2010, 10:41 PM
The O/P is so right - the liberals are at it again here in ********** and will soon have a bill on the Dumbanator's desk to sign. The nice liberal lady legislator in question specifically cited the recent open carry activity in support of her bill. Broom handled once again by the liberals here in **********.

Hunt480
April 21, 2010, 10:44 PM
Open carry is not setting anyone but trouble makers back...
I open carry on a regular basis when I'm out and about, I may even go in a convenience store with my gun on. I've gotten used to it and it don't really bother me what anyone thinks when they see the gun.

Although I wear a gun openly alot I do have since enough not open carry in some places no need to draw to much unwanted attention I just conceal it.

My wife and I go on hiking & biking trails in state parks all over North Ga. regularly where I open carry all the time in some very remote areas and I'm constantly amazed at the people that are not carrying especially in these very remote places. I get a weird look sometimes from some people but most are unconcerned. Some will even say they did'nt know they could open carry in the park as they walk by. We do see women alone 3 or 4 miles away from anywhere at times without any obvios means of defense which is really plain dumb.My wife who is not that crazy about guns even thinks thats ignorant.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 10:45 PM
jmortimer-

You really think that this is the force driving gun control in KA? People open carrying?

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 10:48 PM
t provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.


It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd ask you to look at facts instead of emotion.

You are hooked into the whole "feelings" thing, with no basis in reality.

FACT: Open carry is legal in many states and in some states it's quite common. Has been for years. If it had a detrimental effect on gun rights, where are they? All the things you predict will happen haven't happened. Why not? This stuff has been going on for YEARS in many states, and no one even notices any more. If this hadn't happened in a Starbucks recently it would never have made the news.

FACT: Open Carry isn't about changing other people's opinion or some kind of public demonstration of solidarity. In states where it is legal it's just another thing people do. They might play golf, they might drive a convertible, they might wear a gun to dinner. Every now and then it hits the media, like the whole Starbucks stuff, but for the most part open carriers go about their business day to day and no one even notices. It's not a political statement.

Truth is, it just ain't that big of a deal and the only people getting worked up about it are the anti's and the "emotional" gun owner types like you who worry too much.

Simple fact is that none of the things you talk about have happened, and you sound like the blissninny anti's with their "Blood will flow in the streets" nonsense.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 10:52 PM
and JohnSka, you obviously didn't read all of MY posts.I've read everything you've posted on this thread.

But again I must point out that you're only seeing what you want to see in what I post.

YES, there can be positive outcomes, but one must be prudent in the approach one takes.

Since you used the Rosa Parks example, let's explore that a bit more. The approach she took was very prudent.

Rosa Parks was in no way threatening, dangerous or frightening. Now, let's change things a bit--let's say that instead of Rosa Parks boarding the bus the same technique had been employed by a rowdy group of young black men legally carrying various weapons. Do you imagine that the outcome would have been as positive?

I'm NOT drawing a parallel between the group of rowdy young men and OC'ers, only pointing out that it's not simply a matter of doing something. Sometimes the WAY it's done, or even WHO does it that is what's most important.

As I said before, this all comes down to being prudent. It comes down to understanding that if you offend/frighten/irritate too many people you can end up hurting yourself and others who share your views.Truth is, it just ain't that big of a deal and the only people getting worked up about it are the anti's...Are you really trying to say that they don't matter? Are you really trying to imply that antis can't get laws passed restricting firearms?

I can hardly believe what I'm reading on this thread.You really think that this is the force driving gun control in KA? People open carrying?Strawman. No one said it is THE force driving gun control. The comment was that it can provide fodder to be used against us. That is not debatable--it is clearly providing SOME people a reason to support gun control in CA.

Lou McGopher
April 21, 2010, 10:53 PM
It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.

To the contrary, it helps undermine their claims. As more people begin to open carry, and the anti-gunner's claims do not bear out, the weakness of their position will be more obvious.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 10:55 PM
She absolutely WAS threatening, dangerous, AND frightening. This is why it was a big deal.

NavyLCDR
April 21, 2010, 10:56 PM
But we are the minority, until we’re the majority our goal should be to win converts.

I beg to differ.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/bradycampaign
7,284 People Like This

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fairfax-VA/National-Rifle-Association/22561081832
151,256 People Like This

The problem is that the anti-gun MINORITY is screaming their heads off from every rooftop that will tolerate their presence. Meanwhile, for some reason, the pro-gun, supposedly pro-RKBA MAJORITY is too afraid to stand up and say anything. And then, when a pro-gun, pro-RKBA group does emerge that is willing to say with almost equally loud voice that we believe in the Constitution and we believe in the freedom of Americans to be able to provide for their own protection - half of the gun community cries in fear and runs away from them as much as the anti-s do!

Look at all the recent internet polls and public meetings happening around the country. On almost every single one of them you will find twice as many pro-gun votes as anti-gun votes. The problem is that the anti-gun MINORITY is clamoring three times as loud as the pro-gun MAJORITY!

jmortimer
April 21, 2010, 10:57 PM
MLJdeckard - Yes that was exactly what the nice lady cited as the reason she drafted her bill - the recent open carry activity here in **********. It scared her. I'll post a link or new thread with more info - it is getting the remaining right thinking people here really upset. It will for sure make its way through to the Dumbanator and I expect that it will be on his desk within six months.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 11:00 PM
Just because she CITED this as the reason doesn't mean jack, and I think you already realize this. Look at TR's post.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 11:02 PM
Yes that was exactly what the nice lady cited as the reason she drafted her bill - the recent open carry activity here in **********. It scared her.

If you believe a politician put forth a proposal to change a law because they were scared of something I have a bridge to sell you.

You gotta be kidding me, it scared her? Her voting record shows someone who is VERY soft on crime, that's not usually what you see from someone who is afraid.

She voted YES for:

Increases the value threshold for various property crimes to be prosecuted as a felony

She voted YES for:

Prohibits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from returning an individual to prison for any parole violation if the individual was evaluated by the Department using a validated risk assessment tool and was determined not to pose a high risk to reoffend

She voted NO for:

Vote to pass a bill that defines instances when a non-violent drug offender whose probation has been revoked can be sentenced to specified amounts of time in jail

So, she's not scared of people out of prison on probation.

She voted YES for:

Vote to pass a bill that allows a drug felon to receive food stamps

Here is her voting record:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=29365

Her voting record does not appear to be that of someone who is afraid of things.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 11:04 PM
She absolutely WAS threatening, dangerous, AND frightening. This is why it was a big deal.This is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

You are using the same words I used but in a different sense in an attempt to invalidate the accurate assertion I made.

A small young unarmed woman is not threatening, dangerous or frightening in the same sense that a person with a weapon is threatening, dangerous or frightening to some people.I beg to differ.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/bradycampaign
7,284 People Like This

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fai...on/22561081832
151,256 People Like ThisAgain, I'm finding it difficult to believe what I'm reading on this thread.

Are you really using facebook hits to try to prove that people favoring OC are in the majority in the U.S.?

For the record I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are or aren't, I'm just astounded that you believe that's a valid method.If you believe a politician put forth a proposal to change a law because they were scared of something I have a bridge to sell you.

You gotta be kidding me, it scared her?You're splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether it actually scared her or not. All that matters is whether it sounds plausible enough to enough people for her to get enough support to pass it.

We've seen antis use lies over and over to get laws passed. The fact that the laws were conceived in falsehood doesn't make the laws any less binding.

There are people out there LOOKING for ways to get support to pass their pet bills or to further their pet agendas.

I believe that was exactly the point of the OP.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 11:15 PM
I have shown a real example of how open carry has positively influenced legislation. You have shown exactly none for how it has NEGATIVELY influenced legislation.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 11:17 PM
We've seen antis use lies over and over to get laws passed. The fact that the laws were conceived in falsehood doesn't make the laws any less binding.

Yes but the statement that she did it because she is scared it simply not true. Yet that was put forth as the reason.

So you admit what I'm saying, that she's a dishonest politician.

If you admit that then you realize that she's dishonest about the whole thing. This is just a handy excuse to get her face in the media. If it hadn't been this it would have been something else.

So it's not really open carrying that has caused a problem here, it's a media attention driven politician looking for something to get famous for.

She could have chosen ANYTHING for that. To avoid that we basically have to hide in closets and pretend we don't know what guns even are. Even then politicians like her would find a way to promote their agenda, they always do.

So the truth is that open carry was just the first thing to come along that would allow her some front page time. Open carry didn't cause this.

NavyLCDR
April 21, 2010, 11:19 PM
Are you really using facebook hits to try to prove that people favoring OC are in the majority in the U.S.?

For the record I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are or aren't, I'm just astounded that you believe that's a valid method.

If you don't believe that the MAJORITY supports RKBA, then you haven't paid any attention to the public opinion expressed whenever the subject of a new ban comes up. For instance, the latest big ban suggested in Washington state, in SEATTLE! Hello! SEATTLE! Probably one of the left wing liberal capitols in the US:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-warns-seattle-mayor-to-heed-public-rejection-of-gun-ban-63783682.html

BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation today warned Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to heed the public rejection of a proposed gun ban at city parks facilities or face the consequences in court.

SAF obtained information from the mayor's office that the overwhelming majority of citizens living both inside and outside the city turned thumbs down on the mayor's plan to ban even legally-carried firearms in city parks facilities. Nickels has already been advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna that the city has no authority to enact such a ban, which would be illegal under the state's preemption law.

Only 8 percent of Seattle residents commenting on the idea support it, according to figures from the mayor's office. Ninety-two percent of Seattleites who opined rejected the idea. Only 2 percent of respondents who live outside the city support the proposed ban, and 98 percent oppose the idea. Deadline for comments was last Sunday. SAF has learned that the city received 1,088 comments via e-mail, and only 44 supported the mayor's proposal. Ten more telephone comments were received, with only one favoring the ban.

"This is a crushing defeat for Mayor Nickels," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "His office has argued that nobody would be prosecuted specifically for violating the ban, but only be charged with criminal trespass if they refuse to leave a facility after being told to do so. That is disingenuous. It is still a ban and it is still a violation of state preemption."

SAF has also learned that the mayor's strategy now is apparently to have such a ban enacted by order of the director of Parks and Recreation.

"This controversy began with Nickels threatening to issue an executive order banning guns from all city property," Gottlieb recalled. "He has now backed away from that, and apparently thinks he is being clever by having a surrogate sign an order to post city parks off limits to firearms. If that is the case, the chicken has, indeed, come home to roost."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The problem is groups like the Brady Campaign cry and moan so loudly and with so much publicity that they have pushed their propaganda so hard that it has even infiltrated into the pro-gun community and affected a large portion of our population. But, God forbid, we should push back...

Just ask Starbucks how their push back to the Brady Campaign treated them. Starbucks is posting record profits.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 11:20 PM
The threat Rosa Parks posed to the status quo was every bit as real as the threat WE make to the status quo.

Do you think that just because someone open carries they are dangerous, threatening, and frightening?

Lew
April 21, 2010, 11:21 PM
My two cents:
1. I agree with the gentleman who said that the OC "movement" has done more for gun rights than anything else. The activists are making serious progress. I've been following OCDO for a long time, and it basically started in VA and has exploded out across the country.
2. I personally am not an activist. Like TR said, some people just OC because that's what they do. I just do it because that's how I like to carry.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 11:22 PM
I have shown a real example of how open carry has positively influenced legislation. You have shown exactly none for how it has NEGATIVELY influenced legislation. First of all I didn't say it had negatively influenced legislation, I said it had resulted in additional restrictions on open carry. Since you have read my posts you would know that. ;)

And since you are clearly an OC proponent I think you know of at least one example of open carry resulting in additional restrictions being placed on open carry.

If you don't, and you want a recent example, you can do an internet search using the terms:

peet's coffee open carry

I have made several comments about the possibility of offended and frightened people providing the impetus to pass laws. That's also a given--we've all seen that happen enough to know it can happen, particularly in a situation where there are politicians with an agenda looking for just such a group of people to play to.The threat Rosa Parks posed to the status quo was every bit as real as the threat WE make to the status quo.This is still equivocation, but now you've incorporated a strawman as well.

You're still using the word threat (but in a different sense of the word) to try to tie your response to my assertion. But now you're talking about a "threat to the status quo". It's quite clear that my comments were not about a "threat to the status quo". If you don't believe that the MAJORITY supports RKBA, then you haven't paid any attention to the public opinion expressed whenever the subject of a new ban comes up.I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't going to debate the fact, that I was merely expressing my incredulity at your method of proof.Yes but the statement that she did it because she is scared it simply not true. Yet that was put forth as the reason.

So you admit what I'm saying, that she's a dishonest politician.Still splitting hairs. As politicians have repeatedly demonstrated over the years, their honesty and outwardly stated motives are irrelevant to the outcome.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 11:26 PM
That's not legislation. Forget Peet's. Try Starbucks.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 11:32 PM
That's not legislation. Forget Peet's. Try Starbucks.I'm pretty sure that in the post immediately above yours I explicitly stated that it was NOT legislation but rather a case of additional restrictions.

What's confusing is how you dismiss the Peets case using the rationale that it's not legislation and then quote the Starbucks case which also has nothing to do with new legislation.

NavyLCDR
April 21, 2010, 11:32 PM
Oh for Peet's sake!

Sorry, just couldn't resist. BTW, had anyone even heard of Peet's Coffee before the Brady bunch got a hold of them? And California Pizza Kitchen?!? Who the heck are they?

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 11:40 PM
Before we get too bogged down in this thread I would like to state that I do not believe that the title of this thread is correct.

I believe that in SOME ways OC has probably set us back and that in other ways it has been a positive influence.

What distresses me is that it seems that there are many people who refuse to concede the fact that OC does sometimes have a negative influence and that it would be prudent to minimize that effect to the extent that it is reasonable to do so.

G.A.Pster
April 21, 2010, 11:41 PM
"You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd ask you to look at facts instead of emotion."

Everyone I’ve talked to on other non gun forums has been distressed by seeing open carrying people.


People think with their feelings not with rationality. It’s been shown time and time again.

Facts are irrelevant.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 11:42 PM
What distresses me is that it seems that there are many people who refuse to concede the fact that OC does sometimes have a negative influence and that it would be prudent to minimize that effect to the extent that it is reasonable to do so.

Concealed carry sometimes has a negative influence.

Bad self defense shootings sometimes have a negative influence.

GOOD AND LAWFUL self defense shootings sometimes have a negative influence.

Gun shows sometimes have a negative influence.

Gun stores sometimes have a negative influence.

Seeing a pattern? Anti's find negatives in anything we do. So at the end of the day OC isn't any different than any other gun related activity. Some people are simply anti gun, most are not.

That's not really a new revelation to anyone is it?

X-Rap
April 21, 2010, 11:46 PM
I think I will start OC more often in more public places. I also think that on occasions the carrying of a long gun should be done. If this gets Keith and Rachels thongs in a knot then so be it.
We gun owners owe a debt of gratitude to those OC protesters that have put peaceful gun carrying in the news.

mljdeckard
April 21, 2010, 11:48 PM
I pointed out an example of where I wouldn't do it because it might have a negative influence. Does that mean we stop supporting others who do it? No. Does that mean we stop taking chances because people might be offended? Not a chance.

One-Time
April 21, 2010, 11:49 PM
Synopsis: So we shouldnt excercise our rights, lest we offend someone and lose our rights?

Please tell me people are smarter than that

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 11:51 PM
Synopsis: So we shouldnt excercise our rights, lest we offend someone and lose our rights?

That's what it sounds like many are saying, yep. And no, I'm not sure that people are smarter than that.

jmortimer
April 21, 2010, 11:53 PM
You don't know what you are talking about - she is "scared" she said so. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14922224?nclick_check=1 In an interview she uses the word "scared" to justify her stupid bill. I live here and closely follow what happens here as it effects me not you. Research then comment.

JohnKSa
April 21, 2010, 11:55 PM
Anti's find negatives in anything we do. So at the end of the day OC isn't any different than any other gun related activity. Some people are simply anti gun, most are not.Three true statements. Unfortunately they are stated together as if they somehow form a cohesive stream of thought when instead they are just a string of non sequiturs.

It is true that antis find negative in anything we do. That doesn't mean we can ignore them. They are constantly looking for ways to restrict firearms and if we provide them with fodder (via ANY gun related activity--including OC) it can come back to haunt us.

It is true that OC isn't any different than any other gun related activity. But that doesn't follow from the fact that antis find negatives in anything we do nor does it have anything to do with the fact that some folks are anti-gun and some aren't.

More importantly, the fact that it's just another gun related activity doesn't mean we can ignore what other people think of it. Just as my gun range has a restriction on firing early in the mornings to prevent offending the neighbors, we need to be prudent in how we exercise our rights. The range has been there for years. Much longer than some of the neighbors. Nevertheless, if it becomes a bad neighbor, if it begins to be a source of irritation to those who live nearby, they can make trouble that the range can ill afford.

Some people are anti-gun and some are not. True. It's also true that there are fence sitters and there are occasionally folks who change camps. The goal of every gun owner should be to push the fence sitters in our direction and to get folks to change camps from the antis to the pros. OC can do that. It can also do the reverse if it is not done prudently.Synopsis: So we shouldnt excercise our rights, lest we offend someone and lose our rights?This is what is called a false dichotomy. In a false dichotomy a person presents two choices as if they are the ONLY choices when there are actually other choices available.

You want to make it look like there are only two choices.
1. Don't ever exercise your rights, it might offend someone.
2. Always exercise your rights no matter who it offends.

There are also some other choices.

Randomly exercise your rights (sometimes do it, sometimes don't--flip a coin to decide when)
Prudently exercise your rights (think about the confluence of circumstances to decide if it's a good idea or not)

In case it's not obvious, the last choice (the underlined one) is the one I'm advocating. ;)Does that mean we stop supporting others who do it?If they are not prudent in their choices then I do not support their actions.

Same applies if to a person who intentionally wakes up his neighbors in the middle of the night legally doing target practice on his land for the simple reason that he can and that he doesn't care who he offends. He's not being prudent, he's not being a good representative for gun owners and for that reason I would not support his actions.Does that mean we stop taking chances because people might be offended?It means we should be smart about what we do as gun owners. That encompasses a wide range of activities including OC.

TexasRifleman
April 21, 2010, 11:56 PM
The goal of every gun owner should be to push the fence sitters in our direction and to get folks to change camps from the antis to the pros. OC can do that. It can also do the reverse if it is not done prudently.


The alternative is, as was mentioned above, to simply hide out and not participate in any activity that might irk the anti's.

Let's stop open carrying. Let's stop going to gun shows. Let's stop having shooting in the Olympics. Let's stop reloading.

All of those things have upset the anti's and can be spun to scare the fence sitters. I just don't see how open carrying is any different.

Big Boy
April 22, 2010, 12:00 AM
Of course open carry CAN have a negative influence. Just like the recent story of the concealed carry permit holder followed a guy home and shot him. That's obviously not good for the gun community.

ANYTHING in the world can cause negativity if done incorrectly. No you shouldn't be shoving a gun in peoples faces and saying "look at me!" but what open carrier have you ever seen doing this?

It's as if we're being painted as loons who don't have control because our guns are out in the open.

You are debating against exactly what we are fighting for. You say it's different to OC than it is for Rosa Parks to set up front, or whatever other situation we could dream up. You say it's different because a gun is threatening and dangerous, were a small black woman is not. That is exactly what we are against, and a small reason we open carry. OC'ing a gun is not any more threatening than carrying a broom. It won't do anything by itself. It won't be a hazard to the community unless someone is behind it pulling the trigger. This is what we are going for, it is an every day object. It is not evil, and that is what we are trying to introduce to people.

LWYM425
April 22, 2010, 12:19 AM
there is a bit of bickering, and a bit of nitpicking of words. but I like this thread. I like that after reading it I still don't know if tomorrow I'll OC or CCW. I also very much like that I can do both whenever i dern well please.

I would also like to note that it is my opinion that we, those that own and stand by the right to own firearms (and should probably get out and shoot more often!), need both types. If we were all about OCing, we'd loose the right to CCW and vice versa. I truley believe that.

So instead of trying to convince other gun owners that CCW is better than OC (and vice versa), go out and convince a buddy at work who has never shot... you'll build ranks that way :) :) :)

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2010, 12:27 AM
The problem with using California as an example is that California was a fully loaded freight train speeding down hill on the tracks of gun control anyway. California is not representative of hardly any other state in the US. Who else has California emissions tests? What other state requires that gun dealers from outside the state obtain permission from the state government to ship handguns to Federally licensed dealers within the state? ONLY California!

It wasn't the open carry movement that caused anything recent to happen in California - it was simply the freight train moving on it's already gained momentum. And it's going to take a huge Federal lawsuit against California to stop the train.

Heck, look at even Connecticut coming around!

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-open-carry-guns-0418.artapr18,0,2346909.story

According to Goldberg, a college-educated, occupational safety engineer, a restaurant employee, concerned by the sight of an armed customer, called the town police department. A goggle-eyed luncheon crowd watched three officers roll up, confront Goldberg and handcuff him.

"What can we get him for?" Goldberg, 32, says one of the officers asked his colleagues.

The answer, as it turned out, was nothing.

A state Superior Court judge dismissed the breach of peace charge police ultimately filed against Goldberg, forcing law enforcement experts to concede that, absent extenuating circumstances, there is nothing in Connecticut law to prohibit licensed gun owners from conducting their lives visibly armed.

The judge's decision was treated as a vindication by some gun owners in traditionally gun-shy Connecticut. They are joining groups elsewhere in asserting, as Goldberg does, what they say is the right to carry sidearms openly, in public, for protection.

The "open carry" movement is growing at a time when the federal courts have been looking more favorably on the rights of gun owners than on the authority of governments to restrict gun ownership.

JohnKSa
April 22, 2010, 12:27 AM
The alternative is, as was mentioned above, to simply hide out and not participate in any activity that might irk the anti's.No, that is not THE alternative. It is ONE alternative--and just to be absolutely clear it is not an alternative that I advocate.Let's stop open carrying. Let's stop going to gun shows. Let's stop having shooting in the Olympics. Let's stop reloading.

All of those things have upset the anti's and can be spun to scare the fence sitters. I just don't see how open carrying is any different.Again this is a false dichotomy.

There are other choices besides the two you pose and I have voiced one over and over on this thread.

Here it is again.

Prudently exercise your rights (think about the confluence of circumstances to decide if it's a good idea or not).It's as if we're being painted as loons who don't have control because our guns are out in the open.No one has said anything like that on this thread. That is a logical fallacy called a strawman and it is not a particularly clever one.OC'ing a gun is not any more threatening than carrying a broom.This assertion is not strong evidence of your well-developed skills of reasoning. ;)Heck, look at even Connecticut coming around!

http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,2346909.story

According to Goldberg, a college-educated, occupational safety engineer, a restaurant employee, concerned by the sight of an armed customer, called the town police department. A goggle-eyed luncheon crowd watched three officers roll up, confront Goldberg and handcuff him.

"What can we get him for?" Goldberg, 32, says one of the officers asked his colleagues.

The answer, as it turned out, was nothing.The fact that CT allows open carry, and a judge pointed that out, is not evidence that CT is "coming around." It is merely a statement of the current state of open carry laws in CT.

What would be evidence of CT coming around would be the OC'er having lunch WITHOUT having the police called on him, or having the police called on him and the police leaving him alone because they realized he was not doing anything illegal.

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2010, 12:40 AM
What would be evidence of CT coming around would be the OC'er having lunch WITHOUT having the police called on him, or having the police called on him and the police leaving him alone because they realized he was not doing anything illegal.

I respectfully disagree. For years open carriers have been convicted of breach of peace because of openly carried firearms in Connecticut. The fact that a Connecticut court would come out and flat out rule that open carry by itself is not breach of peace is huge progress in that state. And, that ruling would never have come about without people open carrying, despite the "feelings" of their fellow Connecticut residents.

JohnKSa
April 22, 2010, 01:03 AM
For years open carriers have been convicted of breach of peace because of openly carried firearms in Connecticut.That doesn't seem to have changed. The article clearly states that OC in CT can still result in arrest and confiscation if the offense constitutes a breach of peace. It appears that all that would be required for that to be true is for someone to file a complaint at the scene.And, that ruling would never have come about without people open carrying, despite the "feelings" of their fellow Connecticut residents.This is a good illustration of seeing only what one wants to see. There's also another side to that coin and the article makes it very clear. In the second page there is a comment that "key lawmakers" are watching to see what happens with the pending lawsuits to determine if they're going to try to pass laws to make OC illegal. If that comes to pass then one will be able to say: "that law would never have come about without people open carrying". In other words, we don't know yet whether the outcome will be better or worse for OC. It will be interesting to see how things shake out.

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2010, 01:13 AM
That doesn't seem to have changed. The article clearly states that OC in CT can still result in arrest and confiscation if the offense constitutes a breach of peace. It appears that all that would be required for that to be true is for someone to file a complaint at the scene.

And this is also an example of seeing only what one wants to see. The court case was brought about due to someone filing a complaint at the scene! And the court struck it down!

JohnKSa
April 22, 2010, 01:32 AM
From the second page.

"Goldberg called his arrest an overreaction by a police department unfamiliar with state handgun laws, something he said happens regularly in Connecticut.

"In my circumstance, no one pressed any charges, no one was interviewed," he said. "The woman who called 911 called to ask what the concealment law is in the state of Connecticut. And the dispatcher didn't know. If the dispatcher was educated or trained, and answered that you can carry openly or concealed in Connecticut, it should have ended right there. It was unfortunate that what happened to me had to happen to me.""

I haven't researched this incident, but the article you provided doesn't indicate that anyone filed a complaint at the scene. In fact, the article makes it sound like the lack of a complaint was the primary reason for the decision.

Gouranga
April 22, 2010, 08:27 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think it is the individual OCers who may be the cause of any setting us back. Like the man who flaunts his religion out in public, an OCer represents a good or bad for the cause. He/she is out there, with the gun rights billboard on them. If the OCer acts like a normal law abiding citizen, then IMO, they help us out. They show the public that someone with a gun is no different than someone without. IF they act like a loonie, act unsafely with their firearm, act extra aggressively, etc, they do damage to the cause.

Among other things OC makes you an open advocate for the cause, so long as those who do it, give a good example of why OC is no threat to other law abiding citizens, it is a great help to the cause.

atomd
April 22, 2010, 08:53 AM
Ok, let me get this straight.

Some people here are suggesting that open carry causes people to be offended which in turn causes more legislation to prevent open carry...so therefore we shouldn't open carry.

So you purposely don't exercise a right because you fear losing it? What's the point of having a right that you can't use? :confused:

One-Time
April 22, 2010, 09:01 AM
^ Exactly!

No one has a right to not be offended, no one has a right to not be scared.

"A fear of a weapon is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2010, 10:28 AM
I agree 100% Gouranga. I might expand your comment, though, to say that anytime anybody does anything bad with a gun it hurts our cause. It may be the OCer, the CCer, or the criminal. If something bad or stupid happens with that gun, the anti-s are going to scream about it.

But, what is sad, if you compare the bad and stupid things that happen because of alcohol, then clearly prohibition should be the answer.

If you compare the bad and stupid things that happen with vehicles, then we should ban them.

There are multitudes more bad things that happen with alcohol, vehicles and the mixture of the two than there are bad things that happen with guns, and yet it's the gun that's evil. Seems to me like the alcohol, vehicles and guns all have one thing in common - the human operators - but God knows we can't blame the people. The stupid are no longer punished.

MisterMike
April 22, 2010, 10:49 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think it is the individual OCers who may be the cause of any setting us back. Like the man who flaunts his religion out in public, an OCer represents a good or bad for the cause. He/she is out there, with the gun rights billboard on them. If the OCer acts like a normal law abiding citizen, then IMO, they help us out. They show the public that someone with a gun is no different than someone without. IF they act like a loonie, act unsafely with their firearm, act extra aggressively, etc, they do damage to the cause.


That's exactly correct. This may be splitting hairs, but there's a distinction in my mind between the guy who shows up with a Sig in a belt holster, and the dude who straps on a handgun, an AK, and a few magazine pouches while wearing camo pants and a T-shirt denouncing the government. Both are exercising their rights, but the latter is trying to make a statement. It makes him look like a horse's a** and spooks those in the vast middle who might otherwise support 2A rights.

AKElroy
April 22, 2010, 11:01 AM
Name anything that does not gain acceptance as it becomes more widespread.

GojuBrian
April 22, 2010, 11:04 AM
Name anything that does not gain acceptance as it becomes more widespread.

Methamphetamine. :D

loneviking
April 22, 2010, 11:28 AM
I don't see OC as setting gun owners back. If that were the case, you wouldn't have see OC spread acrosss the country like it has.

OC has had an interesting effect that hasn't been talked about much in this thread, and that is the legal effect. A lot of OC'ers are what you could call 'constitutionalists', and believe in making the cops and local politicians follow their state laws (and Fed. constitution)as they are written. Look at the dozens of times that OC"ers have been confronted by cops who violated their 4th/5th amendment rights and often state rights as well. The cops or municipalities were sued and mostly the OC folks won---and that's a good thing. We live in a nation that was founded on the idea that the law applies to everyone, and that there are limits to the power of the state. OC works to reclaim that idea, and in turn spills over to other laws and rights.

After all, should I give up my right to exercise my Christian religion because it offends an atheist? Or my right to free speech because someone finds it offensive? I don't think we are at that point in this country, and I think OC is creating a climate that won't tolerate that type of thinking.

I do find peoples reactions to OC sometimes odd. I went into my local Grocery Outlet one day OC to grab Gatoraide before heading out hiking in the desert around me. This is a store I reguarly carry CC in. The cashier, a lady I recognize, looks at me and says 'wow! Why are you carrying that thing in here? I replied back 'I've carried this 'thing' in here many times, you just never saw it!'. She was surprised that I could legally carry OC, that I had carried CC many times in the store and wanted to know 'why?'. This is an older lady who came here from Germany some 20 year ago and she's still has some adjusting to do! The point though is that I never would have had a conversation with her about guns if I hadn't walked in without my cover garment on. I find I'm starting to OC more around town, but I do understand those who don't as it can attract a lot of attention.

AKElroy
April 22, 2010, 12:06 PM
Methamphetamine.

That one proves my point!

AKElroy
April 22, 2010, 12:17 PM
I have a deer lease not far from Mason, TX. This is a town the economy of which is pretty much driven by hunters, so every other truck has a rifle rack, all the hotels run "hunter specials", all the eateries have camo menu's, etc.

OC is still illegal in Texas. I recently walked out of a local walmart w/ a BB pistol for my son, and opened it in the truck. An employee came by to round up carts, saw the gun, assumed it was real, and had clear concern. I rolled down the window & said "BB gun, for my son, just bought it".

He said the day before a hunter had walked in, OC a big Ruger Blackhawk. Shopped, got to checkout before an employee expressed concern to the manager. The store manager came down & reminded the camo-clad hunter that his store is not a deer lease, and politely asked him not to OC in the store in the future. The hunter had simply forgotten to remove it.

Tha manager was basically giving him the heads up that he had forgotten to take off his field gun to keep him from getting arrested.

No cops, no national panic. I guess my point is that concern over OC is regional and local, that Texas needs OC, and that Mason is the coolest place on earth.

NavyLCDR
April 22, 2010, 01:03 PM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20100421_12_0_OKLAHO649094

Oklahoma is coming around!

What kills me, though, is the lame and stupid comments by the naysayers. Hello, morons..... the bill changes nothing about people carrying guns except where they tuck their shirt in! The same license will still be required, and the same people will still be carrying guns that always have been! When the bill passes into law, it's time for Oklahoman's to start open carrying and show the naysayers that their fears are nothing more than morbid fantasies.

ssblair
April 22, 2010, 01:28 PM
OC has had an interesting effect that hasn't been talked about much in this thread, and that is the legal effect. A lot of OC'ers are what you could call 'constitutionalists', and believe in making the cops and local politicians follow their state laws (and Fed. constitution)as they are written. Look at the dozens of times that OC"ers have been confronted by cops who violated their 4th/5th amendment rights and often state rights as well. The cops or municipalities were sued and mostly the OC folks won---and that's a good thing.
I like that... alot. Winning those legal battles--particularly if the police can be held liable for damages from unlawful imprisonment or something--that will change attitudes in law enforcement from the top down and dissuade LE interference.

Prudently exercise your rights (think about the confluence of circumstances to decide if it's a good idea or not)
Amen. Rights that are exercised irresponsibly will get nullified. Paintball players have been fighting an uphill fight for social acceptance since the 80's because they were a minority that had to distance themselves from vandals and miscreants. Nowadays paintball is much more popular and I don't sense that the public has such a dim or leery view of it. That is a success story, but it is still subject to public opinion--it just has more friends to the industry now than it did in the past.

If enough of the right people get motivated to change it, Rights can be taken away just like "privileges"--in theory it just takes a few more people to agree to do away with them. Even the 1st Amendment is not an absolute--you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example. Rights must be exercised responsibly, if not, then the wingnuts and irresponsible folks will start giving the legislature and judiciary cause to put astrisks next to our Rights and then once they "break the seal of sacredness" it will go downhill from there.

--------

That said, I think one thing that separates current day from way back when, is that people are less likely to know who you are. "Back in the day" when towns were small, people would know if you were a lunatic or not or if they should or shouldnt be concerned that you were armed. These days its rare that I see people that know me when I'm out and about running errands, etc. If I saw somebody carrying openly--lets say in the local mall--I'd think "power to you for standing up for our rights and educating people that guns are not inherently evil" but at the same time I'd be thinking "I hope he's not a wingnut". In Indiana, for a CCW, you need to pass a background check and that lends a measure of trust to me that this guy at least isnt a criminal. In theory, anybody who has purchased a firearm commercially passed a background check there too, so if this guy's legal to own a firearm, he may not be that bad. But then again, firearms can be legally procured without background checks and several noteworthy shooters in recent years were legal owners of firearms procured commercially who just went off the deep end due to unreported mental issues or agendas that just werent known to LE--I'm not proposing a change here, just pointing out that it is what it is.

So you watch the guy to see if there are any flags in his behavior that might suggest anything amiss. Some of the guys in my gun club, if I encountered them OC before I knew anything about them, I would be thinking defensively in his vicinity because of their particular mannerisms and disposition. Now that I know them, it wouldnt bother me so much. So if I'm seeing somebody OC, I'm watching them anyway, particularly if they're solo. If they're interacting well with people, maybe they're ok. If they're looking awkward, shifty, anti-social, or something looks wrong or doesnt match up to what I would expect of "normal, well adjusted person", I will make sure I know where he is as long as he's in my vicinity, or I might even leave the area.

Anyhow, my point is that OC is legal and I dont think I would have the law any other way, but there's no way to know if the guy that is OC is legal or even sane, and I think that does add a certain level of stress to those around them on their first encounter with him. Requiring all firearm sales to go through background checks would require a registry to enforce and would be a boondoggle (saying nothing of what the registry is a harbinger of). Codifying "Shall Issue" language in all states and require permitting for OC as well as CCW would lend some comfort, but the permitting system would be expensive and unless LE was prepared to challenge every OC person for their permit every time they see somebody OC--something we don't want to come of this--then I don't see the value of the permit requirement except to add charges to the list against somebody who's already going to jail for committing some other crime.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 22, 2010, 03:14 PM
The more people open carry, the less people will be afraid of them and the more routine it'll become to see a gun openly displayed. I am 17 years old and I only remember seeing one open carrier, and I believe it was a EMT.

armoredman
April 22, 2010, 04:08 PM
People keep bringing up California. Bad example, look just a LITTLE bit east of there. Arizona. Open carry legal since 1912. CCW permit law in 1994, and this year, carry open OR concealed without permit, ala Alaska/Vermont. Open carry was the rule of the day, and I did all the time when I was of legal age, until CCW came around. I had police ask my what caliber I fancied, a bank teller and I had a lively discussion on favorite self defense ammunition, grocery store clerks asked me what gun shop to go to to buy thier own like mine, etc. Legal as church on whatever day of the week you wish, and still legal. Never set back a thing here, we even had that gentleman with the AR-15 on TV during the Obama visit, legally, and the antis had to tight focus on the rifle to call him a racist...so nobody would see he was black!:D Didn't set back any legislation here, we make our laws better every year.
Next year, maybe we will get a state Constitutional Amendment cementing the right to permitless CCW/open carry, just in case. :D :D

Mp7
April 22, 2010, 06:21 PM
( not talking about countryside, or lil towns btw )

... i´d rather agree with the OP.

If the laws make it possible to ccw
and people behave accordingly

... i see no reason why i´d add the gun image
to everyday life ... like with my knife, mobile,
glasses, ... whatever ... unless i need to use them
it´s nobodys business.

Guns are tools.
And tool belts can look silly
on folks that are not pro-carpenters etc.

just my 02 cents, from another point of view.

Enachos
April 22, 2010, 07:04 PM
... if only every gun owner in the U.S. (in states where it's legal to OC of course) could open carry on a certain day. I'm sure all the anti's and the oblivious would be surprised at how peaceful and knowledgable Open Carriers can be. I'm sure that would change everyone's way of thinking.

HorseSoldier
April 22, 2010, 08:00 PM
Up here in Alaska, which is the most arms-keeping and arms-bearing state in the Union, we've still got people here in Anchorage who are so hoplophobic that they'll call the police if they see someone openly carrying a weapon in public.

I can see the arguments on both sides, but think I tend to side with the original poster's thoughts -- any in your face approach to a divisive topic will tend to drive fence sitters away, not towards, the group taking the confrontational approach.

Without derailing the topic, does anybody remember how they felt when Rosie O'Donnell was up on TV with her domestic life partner or whatever after the mayor of San Francisco said he didn't care what California law said, he was going to let gay marriage happen in San Francisco? From what I recall, it seemed like a lot of people who probably didn't care enough about the the issue to cast a vote for or against it suddenly realized that they were up for voting against anything that Rosie O'Donnell was willing to run her mouth about. When you're open carrying in Walmart and some Soccer Mom herds her kids to a different check out lane because she thinks you're dangerous -- you're pulling a Rosie O'Donnell on us.

inSight-NEO
April 22, 2010, 09:51 PM
It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.

Maybe. But, I am inclined to believe that the "anti gunners" will always find something to add fuel to their political bonfire. Until they begin to think logically and actually educate themselves on firearms, whether open carry laws are in place or not, it will always be the same, tired old argument.


It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate

Again, its all about properly educating such individuals. Not to make light of the subject, but take a look at the vast number of individuals who are taken from this earth on a yearly basis due to drunk drivers. Yet, I see no one purporting that vehicles are inherently instruments of death and destruction. Why? Because vehicles are an "understandable" item. One is able to easily set apart the "irresponsible" driver from the vehicle itself. Unfortunately, not so with guns. Here, many are inclined to focus on the weapon alone. After all, guns are only meant for killing...right? :rolleyes: Once again, this all boils down to a gross lack of education and common sense.

I guess a gun toting individual on a murder spree makes for much better headlines, and political fodder, than someone (or many) being killed by a drunk driver.



Frankly, pro-OC laws do not bother me one bit. Honestly, I see it as an improvement in that it shows strong support for [legal] gun owners and those who choose to carry, rather than simply focusing on, and buying in to, anti-gun propaganda. I certainly do not consider this a "backward step." As has been mentioned before, the core issue here seems to be whether or not those around you can actually see the weapon you are carrying....probably the same weapon you have carried all along, but concealed. The transition, to me, is a fairly small one. Are there potential negatives? Maybe. But, then again, the positives do exist. Similar to many things in life.

In regards to open carry "scaring" and/or turning off many individuals; frankly, I believe that it is the militant anti-government types, who are very aggressive (by aggressive, I mean going as far as to threaten the use of violence) in their pursuit of maintaining their second amendment rights, that truly turn off those who are "on the fence" about the whole gun issue. This, IMHO, truly gives the anti-gunners all the fuel they need in order to label the "gun loving" crowd as militant and irresponsible. Ditto for any "killed by a gun" headlines they can scrape up. The whole open carry issue is just an extension of a preexisting fear/misconception.

It is just a shame that, when it comes to weapons, whether speaking of CC or OC, many individuals automatically conjure up images of death and violence vs focusing on the real idea that guns can indeed be used to protect rather than to simply destroy.

When we see a gun strapped to the hip of an LEO, its all about protective measures; yet, when/if we see the same weapon strapped to the hip of a civilian, it automatically becomes a mere instrument of death. This is ridiculous.

In essence, it is crap such as what I have mentioned that needs to be overcome, whether nationally or locally, in order for open carry laws to succeed in the long run. Frankly, I am all for it.

There will always be naysayers. Let them go unarmed, misinformed and whatnot....should they choose to do so. But, IMHO, they are doing themselves a grave disservice in doing so.

To reiterate my point- It is all about educating the public about the benefits regarding the use of a firearm, along with the idea that yes, using such an item can indeed be done with a high degree of maturity and responsibility; in doing so, hopefully dispelling the myth that carrying a gun (yes, even openly) is a detriment. Fear of the unknown/misunderstood is a powerful one indeed. The anti-gunners use this every day, to their benefit.

ccw_steve
April 22, 2010, 11:22 PM
InSight-NEO, you hit the nail on the head.

People who hold radical anti-gun sentiments will always find ways to negatively portray firearms, openly carried or not. Especially good point about the traditional view of LEO's with a gun vs. an average citizen with a gun.

Those who are are "scared" by a visible display of a firearm are just as "scared" when the firearm is concealed. People's fundamental perspectives on firearms must be changed before any legislative progress can be made.

OC (when done correctly) encourages people to think about these issues.

JohnKSa
April 23, 2010, 12:12 AM
OC (when done correctly) encourages people to think about these issues.One could even say "when done prudently". ;)People who hold radical anti-gun sentiments will always find ways to negatively portray firearms, openly carried or not.This is true. However in order to use their sentiments to actually hurt us they need a pool of support. We, as gun owners, must be prudent in how we exercise our rights so that we don't create or add to that pool of support.

The examples of shooting early in the morning on weekends or in the middle of the night that I mentioned earlier in the thread are ways that a person could exercise his gun rights in an imprudent manner that would add to the pool of support that anti-gunners need in order to achieve their agendas.

The fact that anti-gunners are always out to get us regardless of what we do doesn't mean we can ignore them. Just because we can't change THEIR minds doesn't mean that there aren't minds out there that can be changed. There ARE people out there with minds that can be changed and we need to be prudent in how we interact with those people.I might expand your comment, though, to say that anytime anybody does anything bad with a gun it hurts our cause. It may be the OCer, the CCer, or the criminal. If something bad or stupid happens with that gun, the anti-s are going to scream about it.That is exactly correct. I might expand it to say that anytime someone does anything unwise or imprudent with a gun and the public finds out it hurts our cause. But I would say that it's not an issue of whether or not the antis scream about it--they're always going to scream about guns. The REAL issue is how many fence-sitters are listening to them scream and paying attention.

If an anti starts screaming and a fence sitter thinks: "Yeah, that person is right--gun owners are a problem because: fill in the blank
some hunter shot my uncle's cow.
that guy down the road shoots his supermagnum early on Saturday morning.
I found a bullet hole in the road sign out in front of my mom's house.
that camo-wearing nut always OC's in the Wal-mart.
the target shooters leave shot up garbage out at the county range.
etc.

THEN we have a problem.Some people here are suggesting that open carry causes people to be offended which in turn causes more legislation to prevent open carry...so therefore we shouldn't open carry.Some people advocate that. I think the best approach isn't to stop open carrying, it's to be wise in how we exercise our firearm rights. Regardless of whether we're hunting, target shooting, or OCing.

dec41971
April 23, 2010, 12:46 AM
Unfortunately, "open carry" has now prompted a new Bill in California (who's not surprised??) making it a crime in many instances.
I need to move the hell outta here!!!!!
Its because some of the OC purposely seek to shock. Some even do things covertly to look intimidating without crossing the line. Most people feel threatened when they see it, and IMO it doesn't help when OC are nothing more than stunts and antics. In the end, they turn off more people than they attract to the cause. The antis use it as ammunition because its effective and works for them.

inSight-NEO
April 23, 2010, 01:07 AM
The whole controversy surrounding open carry seems to simply be an extension of a preexisting fear/misconception. It may be prudent to focus on the latter in order to truly deal with the former.



The REAL issue is how many fence-sitters are listening to them scream and paying attention.

As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water...."; you get the idea.

It sometimes seems as if it boils down to who is able to scream the loudest..the anti-gun crowd or the pro-gun crowd.

Of course, all gun owners should strive to be advocates/role models for the safe, mature and effective use of weapons. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Hence, the battle continues.

rondog
April 23, 2010, 01:51 AM
I was in a Sportsman's Warehouse recently, and encountered a gent with a bird dog on a leash. I stopped to pet the dog, commented about how I loved dogs and what a nice boy he was, then thanked the gent for letting me pet him and went on my way. Saw them both later at the checkout a couple of folks ahead of me. As they were going out the door, only THEN did I even notice the man was OC'ing a pistol and two magazines!

I think that's the first time I've ever seen anybody do it, but this was right under my nose and I didn't notice. Wish I had, so we could have chatted about it. OC isn't my bag, personally, but I'm all for people that want to do it. I just don't like drawing attention and risking hassles and BS. I'm happy with CC for myself.

NavyLCDR
April 23, 2010, 02:56 AM
Why would someone feel the need to bring a dog to a store?!? It's fine if you want to have your dog at home. I am all for the right to keep dogs, but to walk them around town in public like that? There are some people who are afraid of dogs. They should be able to shop in a store with out having to deal with the anxiety of having dogs walk right up to them. Hello, 911, I would like to report a MWAD.... :neener:

RatDrall
April 23, 2010, 09:06 AM
If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.

Maybe they could start with a simple pamphlet informing the general public that guns cannot simply "go off" and go from there...

Yo Mama
April 23, 2010, 09:47 AM
If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.


The NRA is you! Why not contact them and throw the idea their way. Get involved on your end.

Snakum
April 23, 2010, 10:13 AM
As far as OC and the law goes....every single one of us better pocket our opinions and egos and get 100% behind defending the right to OC.

Dam skippy. The slippery slope of gun control people talked about twenty years was right on the money. I actually get uncomfortable sometimes when I see folks who are a little "out there" OCing. I admit it. But I will defend their right to do so. I try to do it sometimes too just to remind folks here in NC that we have a right to do so. I am always respectful when confronted by a security guard at Food Lion or a Lowes manager, and patiently explain their corporate policy (they rarely know it) and always leave if asked. No need to cause a stir. Just a need to remind folks that we have this basic right. I make myself do it sometimes, even though I am often uncomfortable doing so. One day this freedom too will be lost and once again ... we can all look in the mirror and remind ourselves who let it happen.

Wear it!

NavyLCDR
April 23, 2010, 11:46 AM
If the NRA was worth the donations that they are sent every year, they would run a national advertising campaign to educate the public about the benefits of handgun carry.

Hello! It's right there in their name: National Rifle Association! It's not the National Firearms Association, or the National Handgun Association, or the National Self Defense Association.

The NRA does tend to lean towards hunters and rifle/shotgun issues and stays out of self-defense and right to carry issues. In fact, there was a rumor that came out of one of the AZ legislator's office that the NRA was lobbying against the Constitution Carry Bill. You will notice on the NRA-ILA website that they only reported on the bill and never actually came right out and stated that THEY supported it.

The Second Amendment Foundation is not nearly as large as the NRA, but they get more involved in the carry and self-defense issues. http://www.saf.org/

sv51macross
April 23, 2010, 12:44 PM
^ More reason to support the NRA then!

NavyLCDR
April 23, 2010, 01:02 PM
sv51macross,

Why is it that you are against Joe Citizen being armed?

One-Time
April 23, 2010, 01:10 PM
Lets look at Cali again, in response to the 'they are gonna pass a law to prevent OC because of *insert group here*'

OC has been legal in california for ever, originally it included loaded guns, but when the Police went after the Black Panthers in the 60s all they could do was ban them from carrying their loaded guns in public, thats what got us here to now

So I assume you then support racist laws against groups you dont like? Thats what gun control is and started as in most states

pete f
April 23, 2010, 02:12 PM
Open carry is Constitutional carry. If you don't like it, you need to change your mind, not change the concept of the Constitution.

sonier
April 23, 2010, 02:36 PM
the more people can legaly stop concealing and open carrying the quicker people will be less scared in time. The Antis put this fear into the people who are scared of guns, you think hiding guns is going to help our cause or Antis. something tells me the Antis kindve wanted us to have to conceal in the first place, so to put this in simplier terms, if it is on the Anti gun peoples agenda to conceal then it isnt good for us to conceal cause thats giving them what they want.
The more people see that legal gun owners are very responsible the better it will be and you can only do that by showing them that we are responsible.

PS and pete F. your wrong the famous rednecks last words has always been "HEY YALL WATCH THIS!! not dude ;)" though dude may be starting to become a trend lol

Mad Chemist
April 23, 2010, 03:53 PM
Name anything that does not gain acceptance as it becomes more widespread.

Bedbugs.

Guillermo
April 23, 2010, 04:07 PM
open carry is good for America and good for the pro gun movement.

Just like teaching a child about something that they think is scary, you have to let the antis see that guns are not evil (as though any inanimate object could be)

If Texas will ever get off their butt and start emulating Arizona I will open carry often

Guillermo
April 23, 2010, 04:08 PM
Chemist...very funny post

BTW
what do you have against bed bugs?

Mad Chemist
April 23, 2010, 04:15 PM
I have seen behavior by OCers that I was proud of and behavior the embarrassed and angered me as a fellow gun owner.

The important point to consider is that when you OC you effectively become an ambassador for other 2A activists. You are now under the microscope and your attitude, actions, and demeanor or being closely evaluated by others whether you notice or not.

If you act like an idiot, you may still be within your rights but you are giving all of us a black eye.

If you are friendly, engaging, and patient in with others, and enjoy explaining our constitutional rights to the uniformed and misinformed; then by all means, please OC.

If you are a misanthropic curmudgeon we don't need you.
We must spread the notion that the majority of gun owners are ethical responsible upstanding members of our communities. We are your friends and neighbors. Anything that muddies this image hurts us, anything that affirms it helps.

Is this simple enough. The basic rule when OCing, take your "good manners knob" and turn it up to 11.

Mad Chemist
April 23, 2010, 04:17 PM
BTW
what do you have against bed bugs?

If you were ever unfortunate enough to sleep in a motel bed that had them, you would know.:)

mongoose33
April 23, 2010, 06:30 PM
The issue isn't whether one should be offended.

The issue isn't a 2nd amendment issue.

The OP is noting something felt by many of us, i.e., that the Open Carry movement is hurting.

It is analogous to having Ted Nugent be the voice of the pro-gun movement. You may agree with him (I generally do), but he doesn't help--he sets people against the idea of gun rights.

I think the Open Carry movement is setting us back big time. Instead of reasoned arguments about the benefits of concealed carry, and whether gun rights actually correlate with crime (the don't), what the open carry folks do is jam their rights in the faces of those whose experience hasn't prepared them for this.

To the open carry folks: Thanks a lot.

NavyLCDR
April 23, 2010, 07:02 PM
To the open carry folks: Thanks a lot.

You are more than welcome! :D

Guillermo
April 23, 2010, 07:41 PM
what the open carry folks do is jam their rights in the faces of those whose experience hasn't prepared them for this.

What is the alternative...partially open carry? Just the barrel?

To calmly, quietly carry a gun is to "jam their rights" in others faces?

You seem a reasonable fellow. We all "misspeak" at times. You might want to reconsider exactly what you offered and restate it because as it is, it is a totally ridiculous statement.

hso
April 23, 2010, 08:27 PM
The argument that in your face activism may or may not actually hurt a minority effort to gain/retain their rights has gone on in many different communities. The RKBA community is no different and the debate is good to have.

Trying to hush up people within the community that are concerned about backlash from more confrontational forms of activism isn't a good idea. Logical debate and careful consideration of respectful disagreements is a good idea. Let's not assume that being a 2A supporter means the same as engaging in "group think".

There are plenty of other conversations like this one for different issues (http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/does-gender-bending-and-camp?groupUrl=glbtqatheists&page=3&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A417060&x=1).

mongoose33
April 23, 2010, 09:01 PM
What is the alternative...partially open carry? Just the barrel?

To calmly, quietly carry a gun is to "jam their rights" in others faces?

You seem a reasonable fellow. We all "misspeak" at times. You might want to reconsider exactly what you offered and restate it because as it is, it is a totally ridiculous statement.

You either want to win, or you don't.

Those who want to win will spend time thinking about the problem from the other's point of view, and evaluate what strategies help and what strategies hurt.

Those whose interest is not in winning, but in "asserting their rights" will often find that they have cut off their nose to spite their own face.

The only people open carry "convinces" are those who are already on the side of open carry.

I'd ask you this: If open carry scares people--and there's all kinds of evidence it does exactly that--then I have to wonder what possible benefit there is from all this confrontation. It simply hardens the resolve of those who oppose guns, *and* it takes people in the middle and makes them allies of the anti's. Is this what you want?

And while it may make those who open carry feel better, if the goal is to improve the public view of guns, then it is exactly the antithesis of a strategy that would help do that.

You reach people where they are, not where you are. You have to approach the problem from their point of view, not your own. They don't give a hoot about your own, only theirs.

There are plenty of ways to do this, but those who open carry are jamming guns in the faces of people and *daring* them to oppose them.

Well, guess what--that is exactly what you're going to get.

And when those you have dared to oppose this start recruiting middle-of-the-road folks to help them get these awful guns off the streets and off the hips of the crazies who are flaunting them, you will have only yourself to blame.

I teach social change. I also do it. If you want to change people's views to align with your own, you must find arguments that resonate with their information and fears. You must reach them where they are, not where you are.

If I were an anti, I would be having a field day with this. In fact, I may use this example in my Social Change class in the fall.

If you would like to see how I would approach these issues, these two posts explain it (they're longish, but it's not a simplistic issue):

How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)-I (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6268764&postcount=145)

How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)-II (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6268793&postcount=146)

JohnKSa
April 23, 2010, 09:38 PM
Those who want to win will spend time thinking about the problem from the other's point of view, and evaluate what strategies help and what strategies hurt.

Those whose interest is not in winning, but in "asserting their rights" will often find that they have cut off their nose to spite their own face.Well said.The NRA does tend to lean towards hunters and rifle/shotgun issues and stays out of self-defense and right to carry issues.I've developed a lot of respect for your care in researching the things you post, but that is pure nonsense.

The NRA's name was consistent with its original charter and focus when it was founded over a century ago. Since then much has changed--but not the name. Suggesting that retaining a name that Americans have come to know over the past 130+ years means that the NRA doesn't really care about other types of guns is building a house on a shaky foundation.

And while the NRA does spend a lot of effort and money on hunting/rifle/shotgun issues they absolutely do not "stay out of self-defense and right to carry issues." Every NRA periodical has a section dedicated to self-defense called the Armed Citizen.
NRA is supporting the McDonald case as it did the Heller case, both of which were primarily related to handguns and self-defense.
NRA has repeated fought and defeated municipal handgun bans in CA.
NRA supported the concealed carry laws during the "concealed carry movement" which aided in getting "shall issue laws" passed in many states. In one 2 year period 11 states passed NRA supported right to carry laws.
NRA's Refuse to be a Victim course is all about self-defense and self-protection. They offer several other courses that are also self-defense/self-protection courses.
I find it difficult to understand how an informed person who has demonstrated a dedication to factual postings could make a statement like the one you just did. To be perfectly frank, I find it very disappointing.

jeepmor
April 23, 2010, 10:00 PM
Education is key, nothing more. Some for us, but mostly for those that don't support it. April 19th has past, everyone whining about how guns are the problem (none here really) need to research the significance of April 19th, 1775 and begin to understand why it is that they are free to express their opinions on any subject they choose.

sonier
April 23, 2010, 10:01 PM
wow is all I- can say, I have found that there are just some people who have that whole you can't do I't attitude and just ruin the motivation and faith to get things done. They can do it so effiecently too, if I listened to everyone who told me I could'nt reload ammo I wouldnt be saving a lot of money and finding things I ENJOY. If everyone told me that you cant grow crops at 9100 altitude in the rockies, I wouldnt be growing crops that produce up to 4 thousand dollars a acre.
Instead of turning around and bashing every open carrier who post there beliefs on this thread try to explain how you think you can change things without using a melancholy armageddon attitude.

I have engaged lots of people my age group. yes my age group who never liked guns, how I did it you ask? Well I went to sheriff's office and asked them what age I can legally open carry in westcliffe colorado the deputy sat me down and throughly explained the laws to me. I find out I can do it at 18, so one day I decided to have some friends and i to go ride through town hangin out, off course the subject got up why I am carry a BP 1851 revolver and every person who didnt like it asked questions and sat down with me. We talked and listned to each other views and eventully they agreed and was no longer scared or ittimidated. POINT IS open carry does have a bad rep so we should open carry to proove that it is ok and talk to every individual who asks about it one on one and explain to them everything. DONT ATTACK THEM just state your views and listen to them. most of the time all you have to do is give them proof and facts about the truth of gun carry and crimes. theres lots of times thats all you have to do but its going to be a slow process.

OPEN CARRY AND CHANGE THE MIND OF INDIVIDUALS ONE PERSON AT A TIME AND HAVE FAITH AND PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING.
oh and those who want to tear me appart please try not to ruin the spirits of those who want to help, keep in mind theres some people looking at all of you for guidance and right now, well lol I'm a little disgusted, so keep this civil maybe theres some person looking for the information to understand things better about firearms and he comes across this thread, I hope no one does just that.

itd be nice to read one civil rational thread with some realistic facts and RATIONAL CALM debating.

Thankyou moderators for helping out best as you can, i feel as if some people have some good and rational things to contribute and help.

bigfatdave
April 23, 2010, 10:43 PM
Open carry forces people to apply the same benefit of the doubt they expect for themselves to other citizens.
MWAG calls don't come from people who can imagine themselves responsibly possessing a firearm without doing something violent.

Firearms do not necessarily cause violence, OC makes that obvious to people who never thought about it before and makes it hard for a hoplophobe to be credible making their silly claims about firearms.

The people who don't like it and never will can sit and stew while contemplating the meaning of "shall not be infringed" ... maybe they'll push through an amendment to the Constitution to make themselves feel better, but I don't think that's too likely, do you?

Guillermo
April 23, 2010, 10:50 PM
in your face activism

hso

please explain how quietly shopping for groceries or making a bank deposit or picking up the dry cleaning with a handgun on your hip is "in your face activism"

I have not seen ANYONE suggest that a gangsta looking guy playing loud rap music with a 9 in his belt helps convince any antis any more that they suggested that a fat guy in a stained wife-beater does.

The OP is that ANYONE open carrying is bad for gun rights.

sonier
April 23, 2010, 10:50 PM
"theres those who speculate and theres those who act". i think someone said that once.
heres one i like "all talk no action"
nother "all hat no cattle"

hso
April 24, 2010, 01:26 AM
explain how quietly shopping for groceries or making a bank deposit or picking up the dry cleaning with a handgun on your hip is "in your face activism"

They aren't and the OP didn't cite your situation. Keep in mind that how other's perceive us is as important as we think we're presenting ourselves. An individual quietly going about his business in every way acting and appearing to be just like everyone around them except for the fact they carry openly is confronting prejudice without being confrontational in the way they're doing it. OTOH confronting prejudice is unsettling because it forces others to examine their beliefs and risk changing them. That's emotionally charged for most people.

When we as gun owners forget that and want to up the ante to get even more attention for confronting the prejudice, we risk going from opening others to examining their prejudices to making them defensive and closed to accepting us. What point that occurs is where the debate has value.

Does a respected businessman going about the course of the day wearing a simple rig confront people's prejudices. Sure it does. Does wearing a more extravagant rig garner more attention. Sure it does. Does wearing an even more extreme rig/weapon/clothing/attitude get a lot of attention. Ohhhh yeah, but at some point the more extravagant/in your face we become we risk really closing people to our purpose.

So where on the curve between fully concealed like some 2A folks would prefer to avoid making non-2A folks uncomfortable and the in your face AK toting, slogan emblazoned T-shirt wearing, cammo clad other end of the spectrum do we think we can strike that balance between opening non-2A supporters to reevaluating their beliefs about firearms and firearms owners and demanding that they grant us the fullest version of our rights right now whether it frightens them or not.

This argument went back and forth during the civil rights struggles of the 50's and 60's with the quiet struggle advocates and the radical activists of the times. Not even history has decided whether one was more valuable than the other or whether one could have succeeded without the other, but we're doomed to fail if we don't look at every rights struggle in this country that's come before us.

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 02:39 AM
HSO

Thank you for the well thought, well written and lengthy response.

You also bring up an interesting parallel when you mention the civil rights movement...or as I am more specifically going to use as an analogy, race relations.

If one is uncomfortable around, say, green people, the answer to make them more accepted to the general public is to have the general public meet them.

Some people might be horrified at first by the large single eye, others intrigued. (contact lens people would be excited!) But after the verde folks are known by the rest of us we realize that we have much in common. Want our kids to achieve, make better lives for our families. Own real estate. (and green folks are not competition for real estate as they like swamp land)

Back when we were mishandling race relations in this country nobody but the "antis" wanted segregation. And neither should we pro gun people.

We should strap on our guns and be ambassadors for our cause. Go out there and be normal, change the oil in our cars, buy paint at the hardware store. The "nice man" holding the elevator is a "nice man" first and then they might wonder why he has a gun on his hip.

The bottom line is that this thread has suggested that ALL open carry people are not setting us back. And it is important for the good people to get out there to dilute what damage the "mall ninjas" do.

JohnKSa
April 24, 2010, 05:12 AM
If one is uncomfortable around, say, green people, the answer to make them more accepted to the general public is to have the general public meet them.ALMOST correct. Unfortunately the part you left off is the most critical part of the equation.

The answer to make them more accepted to the general public is to have the general public meet them UNDER FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.

If we don't pick good representatives from among the "green people", if we aren't prudent in how we arrange the meeting then having the general public meet them will actually make them LESS accepted.Back when we were mishandling race relations in this country nobody but the "antis" wanted segregation. And neither should we pro gun people.Again, we can't seem to get past this false dichotomy that keeps being brought up.

The idea that "segregation" is the only other option is incorrect. It is not the option I'm advocating and clearly it's not the option hso describes in his post.

The key isn't stopping all OC, it's OC'ing prudently. Making sure that as a representatives of gun owners OC'ers aren't alienating people with their actions, attitude or appearance.And it is important for the good people to get out there to dilute what damage the "mall ninjas" do.Again, that is ALMOST correct. In reality it far more important to stop the "mall ninjas" from doing damage in the first place.

Since early in this thread I've repeatedly said that the key is the PRUDENT exercise of our rights. And there's been a lot of disagreement with that assertion. Stop and think about that for a moment.

pru·dent
1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense.
2. Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident.
3. Careful about one's conduct; circumspect.

So this is really the bottom line.

What is the alternative to being prudent? And even more importantly, what does it say that there are a number of OC advocates on this thread arguing against being prudent?

It's hard to imagine any stronger affirmation of the veracity of the indictment in the original post on this thread.

hso
April 24, 2010, 09:39 AM
Go out there and be normal and have the general public meet them UNDER FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.

That's the issue isn't it?

To some of us OC is too confrontational at all and to others extreme staged OC where it's not "normal" or under "favorable circumstances" is needed to shake people up.

If you use the civil right movement analogy further, we have the Dr. King model on one end of the spectrum and the Black Panther's on the other. We have our equivalents and we need to understand that.

Mike P.
April 24, 2010, 11:00 AM
Open carry has never been widely practiced in my home state of New Mexico. I seriously doubt that it's been really that popular in any other state where it's legal. It turns off normally pro-gun people (not hardcore internet gunboarders). Open Carry is the gun rights movement jumping the shark IMO.

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 11:08 AM
Open carry forces people to apply the same benefit of the doubt they expect for themselves to other citizens.

This is exactly why I am bothered by this kind of approach.

When someone FORCES you do to anything, what do you do? You resist, right?

JohnKSA said it well--"under favorable circumstances."

Those who want to "force" the anti's to confront this issue are thinking about it from their own point of view, not the point of view of the anti's. It's analogous to pushing someone on the chest--they resist.

Instead, I believe it will be more effective to look at things from the point of view of the anti's (and this is a variation of the "under favorable circumstances" argument), and create circumstances where they can entertain new ideas without being threatened by them.

In your face open carry is threatening. I've heard people say about anti's, "What do they think will happen, the gun will jump up off the table and shoot by itself?"

Well, yes, actually. People afraid of guns have seen them do horrific things in the movies. They see people pick up UZIs, one in each hand, and strafe their protagonists. (I've shot an UZI--and the idea of shooting that weapon with one hand while accomplishing anything other than decorating the sky is laughable).

They see movies like "True Lies" in which Jamie Lee Curtis drops an UZI and, as it tumbles down some steps, it keeps shooting and killing the bad guys. Lesson? A gun dropped will go off. Lesson? Guns have a mind of their own!

I'm sure everyone here can list movies and TV shows where inaccuracies about guns are rampant. Where does the non-gun public get their ideas about guns? From that junk.

Guns are scary. They make big noises. They JERK when fired. And that jerk is unsettling. They surprise you!

So when one confronts people with things that are scary, does one think a sort of desensitising is going on? No--what that does is scare the anti's, and make the middle-of-the-roaders more willing to entertain the arguments of the anti's.


What bothers me the most about all this: I think that the 2nd amendment rights we have, when exercised in this way, make it *more* likely that at some point there will be an effort to amend the constitution to modify or take away that right.

This, BTW, is why I think the 2nd amendment argument is a non-starter when discussing things with anti's. Those who are anti-gun don't care about the 2nd amendment. I believe they see it as a license to intimidate, as a mechanism whose result is a playing field that is decidedly unlevel--those with guns have an advantage over those without.

So, the way to resolve that inequity is to level the field by eliminating the guns (yes, I know there are other ways, but I'm looking at this from the point of view of the anti's, not the point of view of the RKBA people.).

I believe that the in-your-face open carry movement moves people closer to the idea of amending the constitution to restrict that right, and that is the real worst-case scenario for us.

Deltaboy
April 24, 2010, 11:28 AM
G.A.Pster Sorry I disagree with you this is the same reasoning that put out by many when Fla started CCW. I am all for FULL And FREE 2nd Rights. We need to return the General Population mindset that Guns are normal everyday tools of life and not something reserved to Police and Military.

loneviking
April 24, 2010, 11:35 AM
Mongoose, the problem is that you are assuming that you are going to change the mind of one (or more)anti gun liberals. I sure don't see much chance of that happening. There is a huge, well defined divide in this country between 'liberal' and 'conservative' that has hardened into concrete. The anti's would be more than happy to have nothing but CCW, as 'out of sight, out of mind', and it allows them to continue on with their attitutudes towards gun owners as knuckle dragging cretins. I don't believe that Christ Matthews, Rachel Maddow and others of their ilk will ever change.

Where I do see the OC movement doing the country a big favor is forcing LEO's, municipalities and states to actually follow the law of the land! Too many of these entitites have been making up their own laws; selectively interpreting laws against case law holdings; and in some cases, outright lying about the law just to harass and intimidate people. It really gives me hope for this country to see so many young people in their 20's standing up to these thugs and telling 'em 'this is the law, I'm within my rights, are you going to arrest me?'.

If we are ever going to return this country to a truly constitutional approach to government, then the government is going to have to be forced (on many issues) to actually follow the laws and constitution of this country.

AKElroy
April 24, 2010, 11:42 AM
What is the alternative...partially open carry? Just the barrel?

Fannie pack. The perfect partial open carry.

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 11:51 AM
Fannie pack. The perfect partial open carry

I think that is called "concealed"

mljdeckard
April 24, 2010, 11:54 AM
Johnska keeps calling the civil rights comparison a false dichotomy, but it isn't. It's the exact same thing.

The problem with taking a 'reasonable' or 'under favorable circumstances' approach to open carry is that these idea are very subjective. Even if you do your best to exercise judgment to make sure you don't offend anyone, you never know when you will bump into someone who would be offended by your gun no matter what the circumstances are. It's impossible. should we wait forever to do it when we aren't offending anyone? I posted an example of when I carried in an appropriate time and place, and I still heard whispers about it.

One person exercising a right isn't FORCING another person to do anything. This is why it's a right. There are people whose minds will not be changed. I'm not trying to change them. I will settle for letting them be surprised that someone is carrying a gun, and asking someone; "Isn't that illegal?" finding out it isn't, and learning to live with it.

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 11:59 AM
To some of us OC is too confrontational at all

That is where I disagree...when you say that a regular guy, just going about his day, open carrying, is "confrontational" or "shake people up"

BTW
On the west bank of the Mississippi across the river from New Orleans their used to be a wine store and everyone carry cocked-and-locked 45s.

Certainly I am not going to suggest that I am the one to judge if it was strange or scary, because obviously I was MORE comfortable with those guys armed.

But they did a brisk business and the hundreds of customers that came and went every day didn't seem to notice the lovely customized guns.



So all of you total OC prohibitionists, what is your solution? throw away the right?

How do we get there? (and don't say "education" without offering who and how it is coming from)

ArmedBear
April 24, 2010, 12:07 PM
A quote from Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit): "Those who have no backbone will do the bidding of those who do."

OC is legal and, while not practiced by most people in the city, common enough that you see people carrying guns in the grocery store and the park, now and again, here in Idaho.

You know what? It's no big deal. I usually CC, but failing to HIDE your gun at all times is not a big deal. It only seems like a big deal if you imagine it to be, in your own mind.

Ever been to a nude beach? When you're talking about it, it sounds freaky. But... if you ever try it, after a minute or two, it's really no big deal. You feel normal, when you're the same as everyone else. In fact, because the sorts of people who frequent such places can be a rather open and accepting lot, it can be less unnerving than going to a beach where everyone is looking around and evaluating how everyone else looks in their swimsuits and trunks. And that's something that a lot of people would consider to be a lot more of a "big deal" than OC.

So many of our fears and inhibitions are complete constructs, with no basis that survives a real-world test. A fear of carrying a handgun in a belt holster is one of them.

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 12:07 PM
Mongoose, the problem is that you are assuming that you are going to change the mind of one (or more)anti gun liberals. I sure don't see much chance of that happening.

I agree--I don't think I'm likely to change the mind of any really rabid, anti-gun liberal. The people I'm after are the ones in the middle. They are the ones who decide every election.

They're the ones who, if they feel threatened by guns, will run to the left for protection, not to the right.

We're not going to convince everyone. I'll settle for 70 percent. :)

NavyLCDR
April 24, 2010, 12:16 PM
Mongoose, the problem is that you are assuming that you are going to change the mind of one (or more)anti gun liberals. I sure don't see much chance of that happening. There is a huge, well defined divide in this country between 'liberal' and 'conservative' that has hardened into concrete.

I think one of the roots of our problem is this: it is only the hardcore, in your face MINORITY of the population that gets any attention, and I think that is evident in the discussions here. We all seem to be fixated on the 10% outlier on both sides of the issue. We are fixated on the crying and moaning, foaming at the mouth anti-gun propaganda pusher that we see in political rallies and on TV, and we are fixated on the screaming, camo-wearing, rifle slung, two-pistol wearing gun pusher that we also see at political rallies and on TV.

Some of us seem to be unable to grasp the idea that 80% of the population is between those two. 80% of the population is just going about their everyday lives trying to scrape out a living. IMHO, we really need to focus on that 80% and go about our normal daily lives and let the 10% outliers on both sides "shoot it out" amongst themselves...

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 12:25 PM
So many of our fears and inhibitions are complete constructs, with no basis that survives a real-world test. A fear of carrying a handgun in a belt holster is one of them.

Standing on my chair cheering (typing with my toes)

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 12:56 PM
So many of our fears and inhibitions are complete constructs, with no basis that survives a real-world test. A fear of carrying a handgun in a belt holster is one of them.

So what? People don't act on the basis of reality, they act on the basis of their perception of reality.

Maybe that fear is irrational. But it is what it is, and you can't dismiss it just because you don't understand it yourself.

I see some response here that completely discounts the validity of the anti position. From our point of view, it's not valid. But here's the key to understanding this: From their point of view, it is valid.

You don't address their concerns by simply shouting your position at them. That's what an in-your-face approach to RKBA or to Open Carry does. Nobody has ever been convinced by threats, and the problem is, such things are viewed as threatening.

People can cheer til they're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. It's the same kind of mind-set that celebrated Charlton Heston as the voice of the NRA. He may have rallied the troops, but he rallied the opponents as well.

In fact, I think Charlton Heston did as much or more damage to the RKBA movement as Columbine did. The only people convinced by his approach ("They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands") were the people already predisposed to agree with him.

In fact, I think the NRA is having more success these days precisely because there is not a lightning rod like Heston at the controls.

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 01:06 PM
Mongoose

You are sooooo sensitive to the addlepated. And that is the EXACT wrong approach if you want to teach someone.

As one who has trained dozens of retrievers, student athletes and self defense students (many who are survivors of sexual assault) I can tell you that the way to help someone overcome fear is to help them face it.

ArmedBear
April 24, 2010, 01:09 PM
So what? People don't act on the basis of reality, they act on the basis of their perception of reality.



Look in the mirror. You are acting on what you believe that others believe. 2nd-order delusion.

My point is that OC becomes NO BIG DEAL after a couple minutes. While you will always have people on the ends of the bell curve, and, for that matter, people with mental illness even, MOST people aren't afraid of things after a short period, when they find out that nothing bad happens. If we didn't do that, we would all go crazy. That's how the human mind works.

My point isn't that there aren't antis. My point is that we construct a lot of our own fears. Those who fear those who fear those who OC are doing the same.

In general, OC activists are NOT saying, "Screw you!" to antis. What they're demonstrating is: "See. People carry guns, and nothing bad happens."

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 01:13 PM
AB

You are absolutely correct

Also, you are barking up a tree.

The anti-OC folks on this thread are not willing to take real life examples

sonier
April 24, 2010, 01:16 PM
mongoose what are you doing to promote the second amendment? im noticing you dont like ti be confronted or confront others so how can you be helping when you dont want to confront and how can you teach if you dont confrontpeople passively? maybe i missed what you were doing through these 6 pages.

sonier
April 24, 2010, 01:17 PM
armed bear WELL PUT!!!

mhodge
April 24, 2010, 03:25 PM
As a GFL (GA Firearms License) holder, I prefer to CC. I have no problem with someone OC'ing. I was at a wedding last weekend and there was a guy OC. I have to admit that it was weird, considering I wasn't packing(it was only as far away as the truck). I don't like being around others with guns, including cops, if I'm not armed. It's nothing personal, just an instinct sort of thing. I don't know if I'm the only one who feels that way? I once heard a quote that an armed society is a polite society and couldn't agree more. I feel everybody ought to legally be able to carry however they want too. Period.
As far as any one side, OC v. CC, setting anyone back, why should we oppose either one? That's the wrong question. It should be the ones who would deny either the right to exercise self defense in any manner that we should be together against.

inSight-NEO
April 24, 2010, 03:33 PM
In general, OC activists are NOT saying, "Screw you!" to antis. What they're demonstrating is: "See. People carry guns, and nothing bad happens."

I agree. The hard part is convincing the anti-gun and/or the "on the fence" majority of this very idea.

Leaving the pure anti-gunners aside, the other folks seem to have developed a certain idea about weapons via Hollywood and the various newscasts, etc., etc., ad nauseum. This to the point where merely seeing a gun (in public...if not strapped to a badge carrying officer) seems to incite images straight from a Martin Scorsese film. Of course, the solid, hardcore anti-gun crowd realizes this and uses such fear as a weapon...more often than not for mere political gain.

How can this be combated? The reasonable choice is through "education" (via various means) and of course, the pro-gun community (whether while wearing or not) showing a solid level of maturity; NOT the usual anti-government (and often radical) rhetoric most "on the fence" people are subjected to. Unfortunately, this message is not getting through to enough people. Why? Heck...I am not sure. Hollywood? The government? Or the mere idea that even the well meaning "pro gunners" seem more concerned with winning over the politicians than the public? I just do not know.

Either way, until certain levels of structured, well-thought communication are implemented, I feel topics such as "open carry" will always be viewed with skepticism and simply dismissed as "pro second amendment"/militant style rhetoric.

Public awareness of the whole idea that "guns can indeed be used for good and can serve a positive role within the civilian community," seems paramount. Several pro-gun establishments have done a decent job at pushing such an idea within the political realm. Now, it is time to begin really focusing on passing such a message to the civilian community. It is not near enough to merely fall back on the old "second amendment" argument. This means nothing to anti-gunners or on-the-fencers. A different approach is needed, IMHO. Will this be easy? I am betting not. But, since when has that ever been a real excuse? Winning the political battles is indeed important when it comes to the concerns of those who already own weapons. However, it does little to persuade those who fear them to begin with.

Of course, this has been covered before. I guess it bears repeating as it often becomes quite frustrating that topics such as this seem to always require such dissection and certainly result in controversy.

I will say, in closing, that the whole idea of "you will take my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands" philosophy just does not cut it in the current world we live in. It is crap like this that only keeps us where we are....on the slippery slope.

JohnKSa
April 24, 2010, 05:01 PM
Johnska keeps calling the civil rights comparison a false dichotomy, but it isn't. It's the exact same thing.No, what I'm calling a false dichotomy is the repeated assertion that it's got to be all or nothing. That the only alternative is not OC'ing at all.

I agree that the civil rights parallel is a good one. The point I was making is that the biggest advances in the civil rights were accomplished in a prudent manner. That is, making a clear statement but in a very calculated manner.The problem with taking a 'reasonable' or 'under favorable circumstances' approach to open carry is that these idea are very subjective.People are very subjective. If you want to effectively influence them you're going to have to learn to deal with this challenge constructively.It's impossible. should we wait forever to do it when we aren't offending anyone?It's not impossible and again, no one is saying to STOP or WAIT FOREVER, but rather to be prudent in the way one exercises this right. I will settle for letting them be surprised that someone is carrying a gun, and asking someone; "Isn't that illegal?" finding out it isn't, and learning to live with it.Except that they don't have to learn to live with it. They can begin a campaign to change the laws and if there is sufficient support then they will very likely accomplish their goals.Even if you do your best to exercise judgment to make sure you don't offend anyone, you never know when you will bump into someone who would be offended by your gun no matter what the circumstances are.A person can't do any better than their best. As has been pointed out, there are definitely people who won't be convinced and won't find OC reasonable under any circumstances. Those folks are a loss--can't do much about them. But that doesn't mean that we should assume that everyone is a loss. The hardcore antis aren't going to be convinced but there are folks out there who CAN be convinced and their attitude will be affected by the confluence of circumstances. Whether the venue is appropriate and whether the attitude, actions and appearance of the OC'er are good or bad.So all of you total OC prohibitionists, what is your solution? throw away the right?THIS is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about. First of all, there aren't many "total OC prohibitionists" on this thread. I'm certainly not one. Second, it's not an "all or nothing" kind of situation. Saying that folks should be prudent in the exercise of the right is NOT the same thing as saying we have to "throw away the right".The anti-OC folks on this thread are not willing to take real life examples.First of all, there aren't many anti-OC folks on this thread. It's counterproductive to keep pretending that this discussion is pro-OC vs. anti-OC when it's really about PRUDENT OC vs. folks who don't like the sound of that. Second, scenario busting is an endless endeavor. For every scenario one works out there are 10 more. You are correct that no one is willing break this down into a binary decision tree and the reason is that it's impossible to find the bottom of that deep pit.

But that doesn't mean there's not an answer for when to OC and when not to. It's really very simple. Be prudent. Be aware of the circumstances. Be careful about your attidude, actions and appearance. Be a good representative for gun owners.I can tell you that the way to help someone overcome fear is to help them face it.Again, this is ALMOST right. For a person who WANTS TO OVERCOME THEIR FEAR, the best way to help them is to help them face it and IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

What you're ignoring is that the average person on the street isn't trying to overcome their fear of OC (to the extent they have such a fear), they're just going about their business. You don't help a person overcome fear by putting them face to face with their fear without warning, on the street.

AKElroy
April 24, 2010, 05:04 PM
I think that is called "concealed"

Yeh, but only kind of, in the same way Stephen Tyler is fully heterosexual.

ArmedBear
April 24, 2010, 05:17 PM
be prudent in the way one exercises this right.

That seems blatantly obvious, to me, but then again, I live in a place that still has a culture of politeness and respect that many places seem to have lost.

inSight-NEO
April 24, 2010, 05:29 PM
Be a good representative for gun owners.

You are hitting the nail on that proverbial head here. Too many people are being exposed to the "dark side" of weapon ownership (thanks to the often narrow minded, politically motivated media). Showing the "silver lining" is what is needed. Being a "good representative" is a start.

All of this talk about open carry being good or bad is really just a footnote when compared to the real issue at hand; simply too many people out there fear weapons...period. This fear, while understandable, is often based on misconception.

If I walk in to an establishment carrying a screwdriver in my back pocket, nobody would even notice. If they did, they probably would not think anything of it. Yet, this very item could become a deadly weapon at any time of my choosing. It is my hope that, one day, guns will become liken to the screwdriver...an item of utilitarian purpose; mainly used for good, but with the knowledge that it can be used for evil. This very idea being based on understanding and respect....not fear.

Aside from the fear of death and taxes (a bit of humor here), barring psychological illness, the genesis of fear seems to be culturally stimulated.

Zoogster
April 24, 2010, 05:30 PM
Open Carry is one of the greatest ways to educate the public that firearms carried in public do not lead to bloodshed.

Concealed carry does not do this in the same way because nobody ever knows they are standing next to someone with a gun in the checkout line.
The only thing concealed carry is to all except those who are exercising it is a statistic. Somewhere out there some people have some guns, and make up .__ percent of people.
Criminal use of firearms on the other hand makes the news regularly. So everyone is well aware of that, leading to lopsided representation.

Open carry is right there in front of people, and makes the statement that normal people with guns around you does not automatically cause problems.
This may initially cause some to be nervous, but that is a phase, and once you progress passed that phase it becomes normal and actually causes firearms and the carrying of firearms to be seen more or less as normal as carrying something like a cell phone.

In fact one of the only negatives I see with the passage of AZ's bill that allows everyone to conceal freely is there may be less open carry. Arizona is currently a place you can walk down the street open carrying and people won't even remark or notice most of the time. It is like walking down the street with a cell phone.
It could make the public less aware of firearms and their presence and cause them to be more anti over years.


I would cite many examples that support OC and go into more details, but I doubt most people will even read to the 6th page, so will end with that.

ArmedBear
April 24, 2010, 05:37 PM
Concealed carry does not do this in the same way because nobody ever knows they are standing next someone with a gun in the checkout line.


Exactly. If 50% of the population were to be carrying, the Brady Bunch and their ilk would still be in the position to convince the remaining 50% that, IF regular citizens carried guns, all hell would break loose. Even SOME of the carriers might believe that MOST people can't be trusted, because they wouldn't know how many guns are around, either.

Obviously, if one really wishes to educate, one must be polite, respectful, a good representative, friendly, and probably clean-cut and respectable-looking, too. Yes, that's a hell of a burden to bear at times. Some people are willing to. Let them (sometimes "them" includes me).:)

inSight-NEO
April 24, 2010, 05:45 PM
It could make the public less aware of firearms and their presence and cause them to be more anti over years.

I guess I am missing the logic here. You mentioned, prior to this statement, the idea that openly carrying a weapon is very commonplace. Yet, these two ideas seem to conflict.

If the general public [given a particular state] is used to seeing hip strapped weapons, then how would this lead to them becoming more "anti" over the years? If anything, I would think that the residents of such a "pro gun" state would think nothing of it..i.e., guns being, for the lack of a better phrase, [I]par for the course; in other words, they would be less inclined to understand why others are making such a big deal out of nothing! If the "fear"/lack of understanding is not there, then what is left to truly complain about?

Let me pose a scenario. We all drive a car everyday. Yet, do we fear cars? No. Heck, we see hundreds, if not thousands, of them a week. Does this mean that every car we see is being driven by a responsible individual? Hell no. That is what "defensive driving" and awareness is all about. Ditto with those who ride motorcycles. Why should guns be any different? Nothing wrong with being aware, defensive and/or cautious..take your pick. But, allowing oneself to be overcome with abject fear? That is due to a lack of understanding, knowledge and to a large degree, exposure. I apologize if I seem to be hung up on the whole "comparing vehicles to guns" thing...but, to me, there is a direct correlation involved. Almost anything I can think of can be both dangerous (or fatal) and yet, utilitarian and so forth...I firmly believe guns should fall within this category vs merely being construed as instruments of death and destruction. Hell, even the plastic surrounding the toilet paper I buy comes with a printed warning.

To me, the more exposure individuals have to weapons, not just through visible exposure but also via weapon education and the responsible, peaceful and mature attitude(s) of law abiding gun owners/carriers, the better. Think "positive reinforcement."

sbrenner
April 24, 2010, 08:32 PM
I have been a Concealed Handgun Instructor

for the State of Texas since the start in 1995.

All the United States of America have seen crime go down

when citizens have started CCW of firearms in their States.

48 of the 50 States have some form of CCW.

The two State that do not have CCW have the highest

rates of crime.

The next step is Open Carry of Firearms.

I have 21 years as a LEO in Texas.

Some Cities the LEO's open carry with their badges.

I have done that and most people do not notice the firearm or

badge.

People dressed in normal clothes and going about their business

will not be noticed or even a problem.

When people go OCing they should just be nice and normal.

I can see no problems. Unless someone goes out of their way

to cause a problem.

This is my first post. Looks like a very nice place to be.

Thank you all and the administration.
Steve Brenner

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 09:10 PM
Welcome to the HighRoad Steve

inSight-NEO
April 24, 2010, 09:16 PM
Yes...welcome to the forum Steve. Good to have you aboard!

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 09:39 PM
Guillermo said:

Mongoose

You are sooooo sensitive to the addlepated. And that is the EXACT wrong approach if you want to teach someone.

As one who has trained dozens of retrievers, student athletes and self defense students (many who are survivors of sexual assault) I can tell you that the way to help someone overcome fear is to help them face it.

First, people aren't retrievers.

Second, I think you're dealing with people who want to overcome their fears, not people who don't want that.

Big difference.

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 09:46 PM
Sonier said:

mongoose what are you doing to promote the second amendment? im noticing you dont like ti be confronted or confront others so how can you be helping when you dont want to confront and how can you teach if you dont confrontpeople passively? maybe i missed what you were doing through these 6 pages.

What difference does it make to you what I do to promote the second amendment? Do you think the quality of my argument relates in any way to what I do or don't do? Arguments stand on their own merits.

Fact is, I do a number of things, including publicly. Including addressing gun control in a newspaper column that I wrote about 18 months ago, as part of a regular weekly column I wrote for 12 1/2 years. The fact that I haven't listed them here for you is of no consequence.

I find it interesting that several of the more...aggressive-appearing people here missed the main point along the way. Very gentle exposure to open carry may well, over time, work. In your face, daring you to object, in groups with the intent of making a scene open carry is an entirely different thing.

And it is the second, in-your-face approach I'm referring to here.

Surely that's apparent, is it not?

mongoose33
April 24, 2010, 09:59 PM
SBrenner said:

The two State that do not have CCW have the highest

rates of crime.

The two states, presumably, are Wisconsin and Illinois (I live in Wisconsin).

Nothing I can find suggests the two are even near the top in crime rates. If you want to see for yourself, google "2009 crime rate state rankings" and see what you get.

Wisconsin is actually a fairly safe state by rank; Illinois a bit lower than midpoint.

Not a good argument to make, when the data doesn't actually match the argument. All that has to happen is a person points out that the evidence used in an argument is actually wrong, and all the other statements made are called into question as well.

Here are two of the many indications of crime rate rankings:

http://os.cqpress.com/rankings/CrimeStateRankings_2009.pdf

The above table is referenced here:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/03/25/99012.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States (Look at the map of the US about 2/3 of the way down the page).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg

Darker states have higher crime rates.

inSight-NEO
April 24, 2010, 10:16 PM
Very gentle exposure to open carry may well, over time, work. In your face, daring you to object, in groups with the intent of making a scene open carry is an entirely different thing.

I agree. I personally am all for open carry (as my previous posts imply). However, IMHO, gun related issues should always be handled delicately.

Regardless, to me, whether or not to open carry is not the main issue here. Heck, even whether or not we are allowed to CC is not the main issue. The main issue revolves around the idea that simply too many individuals out there still fear guns and see them as nothing more than malevolent objects. This needs to change.

To me, a similar mentality exists with those who think killing any shark they see will make the oceans more safe; all while completely ignoring the multitude of ways one can be injured or killed at sea. And what are the odds of a fatal shark attack? Next to nil. It is narrow minded thinking such as this that really pisses me off.

Now, there are several approaches to such a dilemma. One, cram your opinions down the throats of others and tell them that they are stupid for thinking otherwise or two, resolve the issue through patient (yet deliberate) and rational argument. I vote for the latter.

Only time will tell if such an approach works.

Guillermo
April 24, 2010, 11:43 PM
Mongoose,


After reading your posts, where you attack every argument, including by those with a lot more knowledge in OC areas. Of course you haven't come up with one single, solitary solution other than "continue to conceal" which is not a solution. That is giving into the antis...in which case, they win.

Interestingly enough, the tone of your rants are that of an anti. A troll? Quite possibly.

The bottom line is that your whining and attacking while offering nothing is useless and not very HighRoad.

As for me, I am going to avail myself of the delightful device provided by the wonderful people that run this outstanding board...the ignore button.

230therapy
April 25, 2010, 12:04 AM
Hiding guns in the closet makes the anti-rights morons bold.

We have the terrible laws in place because gun owners do NOT stage protests and marches. They are quiet and don't make demands.

The lack of participation in the 2A March in DC is an example of that attitude.

Open carry is a form of demand for respect for the right. I think it is going to be the defining action by gun owners since it's something they can do on an individual basis. Heck...it already is in many states. Many police departments have had their leashes yanked because of OC...it's about time.

California is a lost cause anyway...OC there does not matter. There is no RKBA in that state and its citizens are subject to the legislators' whims. It's long past for California gun owners to rise up and start making demands...they have not done so and probably won't ever do so. I have yet to hear of any serious problems because of the recently passed ammunition limit law.

loneviking
April 25, 2010, 11:15 AM
Mongoose:
I find it interesting that several of the more...aggressive-appearing people here missed the main point along the way. Very gentle exposure to open carry may well, over time, work. In your face, daring you to object, in groups with the intent of making a scene open carry is an entirely different thing.

And it is the second, in-your-face approach I'm referring to here.

Surely that's apparent, is it not?

I have to disagree. The anti's have screamed plenty loud enough over just one person carrying, such as the Pennsylvania lady who had her permit revoked for OC'ing to a soccer game. They also, obviously, have hollered over groups OC'ing to Starbucks. You can't win with folks like this, and there is no 'gentle' involved--they simply go into orbit at the sight of anything like a gun.

And yes, in some cases such as unloaded OC in Cal., there is certainly comfort in numbers. Making a scene? So? Even one makes a scene, so why not several?

California has turned into an anti gun cesspool. I grew up in the central valley, and in the area where I and several other neighborhood kids used to run all over the place with 22's and shotguns, now the sight of a BB gun induces panic. And the reason things got that way is because the gun community didn't, wouldn't and maybe couldn't fight the nuts in Sacramento that did this. OC is one way of fighting back and reclaiming or preserving our rights as gun owners.

mongoose33
April 25, 2010, 11:32 AM
Guillermo Opined:


Mongoose,


After reading your posts, where you attack every argument, including by those with a lot more knowledge in OC areas.



A lot more knowledge? Of what? Social Change?

To be an expert in OC you have to....OC. Big deal.



Of course you haven't come up with one single, solitary solution other than "continue to conceal" which is not a solution. That is giving into the antis...in which case, they win.



You must not have read the things I posted then. I've never said "Continue to Conceal" is a solution.

And when, Guillermo, you say I said things I never said, you call into question your entire argument. You're making things up. I don't appreciate that--not very High Road if you ask me.


What I've said--and you'd know this if you were more interested in what I said than in dissing me--is that the in-your-face approach to Open Carry carries great costs.

There are other approaches, and I've written about them. Did you read them or just put in some kind of box simply because you don't agree?

Here are two posts which explain some of it, from the "How to Convert Your Liberal Friends" thread:

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6268764&postcount=145

and

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=6268793&postcount=146





Interestingly enough, the tone of your rants are that of an anti. A troll? Quite possibly.



Or quite possibly someone who has given this more thought than the knee-jerk "I know my rights and I'll jam them into anyone's faces who objects" reactors we've seen here.

I teach social change. I do it. I'm good at it. I'm what you might consider to be an expert at it. And when it comes to reaching the people in the middle, an in-your-face approach typified by large groups of people open carrying as a protest is exactly the kind of thing--were I actually an anti--I'd exploit the devil out of.

I'm really surprised at your vehemence here. It almost makes me think you're an Anti plant, trying to get gun owners to do stupid things so they look immoderate and push more people over to the anti-gun side.



The bottom line is that your whining and attacking while offering nothing is useless and not very HighRoad.



Wow. I'm discussing tactics; that changes nothing I've said into either whining or uselessness.

This kind of reaction, Guillermo, is exactly what I'd do if I were trying to spur gun-rights people into doing stupid things.

Sort of like what has been done w/ the Tea Party protests.


As for me, I am going to avail myself of the delightful device provided by the wonderful people that run this outstanding board...the ignore button.

The universal plaint of those who've lost an argument.

That's fine. I can't reach you. I can continue to contribute, however, to a discussion with the thoughtful members of THR who won't stick their fingers in their ears and repeat "La, La, La" so they can't hear anything which is counter to their own carefully constructed beliefs.


That said, now that Guillermo isn't listening, let me note something again I said in a previous post: Open Carry, per se, isn't bad; the odd person here and there, doing prudent OC, not jamming it in others' faces, not being threatening (and to understand what is threatening means one has to look at the "threat" from the others' point of view); that, I think it's clear, can be effective. Over time, not a bad tactic.

Groups of gun owners doing protests? I'm wondering if this truly is the work of anti-gun activists, looking for pretense to create a social protest against Open Carry, which can then translate into more efforts in congress.

I find it difficult to believe the in-your-face group-carry approach to be the work of thoughtful gun owners. I'd almost think it has to be the work of anti-gun plants stirring up people to do things that are not in their long term interests. It's certainly consistent with that kind of approach, and certainly the kind of tactic I'd employ were I on that side.

hso
April 25, 2010, 11:41 AM
I advise everyone to review the rules section from time to time.

To stay on the high road while having a civil debate of controversial issues the participants are required to attack the argument and not the individual making it. Insults, name calling, ad hominem and personal attacks are easy traps for lazy thinkers to fall into and are not acceptable.

M&PVolk
April 25, 2010, 11:42 AM
While I myself have not open carried, I appreciate those that do. The fact is that no stigmatized behavior, activity or right has ever been normalized through quiet compliance with publically accepted norms. Acceptance is always gained through vocal and public activism.

In the war to KABA, open carry is our closest parallel to demonstrations, marches, and refusing to be treated as abnormal. Encourage it.

bigfatdave
April 25, 2010, 11:46 AM
A person can't do any better than their best. As has been pointed out, there are definitely people who won't be convinced and won't find OC reasonable under any circumstances. Those folks are a loss--can't do much about them. Well, there is one thing you can do for them, which is to make them look like ninnies quivering in fear of something on the belt of a perfectly reasonable person.

I'm not big on the concept of forcing confrontations with OC, but I'll defend the right to my last breath. Prudent OC is better, but even the most provocative OC shows the (generally uninterested and uncommitted) public that guns don't cause violence on their own, and that the rabid anti-arms groups are generally not to be trusted due to their irrational bias and phobias.

danez71
April 25, 2010, 12:34 PM
Although I strongly support the right to open carry.

Just think for a moment.

It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.


It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate.:evil:

You’re not going to win-over anyone over who’s on the fence with open carry.
You’re not going to convert the mildly anti.

The only upside I see is people you see all the time (like your barber, or coworkers) and who know you by name may eventually see that you have a gun and know that it’s ok that you have a gun, and you're not a nut, but that's just you not everyone else.


But other than that only downsides.


And if you still insist on doing it
If you’re slinging a gun over your shoulder make it a
Bolt action rifle (without a scope) or a double barrel shotgun, not an AR15, AK pattern or some other easily vilified gun.

And don’t wear BDUs, or a beret, or a boonie hat, or other clothing that makes you look like some kind of Soldier of Fortune wanabe you should look like everyone else.

And openly show your support for something everyone else supports, like a pink breast cancer pin.
So that you have a common goal with other non-open-carriers.



Anyway rant over. ;)

The part I made bold is why I think you're wrong.

Think of it this way. If people such as store clerks, your barber, your doctors office were all OC, it would demonstrate that its the state of mind that is dangerous.... not a gun, knife, hammer, screwdriver.

NavyLCDR
April 25, 2010, 12:52 PM
Welcome to THR, Steve B.!

Big Boy
April 25, 2010, 02:34 PM
I no longer understand what is being argued about in this thread.

The two that are posting against open carry keep saying over and over again, "It must be done prudently". There is no one is this thread who has even attempted to disagree with that. In fact every one on the OC side has been discussing being "at the grocery store, the hardware store, laundry mat, gas station." Normal, every day, "prudent" activities.

So what are we still arguing about? Unless you are completely against ANY one open carrying in ANY fashion. Which, if you are, is fine. Argue to that point. Everyone who is just repeating themselves is getting no where.

The other thing that has been said is that we are shoving our guns in the faces of the people and making them deal with it. No. Maybe people who aren't "prudently" OC'ing are doing this. With AK's and AR's in the middle of rallies. However, rallies are meant to be over the top to prove a point anyhow, so I don't necessarily disagree with that either. What it seems the people against OC in this thread are trying to tell us, is that the average citizen (all of us in this thread who OC) that goes and shops for his groceries, checks out, is nice to the cashier, gets in his car and goes home is some how hurting the gun movement.

We are not in their faces. Our guns are on our hips, they can look at them if they want. Mongoose, you have even stated in your own posts "that OC can scare people because of what the media has shown guns to be like." Yep. It can, because that's how they believe guns to be. That's why we are out there. That's why we OC. Is so that people can see an average citizen with a gun, watch him shop and go home, and then wonder why they were scared of that gun.

We aren't running around the store going up to people and saying "HEY! Look at my gun! Do you agree with this?!" The only time I've discussed my OC'ing is when someone comes up to me and asks me about it. Generally in one of only a few manners, "Are you a cop? Do you have a permit for that? Is that real?" And they are generally always calmly asked. That is when I have the chance to discuss with them the in's and out's of gun ownership and OC. It's never an argument, and the person generally ends that conversation with "Huh, I had no idea that was legal." That, is again, why we OC. To show people the rights they have, to show them that guns are not frightening unless in the hands of a criminal, and that normal people with normal families own and carry guns.

You say we shouldn't be OC'ing because it could scare someone who is frightened about a gun, and they could vote against guns later. If they are already scared of guns because of the media's portrayal they are going to vote against them whether they've had an encounter with an OC'er or not. They're scared of them, why would they vote for them? The only thing that could change these people's minds is interaction. Knowing that guns aren't scary because they see "Joe" come through their check out line once a week with a gun and no one has died. Because they see "Bob" Pump gas into his car every Tuesday and Thursday, with a gun strapped to his hip, and no one died. It is this normal, practical, prudent interaction that changes people's minds.

I believe snakes are one of the scariest deleted -- <Sam> things on this earth. That's the truth. I know a lot of people own them as pets, and I don't care <edited -- Sam>. I want all of them dead and gone. What is the only way you could change this in me? Slowly, and calmly introduce me to snakes, and let me learn first hand that they can be calm, fun creatures to own. I can guarantee you that would take a good amount of time, and I would be scared as hell at first, but I will never ever learn to even consider the concept of a snake as something normal or not scary until introduced to them.

sarduy
April 25, 2010, 04:27 PM
if they allow open carry in FL i would do it... but down here no body is doing nothing ;(

JohnKSa
April 25, 2010, 07:52 PM
The two that are posting against open carry keep saying over and over again, "It must be done prudently". There is no one is this thread who has even attempted to disagree with that. In fact every one on the OC side has been discussing being "at the grocery store, the hardware store, laundry mat, gas station." Normal, every day, "prudent" activities.I've been saying "it must be done prudently" but I am not posting against open carry. I'm saying, rather, that it must be done prudently. The reason I've said it over and over is in an attempt to get the point across that I am NOT POSTING AGAINST OPEN CARRY but only saying it should be done prudently.

Second, I have gotten a lot of responses that easily qualify as disagreement.

Third, it's not the "activities" that need to be prudent, it's the person carrying. A person can OC while doing something "prudent" like going to the hardware store and still not be OC'ing prudently if their attitude, actions or appearance is out of line--if they're not being a good representative for gun owners.I'm not big on the concept of forcing confrontations with OC, but I'll defend the right to my last breath. Prudent OC is better, but even the most provocative OC shows the (generally uninterested and uncommitted) public that guns don't cause violence on their own, and that the rabid anti-arms groups are generally not to be trusted due to their irrational bias and phobias.I will defend the right to OC but I will not support the actions of people who don't OC in a prudent manner. By definition they're being unwise and I don't support people who do unwise things with firearms.

Barbara
April 25, 2010, 10:52 PM
Anyone who objects to a gun that they can see objects to guns they can't see..you're just allowing them to live under the illusion that guns aren't all around them.

Sauer Grapes
April 25, 2010, 11:39 PM
I have to disagree. I've had some very positive encounters with people curious about openly carrying a handgun. I always take the time to explain the laws of Pa. and explain if need be that I do not advocate anyone being able to buy or posess firearms that are prohibited by law.

I will also explain on ocassion that, if just one person had been armed during a horrific crime it could have saved lives. I've been doing this for a couple years now and haven't had any negative feedback to date.

It's silly for the government to keep making it harder and harder for law bidding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. Guns aren't the problem, it's the idiots that spend their whole life trying to exploit the majority that are hard working people.

AdamJaw89
April 26, 2010, 04:47 AM
i open carry all the time and i don't give a damn what people think or say, most people don't even notice there's a gun on my hip and the people that do just look and look away and go about their business. i figure if its legal to do then why not do it and exercise my right to open carry it:)

Nutgun
April 29, 2010, 10:00 PM
With all the biased news reporting today unfortunately the picture of the sterotyped redneck, Rambo, loose cannon will be the one in the paper. It will be used against the regular people to exploite their agenda. I completely understand the OP and the reason for it. You can't give them any ammo to use against us.

Zoogster
April 29, 2010, 10:39 PM
I completely disagree.

Seeing responsible firearms in public shows people who don't carry firearms that firearms are around them every day causing no problems. It goes a long way towards severing a mental connection with people simply having a firearm and the evening news report of crimes involving firearms. Making the distinction between most good gun users and the few bad gun users clear.
No longer are the only carriers of firearms in the minds of the public the bad guys in the stories, but regular people they walk by.

Concealed firearms are hidden, and antis and fence sitters or those who simply do not carry never know how many are around them, unless one is misused. So as far as they know the only firearms in public tend to be the ones being misused they become aware of or make the news.


Far from giving ammo to use against us it typically shows that the ammo they do use against us (criminals committing crimes with guns) has nothing to do with many people who responsibly carry firearms on a regular basis.

A concealed firearm is a statistic, known only to those who research the number issued, and is still just an impersonal number. Open carried firearms are more than a statistic, you see them, you know they are there, and you know nobody is being shot with them. That is a personal statement no fence sitter misses.

It also means if they are a victim of crime they realize how many thousands of guns carried every day were not involved. Their only experience with a gun in public is not looking down the barrel or watching a robbery of someone else.

Nutgun
May 3, 2010, 09:21 PM
Fence sitters and antis are setting us back.

People that don't know or remember history are setting us back. People with pitch forks and brooms are going to do whatever they are told.

Our country, our freedoms we have now are because of guns. Not wrist smacks or pitch fork jabs.

The history of the years right before & right after Hitler took power are repeating right here, right now. The German people and the rest of the world didn't see it coming either. You see what happened after it was too late.

bigfatdave
May 4, 2010, 12:12 AM
People with pitch forks and brooms are going to do whatever they are told.What about pitchforks and torches?

Dashunde
May 7, 2010, 11:59 AM
I think the OP is right about this.

From my geographical view, its an extra distraction and a viable tool used by the anti's.
I'm in the very liberal infested area of St. Louis where CCW is now a solid daily thing, OC would freak these people out and ruin CCW.

And while it would be nice not to care about what other people think the fact is that those other people are voters too.
If they're spooked, they vote against, ignorance to our CCW is bliss for them, why jerk their chains with OC?

I have no idea why any of us would want the looks and attention that open carry brings with it anyway.
More importantly OC removes your tactical element of surprise and makes you the first target to ambush just prior to a conflict.
I just dont see the point of it within the confines of "civilization".
Out in the mountains or on a hunt is different, of course.

Yes, I do understand and agree with "shall not infringe", but unfortunately that concept versus reality and implementation are very different.

NavyLCDR
May 7, 2010, 01:21 PM
Open Carry tends to unnecessarily spook the anti's and promotes a "wild west" persona in their minds.

Let's put the blame where it belongs, shall we? The anti-gun propaganda pushed by the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups unnecessarily spooks the anti's and the same propaganda promotes the "wild west" persona in their minds. And without any visible evidence presented to the public to the contrary, they are simply going to continue to believe it, because that is all they are going to see and hear on the issue.

You know, people didn't get where they are today by the actions of the pro-gun crowd. They got where they are today because of the actions of the vocal anti-gun minority coupled with the inaction of the pro-gun crowd. Continued inaction by the pro-gun crowd is going to do nothing to change the situation.

Dashunde
May 7, 2010, 02:31 PM
First, if you look at your post time and my edit time above you'll see that I didnt care for that sentence either, and that I removed it almost an hour before your post hit.
But since you grabbed it...

TV and movies featuring Jesse James and all of the other famous bad guys have reached far more people and have permanetly tied open carry to outlaws, gunslingers and dusty crusty sherrifs more than anyones campaign ever will.
There is no way that open carry will ever be separated from the Wild West, its just not going to happen. Worse yet, to some degree it is part of our factual history - cant change that.
As far as the vast majority of the population is concerned 2 types of people (will) open carry:
1)Outlaw wannabe's, Wild West Sherrif wannabe's, and far Right gun nuts who think its cool.
2)Police with appropriate uniform.

One is simply not going to get the vote, and two doesnt need the vote.

48 states now have CCW laws on the books and I'm thrilled about it.
Why continue to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?
It will only serve to irritate the currently quiet anti's who have been keeping a "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" mentality about guns.
Waking them into activism would be downright stupid.

Believe it or not, like it or not, open carry is not even acceptable to all gun-loving folk.
Among the people I have spoken with about it, several view it it as socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish.
I compare legalized open carry to a loud fart in a crowded room... It might be legal, but very few are going to like it.

Maybe after (hopefully after I'm long gone) our citizens are forced to take back our country in some form of anarchy open carry will be a acceptable and steady warning to the government that we are still in control. But until then...

I think we should stop wasting our time, money and resources to push open carry (to our own detriment) and instead use those resources to diligently protect the progress that we have made so far.
Maybe we should work on CA or IL first? How about going after those pesky FOID cards?

And for the record..
Do I think we should have the right to open carry? Yes.
Do I think we should actually do it? No.

NavyLCDR
May 7, 2010, 05:22 PM
48 states now have CCW laws on the books and I'm thrilled about it.

So am I, except for one thing. All but three of those states cause concealed carry to be a privilege that an elite group of people must pay the state for permission to engage in.

There is no way that open carry will ever be separated from the Wild West, its just not going to happen.

Not until Americans start doing it normal everyday life doing things that people do in normal everyday life.

Why continue to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?

I literally carry my gun in a holster on my belt. I have never pushed it into anyone's face. If I ever do push it in someone's face, there will be a very specific reason to do so.

And for the record..
Do I think we should have the right to open carry? Yes.
Do I think we should actually do it? No.

So, why have a right to do something, "socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish?" AND, if the government wants to legislate that right, then why do those "pro-gun" people that feel that way even care? Let them continue to pay the government for their licenses to carry concealed. Let them ask "the man's" permission to carry their guns. Who cares? According to those that feel that way would not society be a better place without all of us walking around, "continuing to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?"

I prefer to live in an America where a person is free to walk down the street with a gun on his/her belt without having to ask and pay for the government's permission to do so, and I am proud and thankful that I have the courage to stand up for that right and to exercise that right freely when/where legal to do so. George Washington and his men did not win independence from a British government tyranny by hiding their guns away and paying taxes and asking permission, and neither are we.

Gungnir
May 7, 2010, 05:37 PM
There is no way that open carry will ever be separated from the Wild West, its just not going to happen. Worse yet, to some degree it is part of our factual history - cant change that.

You are aware that the Wild West had per capita 20 times fewer robberies, 40 times fewer burglaries and thefts, and 5 times fewer homicides per year than current. That's also part of our factual history, can't change that either, but it is successfully ignored. Of course most everyone had a firearm, and carried it openly Mark Twain wound up getting a Colt 1851 Navy when he got to Nevada because he felt out of place not having a weapon. I think that given the crime rates in 1900 and 2010 going back to the Wild West may not be such a bad thing.

As far as the vast majority of the population is concerned 2 types of people (will) open carry:
1)Outlaw wannabe's, Wild West Sheriff wannabe's, and far Right gun nuts who think its cool.
2)Police with appropriate uniform.


How do you know? Is this personal experience or media hype. Or have you taken a study of people and heard their opinions? Chances are probably high it's media hype, which is not necessarily representative of the average US citizen (if there is such a beast).

Why continue to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?
It will only serve to irritate the currently quiet anti's who have been keeping a "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" mentality about guns.
Waking them into activism would be downright stupid.

Firstly pushing a gun literally into someone's face would be a firearms offense that no gun owner would do voluntarily without great risk of losing their firearms ownership rights (privileges...?). If it's on your hip then unless it's a 4 year old child, or you're taller than any NBA star then it's not in anyone's face it might be possible to buy a face holster for storage of your firearm although I can't see it as being very practical.

Secondly it's irritated the quiet anti's so much that Starbucks just posted a 769% increase in quarterly profits, are these "quiet anti's" living under rocks with no friends, no tv, no internet? Or are gun rights supporters more ubiquitous than we think and spend a lot of their disposable income on boutique coffee? That can't be right though, because surely they'd be spending their disposable income on firearms and ammunition if you believe the ABCNNBC media channels.

If legal firearm ownership is ever "out of mind" of the voting public then the 2nd amendment will be dead. However at the moment we do have a reasonably strong knowledge that gun ownership is legal, and you can go to a store and buy a gun.

However many people do not think that it is legal to carry a firearm. As proven many times by neighbors phoning the cops when someone's out mowing their lawn with their gun. Without public support we'll lose the right to carry firearms, if no one knows you can carry them we lose support; it's hard to support something you don't know about, if some people who don't believe that we should own and carry firearms gets upset, how upset can they get, so upset they vote for a strong gun control candidate, well they'll do that anyway so there's nothing lost.

Believe it or not, like it or not, open carry is not even acceptable to all gun-loving folk.

That is a REAL problem, carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig. You are carrying a tool, there is no more risk to you or anyone in carrying it IWB, thigh rig or any other way. The issue is those gun owners have been convinced that it is not socially acceptable to have a visibly carried gun, because people have become accustomed to others not having visibly carried guns (except the police). The only way to socialize that firearms may be carried, is for people to see the firearm. You can't sidle up to someone and furtively say "hey... buddy... wanna see my concealed carry piece?" well you can, if you're George Michael and you're in an LA restroom, but that does not help to further the cause and leads to charges that may prevent legal firearm ownership.

When the 2nd was written only criminals concealed their weapons. Today it seems that we believe that only criminals show their weapons. That's an interesting dichotomy I think.

Among the people I have spoken with about it, several view it it as socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish.

Yes the tactically foolish is trotted out frequently on these kinds of discussion, because you lose the element of surprise, which is interesting since if someone attempts to commit a crime against you they have the drop on you anyway otherwise you wouldn't need the firearm in the first place. There's a phrase that's very pertinent, "Surprise is an offensive tactic". However in the main from my personal experience I can draw from a belt or thigh holster faster than my IWB since there's less to get tangled up in. So what I lose in 0.5s surprise I make up for in 0.5s deployment time for a zero loss of overall "tactical response time".

And for the record..
Do I think we should have the right to open carry? Yes.
Do I think we should actually do it? No.
Then what is the point of having the right to open carry? If you can do it, but don't think you should, then it's about as much use as a concealed carry badge.

Deltaboy
May 7, 2010, 06:50 PM
I am for open Carry because the 2nd says this ..."SHALL NOT be infringed!"

Dashunde
May 7, 2010, 07:48 PM
I'm not going to argue it all much further - I made very valid points about stirring up the anti's that have been quiet so far and not involved in the issue one way or the other.
Keep pushing and the trends may head back the other way.

Right now, we're nearing a balance - no more Brady, no purchase permits (in MO), no waiting (in MO), CCW is almost everywhere with loads of reciprocity.
Things are MUCH better now than they were 10 years ago.

Let the status quo stick solidly with proof that it wasnt the wrong thing to do, meanwhile focusing on the last hold-outs and true Nazi states (IL CA).
Maintaining our current (huge) progress and turning those states is more important as a whole than chasing open carry - something that is likey to aggrivate many so that a few can do it.

Oh..
While admittedly my word selection was not perfect, your semantical chattering about my "in your face" is silly - you both know what I meant, even with the word "literally" thrown in.

inSight-NEO
May 7, 2010, 08:02 PM
Among the people I have spoken with about it, several view it it as socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish.

Socially impolite: Not much to say about this one except that I can think of at least 20 things off of the top of my head that, socially speaking, would be just as "impolite."

Aggressive: This depends entirely on ones point of view. However, the attitude/demeanor (good or bad) of the individual, choosing to carry a weapon in this manner, could have more of an impact on such a viewpoint than merely the sight of a weapon itself.

Silly: Only if one is harboring a cowboy fantasy or enjoys playing police officer. Outside of that, there is nothing silly about having quicker access to a weapon that could, one day, save a life.

Unnecessary: By whose standard? -see "tactically foolish"-

Brash: -see "aggressive"-

Tactically foolish: Well...this one really gets me. I guess all of those lawmen who OC everyday (PD, ATF, DEA, etc., etc.) are inadvertently being "tactically foolish." Shame on them. :rolleyes:

Yes...the element of surprise is always paramount; a CCW is great for this. But, should it be needed, being able to acquire a gun as quickly as possible is also quite important. In addition, the mere sight of a weapon could indeed become a crime deterrent itself (depending on the mindset of a potential aggressor).

There will always be a place for a CCW. For OC, maybe not as much. Having said this, I do strongly believe that it should be a legal option...to be used when one sees fit. Of course, there is always the option of doing both. ;)

I do not see the OC crowd as a bunch of cowboys wanting to become the next Wyatt Earp. Of course, this is because I understand the mentality behind those who are proponents of OC. Those who do not see this, well...they will arrive at the various conclusions you have (or those whom you "spoke" with).

As I have mentioned before. All of this anti-OC or "on the fence" business is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. This problem being that, in most areas, guns are still simply viewed as "evil." Yet, interestingly enough, when these same individuals see such an "evil" item strapped to the hip of an LEO, it all of a sudden becomes nothing more than a peace making/defensive accessory. But, strap this same weapon on a law abiding citizen....wow...it becomes the focus on all sorts of talk, ranging from mere conjecture to fear and unease.


Unfortunately, this public (and all too often, political) misconception needs to change before OC can truly become acceptable in the "mainstream".

basicblur
May 7, 2010, 08:05 PM
Ain't gonna repost the entire thing, but check out this post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=521757) for info on PBS news show tonight with a segment on open carry.

RatDrall
May 7, 2010, 09:04 PM
This thread is unbelievable, and shows what gun owners are up against. Too many people are too concerned with what others are doing, refuse to mind their own business.

Maybe we should work on CA or IL first?

That's for the citizens of those states to decide, and they have.

NavyLCDR
May 7, 2010, 09:29 PM
Oh..
While admittedly my word selection was not perfect, your semantical chattering about my "in your face" is silly - you both know what I meant, even with the word "literally" thrown in.

We aren't mind readers. Especially over the internet. And if you did not mean literally, then why did you feel the need to emphasize it by adding the word in.

Evenflo76
May 7, 2010, 09:33 PM
We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!

NavyLCDR
May 7, 2010, 10:50 PM
We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!

Especially if they are supposedly pro-RKBA!

wilkersk
May 7, 2010, 11:00 PM
I've seen plenty of Bubbas out there who I wish could be a little less "in-your-face" about their 2A rights. But, I'll tell you what bothers me just as much is the folks out there who are so certain of their own importance, that they presume to know who should and shouldn't get to enjoy the freedoms granted to all of us under the consitution and its subsequent amendments.

I don't carry a gun, except to go back and forth from matches, practice, and occasionally to the gun shop. But, I'll support the right of all law abiding US citizens to do so. And, I will defend that right along with all others that we, as American citizens, enjoy.

You can't legislate common sense. But violators are subject to the law of natural selection.

JohnKSa
May 8, 2010, 02:18 AM
Not much to say about this one except that I can think of at least 20 things off of the top of my head that, socially speaking, would be just as "impolite."I'm sure we could make a long list. I have no idea what that would prove. If it is "socially impolite" then the fact that there are many other things that are similarly "socially impolite" wouldn't make it any better or worse.So, why have a right to do something, "socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish?"There are many rights that can be exercised in an unwise, socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash manner. The fact that some people do doesn't mean the right should be abolished although the more people who do the more the possibility there is of the right being restricted. It does mean that people should be smart about how they exercise their rights.We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!This is a false dichotomy. You are making it sound like there are only two options, open carry or "hiding our preferences". I can't legally open carry here, but that doesn't mean I have to "hide my preferences" about open carry. It simply means I have to make my preferences known in other ways besides open carry.

Second, this statement carries the automatic assumption that only the "overly sensitive and closed minded" could possibly ever have any issues with open carry. Sweeping assumptions like this are often "sneaked" into discussions like this because they are otherwise unsupportable.However, the attitude/demeanor (good or bad) of the individual...That is part of the key.I guess all of those lawmen who OC everyday (PD, ATF, DEA, etc., etc.) are inadvertently being "tactically foolish." Shame on them.Uniformed LE are known to be armed in this country. Therefore concealing would have no effect on whether people perceived them to be armed or not and would merely make it more difficult for them to rapidly access their weapons.

The bottom line is that LEOs that open carry aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know and therefore open carry has no negative effect on their tactical situation."Surprise is an offensive tactic".This is a logical fallacy that plays on different meanings of the word "surprise". Surprise, in the strictest definition and in the exclusive context of military tactics (i.e. ambush) may be an offensive tactic, but that doesn't preclude the fact that having a useful capability in hidden reserve (a surprise) may be a huge advantage to a defender. Surprise (in the general sense of the word) can be either an offensive or defensive tactic.However in the main from my personal experience I can draw from a belt or thigh holster faster than my IWB since there's less to get tangled up in. So what I lose in 0.5s surprise I make up for in 0.5s deployment time for a zero loss of overall "tactical response time".This ignores the fact that concealment offers a defender the option of choosing a time to respond and also choosing whether or not to respond.

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

In short, if you carry openly you'd better be able to draw very rapidly because that may very well be the only option available to you other than surrendering and being disarmed.carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig.This is pure nonsense. Of course it's different. It's different if for no other reason than that one conceals and one doesn't.

If there's no difference between concealment and open carry then why does this thread even exist? How could anyone possibly have any disagreement or discussion about the differences between two things that aren't different?

As always, this is pro-open-carry John signing out by saying that as with any other firearm activity or any other right, open carry needs to be done prudently.

Gungnir
May 8, 2010, 05:43 AM
carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig. You are carrying a tool, there is no more risk to you or anyone in carrying it IWB, thigh rig or any other way.


This is pure nonsense. Of course it's different. It's different if for no other reason than that one conceals and one doesn't.

If there's no difference between concealment and open carry then why does this thread even exist? How could anyone possibly have any disagreement or discussion about the differences between two things that aren't different?

As always, this is pro-open-carry John signing out by saying that as with any other firearm activity or any other right, open carry needs to be done prudently.

If you would like to quote me, at least have the decency to put the complete quote in, which is corrected above.

What's the difference between a soda bottle carried openly vs. concealed?

A difference that has no difference is no different.

The only thing that is different in the situations discussed, is that both actors and observers may have perceptual differences in the scenario depending on preconceived notions of behaviors. However physically they are identical situations, you are carrying a firearm in a holster on your person whether that firearm is openly visible or stuck in your waistband.

OK so here's another question, if there is any random person in front of you standing in line at your local store what would be their reaction if :-

They saw you were open carrying?
Concealed carrying and you inadvertently uncover for just a moment and they see your handgun?


Would their reaction be any different?

Not everyone who wants to carry a firearm wants or can afford to get a concealed firearm permit. Should we just say "tough titty said the kitty" to these people, they should submit to fingerprinting, mandatory training at their cost, and so on then paying a fee for the privilege? Assuming of course that their state issues concealed licenses. What about their right to keep and bear arms? Or does that only apply if you can afford it, and are prepared to grovel to the issuing body.

Now sure if they want to carry all the time, then it would make sense to get the permit (except in AK, AZ or VT where no permit is needed), but if for instance it's for a confidence booster if they go to the local 7-11 late at night which might happen once a month, then when it's legal in that state to open carry what's the problem?


There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere. However if the scenario is as you described and the hostage taker been more intelligent then he would have checked for weaponry, forcing the concealed carrier to act preemptively at a sub-optimal time, or be disarmed. These are alternatives that have equal weight as your conclusion, the situation played out as it did, and we are purely speculating as to what might have happened had the situation been different.

JohnKSa
May 8, 2010, 07:22 AM
What's the difference between a soda bottle carried openly vs. concealed?One is concealed and the other isn't.A difference that has no difference is no different.This is what is called circular reasoning. Because you declare there is no difference you find it easy to conclude that there is no difference.

Stating a thing doesn't make it so. The difference between concealed guns and openly carried guns is that you can see openly carried guns but you can't see concealed guns. One can argue how BIG a difference that is, but it's pure foolishness to claim that there is no difference.

For what it's worth, you're not going to gain a lot of credibility by coming in 8 pages into a discussion of a controversial topic claiming that there is no difference in the opposing premises of the discussion. It's clear that you feel there is no difference, but you can rest assured that very few people share that opinion and fewer still would undertake the fruitless endeaver of attempting to support such a ridiculous assertion with logic.Not everyone who wants to carry a firearm wants or can afford to get a concealed firearm permit.First of all, in case you missed the closing line of my last post, let me reiterate that I'm not against open carry nor am I arguing against open carry. At this point I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the "reasoning" on this thread is logically bankrupt.

Second what people can afford has got nothing to do with any of my arguments nor with the general acceptability, tactical wisdom, etc. of open carry. It IS an important practical argument for why open carry should be legal, but I'm not arguing that open carry should be illegal or even restricted. I'm only saying the right should be exercised prudently. As any right should.This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere.No, my friend, THAT is speculation, and what's more it's speculation on the basis of virtually no information. What I related is not speculation it is what actually happened. The attacker was suicidal, self-preservation was not a concern and he took these people hostage at a gun range where there was obviously a serious risk of having to deal with armed persons.However if the scenario is as you described and the hostage taker been more intelligent then he would have checked for weaponry, forcing the concealed carrier to act preemptively at a sub-optimal time, or be disarmed. Ok, assuming we play along, the difference between having to search a number of people and simply looking at the group to see the openly carried gun is still significant. Having to take the time to undergo a search, however simple or cursory would still offer the armed defender more options for choosing a time to respond than an openly carried gun would have.

Basically, you can make the difference smaller by trying to twist the scenario but you can't make the difference disappear entirely.These are alternatives that have equal weight as your conclusion,No, that is not correct. Saying a thing is not sufficient to make it true.

Your alternatives are speculative, inconsistent with the facts of the situation and your conclusions do not follow logically. They absolutely do not have equal weight.

Why doesn't anyone get it? If we want to convince THINKING people we are going to have to employ arguments that are logically sound. That means we are going to have to actually THINK about this topic in an objective, logical manner. Making ridiculous assertions, using flawed logic, repeating meaningless/inaccurate slogans, etc. will NOT help this cause.

Mp7
May 8, 2010, 09:54 AM
Apparently this topic stirs some strong emotions ...

I believe you do not have to excersize any right u got,
just for the heck of it - if it makes no strategic sense in the long run.

I dont stand in front of churches on Sunday, either,
to proclaim my strong belief that there is no god.
I feel the urge to do so and i have every right
to make fun of those people.

But i don´t, as strategically it will not lead
to any positive result for either party :)

Society is about communication not about
ignorance. And other than with gun-loving
people meeting .. where OC would be a conversation piece
with the rest of the crowd it will be the opposite.

And the complete "Mind-ya-own-biz" mentality
doesnt get anything anywhere. IMHO.

Basically:
What "Dashunde" said. +1

Clipper
May 8, 2010, 10:37 AM
Pretty much the only time I CC is when it's cool enough to need another shirt or a jacket. I'm not afraid to say what I think about OC:

It's much more comfortable.
I personally am a believer in the deterrent effect, and think those who disagree are wrong (gotta type nice, so I don't insult anyone).
In my state, I can go places OCing (with a CPL) I can't legally go CCing.
Since the courts have decided here that my right to OC is guaranteed by Michigan's constitution, rather than by statute, There's nothing the anti's can do about it, so screw 'em.
And since Michigan has a preemption law, if the LEO don't like it, screw them, too.


BTW, in two years, I've been hassled once...

NavyLCDR
May 8, 2010, 12:45 PM
Society is about communication not about
ignorance. And other than with gun-loving
people meeting .. where OC would be a conversation piece
with the rest of the crowd it will be the opposite.

A moderator has asked me to replace the B.S. flag with this:

"Bull****!"

My experience, in real life, open carrying, has been just the opposite. Sounds like there are a lot of people here talking about something they have no real life experience doing.

rdrancher
May 8, 2010, 01:41 PM
Thumbs up to ya NavyLT

rd

inSight-NEO
May 8, 2010, 04:13 PM
I'm sure we could make a long list. I have no idea what that would prove. If it is "socially impolite" then the fact that there are many other things that are similarly "socially impolite" wouldn't make it any better or worse.
Agreed. I was simply making a general statement here. I did not intend for this to be of any real value beyond the personal, off-handed comment it was meant to be. The original argument that OC could be construed as "socially impolite" was a weak one at best. Therefore, I did not feel the need to come up with a mind-bending argument against it.

Uniformed LE are known to be armed in this country. Therefore concealing would have no effect on whether people perceived them to be armed or not and would merely make it more difficult for them to rapidly access their weapons.

The bottom line is that LEOs that open carry aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know and therefore open carry has no negative effect on their tactical situation.
Once again, I agree.

I mentioned LEO (among others) simply as an example (mixed in with a bit of sarcasm) reiterating the point I was trying to make in that OC is not something that should simply be dismissed as "tactically foolish."

Yes. For the uniformed officer, OC is expected and no real "tactical advantage" exists by them resorting to CC only, etc., etc. But, that was not my point. The main idea here was that, whether an individual is in law enforcement or simply a law abiding citizen, the tactical advantage regarding OC is essentially the same.


There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

Well...(focusing on the statement I italicized) this is an assumption on your part. Had there been several individuals around who were openly carrying [unless this "post" alluded to the fact that there were indeed many individuals already doing so], perhaps this person would have not risked such a move in the first place. The scenario you listed may be a good example of CC saving the day, but this is only one type of situation out of many. Regardless...too many variables here.

In short, if you carry openly you'd better be able to draw very rapidly because that may very well be the only option available to you other than surrendering and being disarmed.

Then again, who is to say that simply because one chooses to OC he/she has no CCW for backup? Regardless, I see your point. Either way, I think it really boils down to whether or not one is willing to respond, regardless of where the weapon is strapped. One cannot assume that, simply because one is concealing a weapon, he/she would actually risk making the move in the first place. At least OC gives you the option of quick acquisition, given the proper mindset. It would be a helluva lot easier to "bring to bear" a hip strapped weapon vs a concealed one, if in very close proximity to a BG...when only seconds are available.




Now, I will readily admit that, for the civilian, CC may be the more optimal choice at times. Having the ability to OC is great, but simply because one can, does not mean one should. Like many things in life, OC and CC both come with their fair share of advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the individual to [carefully] consider these, based on his/her own particular needs, abilities and situation. Of course, there is always the option of doing both. In either case, there are just too many variables here for one to concretely say what is right or wrong. This is not something that can be neatly contained within a pristine box.

But, as I have mentioned too many times before, regarding OC or whatever, all of this means squat. Essentially, until [general] public (and political) misgivings about handguns takes a much more positive turn, however the means, the pro-handgun/pro-CCW/pro-OC crowd will always have to deal with crap like this.

All of the arguing amongst ourselves (as interesting as it is), pointing out this and that or whatever, will never change that fact.

Dashunde
May 8, 2010, 08:11 PM
This is rediculous... I'm sick of all of this romanticised OC nonsense.
The last place I recall seeing mass open carry is in Somalia and various other government vacumes.

As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

As much as I love guns (just ask my wife, look in my safe and drawers, etc) I do not want to "see" open carry everywhere.

Gungnir
May 8, 2010, 08:35 PM
This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere.
No, my friend, THAT is speculation, and what's more it's speculation on the basis of virtually no information. What I related is not speculation it is what actually happened. The attacker was suicidal, self-preservation was not a concern and he took these people hostage at a gun range where there was obviously a serious risk of having to deal with armed persons.

OK then please explain this...

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

As Insight-NEO pointed out this statement is pure speculation, add in to that mix the disingenuous addition of the omitted data point that the attacker was suicidal (deranged != suicidal), and even your logic is greatly flawed. By definition an irrational person does not act rationally, and neutralizing or disarming threats during the commission of a crime is a relatively rational and self-preserving behavior; since the perpetrator was suicidal (and deranged) there is no logical reason to assert with any confidence that he would have acted in this way.

In any event I was not saying that the scenario was speculation but that your conclusion about how open carry may have affected the situation was speculation. At least I had the intellectual integrity to state quite clearly that my speculations are just that.

We could argue the consistency and logic of the speculations all day however as I mentioned (emphasis added)

the situation played out as it did, and we are purely speculating as to what might have happened had the situation been different.

At the end of the day John I don't think that we disagree in principle, I think we disagree in viewpoint. My viewpoint is whether a firearm is concealed or openly carried the person carrying it is still armed and there is no material difference, it is only perception (either the person carrying or the people observing that person) that introduces a difference.

Socially that perception is an issue, however how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?

We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense. We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people. Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership.

NavyLCDR
May 8, 2010, 09:09 PM
Socially that perception is an issue, however how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?

We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense. We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people. Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership.

Absolutely +1 Gungnir! And note: the anti-gun crowd is the MINORITY! Just look at any recent poll and the current legislation that is passing in numerous states. The problem is, the anti-gun crowd is at most 1/2 the size of the pro-gun crowd, but they are screaming twice as loud as the pro-gun crowd. It's time the pro-gun crowd starting screaming back and being heard. And we aren't going to do that by hiding our guns away after we pay the state a tax for permission to do so!

The fact is, if we don't start standing up and be heard, the general public is not going to hear or see anything other than the anti-gun minority!

inSight-NEO
May 8, 2010, 10:00 PM
This is rediculous... I'm sick of all of this romanticised OC nonsense.
The last place I recall seeing mass open carry is in Somalia and various other government vacumes.

As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

As much as I love guns (just ask my wife, look in my safe and drawers, etc) I do not want to "see" open carry everywhere.

I am curious, who here is "romanticizing" open carry? Simply listing the value of and/or being a proponent of such a method is certainly within reason. In addition, I am curious...why do you harbor such negativity towards an openly visible weapon; particularly if you "love" guns? If, by law, an individual is able to carry this way, why do you care?

By the way...Somalia? C'mon.....bad example.

JoeSlomo
May 8, 2010, 10:07 PM
As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

I guess that depends on how you define the "mainstream".

If you view the "mainstream" as the citizens in your particular area, than OC IS accepted in MANY mainstream communities. OC may very well become accepted in communities that don't normally practice it, IF citizens START practicing to OC.

If you view the "mainstream" as the "America" portrayed by the news/propaganda/entertainment industry, and the liberal socialists that reside in most of our urban areas, than no, you are correct. These industries, and urban areas, like to lay claim to being the "mainstream", however, their views are generally completely opposite of what my friends, family and I hold to be true.

JohnKSa
May 8, 2010, 11:41 PM
Had there been several individuals around who were openly carrying [unless this "post" alluded to the fact that there were indeed many individuals already doing so], perhaps this person would have not risked such a move in the first place.I agree. Any deterrent effect that OC has is much magnified when there are multiple OC'ers present. However in that case there were not any present and the CC'er was the only one armed at all.One cannot assume that, simply because one is concealing a weapon, he/she would actually risk making the move in the first place.The point is, of course, that the choice of whether or not to make a move or when to make a move is available when CC'ing where it is likely not available when OC'ing.Like many things in life, OC and CC both come with their fair share of advantages and disadvantages.Yes, I've said that many times, probably one or two times on this thread. Recognizing that BOTH approaches have both advantages and disadvantages is the first step in looking at OC and CC in an objective and logical manner.As Insight-NEO pointed out this statement is pure speculation...This sort of assertion is not helping your credibility.

Are you really saying that you're not sure whether or not an armed attacker would neutralize an openly armed defender before taking others on the scene hostage? If you truly believe that then there's nothing more I can say. All I can do is argue from a position based on logic and reality.My viewpoint is whether a firearm is concealed or openly carried the person carrying it is still armed and there is no material difference...I understand your viewpoint and I'm saying that it is not possible to defend that viewpoint using logic and reality as a starting point.

There is a material difference between carrying openly and carrying concealed. The material difference is that in one case people can see you're carrying and in the other they can not.

For example, you made a statement indicating that you believe that open carry is a deterrent--that is an effect of people seeing the firearm. Something they couldn't do if it were concealed. That is an effect of the material difference. If you want to try to construct an argument attempting to prove that a material difference that doesn't exist can have concrete effects that would be entertaining though not convincing....how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?It's really scary that you're asking this question and at the same time advocating open carry. If you believe that an unavoidable consequence of open carry is "excessive public disturbance" I don't understand how you can advocate it.

For the record I don't believe that "excessive public disturbance" is a necessary consequence of open carry nor do I believe that the only way to advance open carry rights is to open carry. I believe that the prudent exercise of the right to open carry can avoid causing "excessive public disturbance" and that even when open carry is not legal or prudent that it is still possible to successfully campaign for the right or for the expansion of the right.We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense.In some areas that is true, in others it is absolutely not true.We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people. This is a false dichotomy as explained below. Ignoring that issue for the moment, it is clearly not true that firearm rights must be openly exercised in order to expand those rights. The CC movement is clear evidence that one can dramatically expand firearm rights without openly exercising those rights.Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership. False dichotomy. To "hide firearm ownership" is not the only alternative to open carry. I do not hide my firearm ownership and I work to expand firearm rights and firearm awareness. And I do that even though I can not legally open carry here.

Besides, if it were true that were true that open carrying is the only way to maintain and expand open carry rights then open carry could never be legalized anywhere that it has ever been illegal.

inSight-NEO
May 9, 2010, 12:03 AM
I believe that the prudent exercise of the right to open carry can avoid causing "excessive public disturbance" and that even when open carry is not legal or prudent that it is still possible to successfully campaign for the right or for the expansion of the right.

I am curious. How would you define "prudent," as relating to OC? In this case, the word "prudent" is in danger of being very subjective.

Keep in mind, I do agree with many (but, not all) of the previous points you have made; you offered compelling arguments. Hence, this is not an argumentative invitation by any means. Again, it is simply a matter of mere curiosity. So...enlighten me.

hso
May 9, 2010, 12:44 AM
Folks,

Discussions about the practicality or utility of OC are topics for Strategies and Tactics instead of Activism. Whether you can draw or be disarmed or it deters or encourages attack isn't the question for Activism.

What is relevant is the social and political issues around OC and whether OC has a positive or negative impact on RKBA or if certain types of OC do and others don't have a negative or positive impact on RKBA.

This thread has run well past the usual 5 pages where the discussions fall apart and people become entrenched in arguments between individuals and the discussions become emotional more than logical. You've done a good job keeping the discussion reasonably civil, but if that breaks down there's no value in keeping the thread open.

Address the arguments for and against Open Carry in the context of how it effects the social and political impact to RKBA in a civil manner and we'll have a worthwhile discussion that can continue.

Dashunde
May 9, 2010, 01:00 AM
I'll contend that sporatic OC and its acceptance is (probably) a geographical thing.

In most cities it probably wont go over well at all. Walking into Macy's OC'ing a 6" 44 is going to send most people around here running, and rest assured many of them vote.
In no way do I think its a good idea to pursue or "excersise" OC while we have a great CCW situation almost everywhere. OC is just not necessary right now. Let the CCW dust settle first.
Around here, guns being out-of-sight and out-of-mind is absolutely golden.

On the other hand...
In the rural areas where people know each other it probably wont be a big deal, and might even be considered prudent depending on what critters walk thru town or around your house.

Those of you who think its a good idea and want to strut around a kids soccer game or suburbia's malls and grocery stores with with a big ol gun hanging on your belt better think again... its nonsense and just the thing that could turn on-the-fence people against us ---> the same people who dont really like it much, but do currently believe we have the right to carry concealed and to protect ourselves.

I am curious...why do you harbor such negativity towards an openly visible weapon.
I'm glad you asked.
Think about it... In our modern world, where do you see ordinary citizens carrying guns openly in large numbers?
Really.. be honest, dont say "at gun shows", or "shooting competitions" or "my local Militia" and other stuff.
In the real world, out in public.. where? Who? Why?

OC draws a unruley, chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly image of degredation and anarchy in my mind.
Not anything I want representing America.

I can only think of one single civilized peaceful place where lots of guns are OC'd and anyone feels safe, and thats a military base during an airshow.
Most everywhere with lots of OC is 3rd world and utter chaos - NOBODY feels safe there.
Our masses peacefully OC'ing with no crime in sight is a bunch of romanticised fantasy land BS.

More examples of OC romanticising...
These dillusions that seem to be simmering in some minds about Sally, Cindy, Jeff and Todd are all going to the movies looking all cute and Sally turns to Cindy and says "Hey, look at my new Raspberry LCP, isnt it the bomb", while Jeff shows Todd the new J-frame he picked up on GunBroker and they skip on in with all the other 23+ OC'ing crowd.

Or... some may have this dilusion...
There you are, standing in line at the QuickieMart, in walks a shady guy with a trench coat concealing a sawed-off who doesnt notice that XD on your belt, and just as he swings that double-barrel out you drop him because you were able to get to your OC'd gun 32 milliseconds faster, then... all the women want your phone number.
(Or maybe he does see it, and runs out of the store without doing a thing.)

Get real.. this is more likely...
Your standing with your back to the door picking out your favorite suds from the cooler with your bigass 1911 clearly visible on your hip and the guy who WAS going to go straight to the counter for the money, instead noticed your gun and quietly heads straight for you and splatters you from behind all over the inside of the cooler - THEN robs the place, THEN drops your wife who was looking at candy bars.

NavyLCDR
May 9, 2010, 01:32 AM
OC draws a unruley, chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly image of degredation and anarchy in my mind.
Not anything I want representing America.

You know, there was another group of people that the exact same things were said about...


http://www.ingenweb.org/inswitzerland/revwarsoldiers.jpg

If it wasn't for people pushing the envelope, being "unruley (which isn't even a word), chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly", first America wouldn't be America. Then we wouldn't have people like the blacks, Irish, Jews, Mexicans, Italians, women.... with equal rights. We wouldn't have homosexuals that could walk down the street without fear of harassment. And let me tell you... if you want to sit back and be satisfied with the crumbs of freedom that the government is willing to "compromise" and let you pay a tax and be licensed for, then you go right ahead. But take a look at where America is going. Keep sitting back and eating out of the hands of the liberals and it won't be before the end of this President's term that you find yourself living in the USSA = the United Socialist States of America. Every group of people that have fought for freedom in this country have had exactly the same things said about them. And, yet, in the end, who prevails? Let me tell you, it hasn't been the groups who have done nothing but paid the government for their freedom. It is the groups of people that have stood up to the liberal and communist machine and said, "Enough is enough! This is America, and by God it is going to stay America, the land of the free!" You take a hard look at the concealed weapons permit and tell me if that looks and smells like freedom to you.

Disclaimer: liberals and communists are spoken of as two separate groups in the above statements.

JoeSlomo
May 9, 2010, 02:13 AM
Those of you who think its a good idea and want to strut around a kids soccer game or suburbia's malls and grocery stores with with a big ol gun hanging on your belt better think again... its nonsense and just the thing that could turn on-the-fence people against us

It could also turn those fence sitters into supporters.

Many of those fence sitters NEVER see a firearm unless it is on a LEO, or on the T.V. being wielded by an LEO, a soldier, a criminal, or a fictional character.

While that fence sitter very well may view an individual exercising their right to OC as a threat, that same fence sitter may just as well come to the conclusion that OC and firearms are NOT the "evil" that some would portray them to be. After all, they see Mr / Mrs Smith with a firearm on their hip every Saturday at the baseball game, and they seem like nice people.

We, as a nation, have allowed the conditioning of our citizens to view firearms as a threat, rather than as the tools, and the assets, they truly are. OC may help to reduce, or at least, slow this mass conditioning in many areas of our nation. The media, nor the entertainment venues won't.

People die as a result of fires, and yet fire and flammables are not viewed in this manner. Lives are lost in automobiles, and crimes are committed using automobiles, and yet automobiles are not viewed in the same manner as firearms.

Why is that? More than likely, it is because people have more experience with those tools, and most of their experience is positive. OC has the potential to do the same in that it could give those without experience the opportunity to be comfortable around citizens with firearms because they never see said firearms used in an unlawful manner.

Big Boy
May 9, 2010, 02:35 AM
You guys aren't getting the point. Yes it may very well scare people. This is what every one keeps saying over and over and over again. It is the point, to show people that they don't have to be scared of firearms. They are involved in every day life, and they don't randomly kill people.

Anyone afraid of firearms are the people that only see guns in movies, LEO, and military. Even those against OC say this. "The reason they are scared is because they only see guns in movies and how the media portrays them" EXACTLY!!!! That's why we're out there. Showing people one grocery trip at a time that guns are normal tools, and are not dangerous unless there is a dangerous person behind them.

The arguments that non-supporters of OC are making are the exact reasons we must OC.

Dashunde
May 9, 2010, 02:41 AM
That picture is from 200+ years ago... and they're in uniform.
Not at all a good example of OC.
To a layman who doesnt study old military colors and uniforms, it might look like a good example of the "Well regulated Militia" that 2A talks about.

I get the point - Its not going to change peoples minds, except to provoke them to vote against.
"""that guns are normal tools, and are not dangerous unless there is a dangerous person behind them"""
Problem is... the other people in the store dont know if the person behind the gun is dangerous or not, and very few want to wait and find out.
OC spooks them - completely - justified or not, thats the way it is, and thats where the ccw compromise comes in.

Life is all about compromises, we all know that, why would the hot topic of guns be any different? The reality is that guns are not exempt and never will be - face that fact.
Ah, but what about that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bit???
Yea I agree, but too bad the 2A was written awkwardly enough to leave itself subject to interpretation... and here we are.


Oh, I almost forgot NavyLT... Cheap shot at my misspell of "unruley (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unruly)".
.
.

Gouranga
May 9, 2010, 09:11 AM
Dashunde, I understand where you are coming from but to counter, is it not also the case that the more people see guns out in the open on say a man in a business suit (seen in Charlotte, NC plenty of times), or just normal folks...that they may start to be less intimidated by it? I openly carry a folding knife on my belt. Nobody ever even give me a double take. Looking at the newspaper here, there are dozens of robberies done by folks carrying knives.

I do understand the power of perception and that this is a delicate game. As you said, too much and you drive folks towards the brady bunch, to little and they will go along with outlawing guns outright because as they see it, nobody has them as far as they see it.

CCW is great. I carry my weapon that way 99% of the time. However, it does nothing to carry the cause to the average person. Yesterday, I went to Walmart, Home Depot, Target, Sports Authority, Panera Bread, Bi-Lo, Edible Arrangements, and Pet Smart carrying a S&W M&P 40 fully loaded. I interacted with dozens of folks. None of them had any idea I was armed. That is good for CCW, but for eliminating the misconceptions the Brady bunch puts out, it did nothing.

IMO, those who do OC, need to be aware of those negative perceptions and stereotypes and be model citizens. They need to realize they set the tone for how people will view armed citizens in much the same manner as someone wearing a WWJD shirt represents their faith.

We have 300+ CCW permits issued in my county alone every other week. There are thousands of us in this county but most people I have talked to about it, have no clue how many of us there are. They are literally walking around armed folks all the time and still have the negative attitudes and stereotypes because they do not realize how wrong they are. OC puts that in peoples faces and as long as folks OCing act accordingly, they do more to advance the cause than anyone CCWing.

Dashunde
May 9, 2010, 11:14 AM
Well said Gouranga.
I gotta make this quick.. Mothers Day ya know..

I do wonder how many of your interactions would have been as positive if you were OC'ing while running all those errands. Probably a few, with another few being very scared of you.
Is it possible, that a few (enough), would have walked away from your positive encounter with the solid opinion that they simply dont like knowing they are around guns?

What has changed since the Brady bill expired?
Has there been an increase in crime?
has there been any increase in negative firearm use as a result of Brady going away?
Any positive perhaps?
That very well known bill going away without any negative change showing up is evidence enough the eliminate the misconceptions and discredit them - provided our anti-Brady money and effort effectively pushes that information home.
There's no need to OC to send a message. The wrong one may be received.

mljdeckard
May 9, 2010, 12:53 PM
I said several pages back, but I'll repeat one time, in my experience, the normal reaction when someone see a person open=carry, is that they will be surprised, and might seek to find out if it is legally allowed. When they find out that it is, they will further realize that the world is still turning. They don't protest and seek to change it.

NavyLCDR
May 9, 2010, 12:57 PM
Speaking of mother's day... when I go out for mother's day brunch today with my 13 year old soon to be step daughter, my fiancee, and my soon-to-be mother-in-law.... do I wear my normal gun, a Taurus PT-145, or do I wear my "goin' to meetin'" gun, an 1851 Navy Colt revolver brass framed replica?

All those people running in terror is a great way to get to the buffet before the food gets cold! :neener:

Too bad it didn't work at Ironman II last night. The only seats left were the front row and I couldn't scare even one anti into moving at the sight of my gun. (Now there's a guy that REALLY knows how to open carry, BTW!)

I said several pages back, but I'll repeat one time, in my experience, the normal reaction when someone see a person open=carry, is that they will be surprised, and might seek to find out if it is legally allowed. When they find out that it is, they will further realize that the world is still turning. They don't protest and seek to change it.

+1, me too!

Big Boy
May 9, 2010, 05:23 PM
Dashunde
Problem is... the other people in the store dont know if the person behind the gun is dangerous or not, and very few want to wait and find out.

How do they not stick around to find out? They are behind me in the line, I leave first...whew, that was a gun, and then the guy with the gun left, and I'm still alive. He must not be a crazed person.

It sounds like most people against OC have never done it or never even seen it done. People don't run, people don't gasp, they don't point and stare and ooh and ah. If anything you'll see someone look at it, or they may inquire about it to you personally. It's not like godzilla the gun is walking through town and everyone is running away as fast as they can. I can tell you that 99% of the time people treat me and react the same exact way to me when I have a gun as to when I do not have a gun.

Deltaboy
May 9, 2010, 05:42 PM
Good read folks but I am still going to press Rick Perry and the State of Texas to allow OC at least for us who have CCW.

JohnKSa
May 9, 2010, 08:26 PM
I am curious. How would you define "prudent," as relating to OC? In this case, the word "prudent" is in danger of being very subjective.My intent is to communicate and therefore I avoid using non-standard meanings for common words. This situation is no different. I used the word "prudent" as it is normally defined without any special meaning attached. In fact, I looked up the word prudent to make sure it meant exactly what I meant to say and I even posted the definition earlier on this thread.In this case, the word "prudent" is in danger of being very subjective.Indeed it is. However this is nothing new to firearm owners. The laws of self-defense are typically based on the concept of the "reasonable man" which is also subjective. In spite of the fact that it is subjective, there isn't much ambiguity introduced by the use of the concept.If it wasn't for people pushing the envelope, being "unruley (which isn't even a word), chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly", first America wouldn't be America.They had no other option due to the form of government they lived under. Out of the lessons learned, they created a new form of government in which the people can make their wishes known and can change the direction of the government without the need for violence.

And that means any group with sufficient popular support can make their wishes known and change the direction of the government. Therefore it makes sense for us to be prudent in how we interact with the general public since we know that if our actions generate sufficient negative feelings that we could create (or add support to) a group that has as its goal to restrict our rights. You take a hard look at the concealed weapons permit and tell me if that looks and smells like freedom to you.You should take a look at the concealed weapon MOVEMENT and see where it's brought us. It started with one state recognizing the right of its law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. It has expanded to the majority of the states in the union. And just recently one of the states with concealed carry has expanded that right so that it no longer requires a permit or fees.

Now THAT is progress. Positive movement. From no right to a recognized but permit-regulated right to a right that can be exercised with no permit. And it was done through the effective system set up by the people in your picture--with no need for being "unruly, chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly". In other words, just as they intended for changes to be made under their new creation.It could also turn those fence sitters into supporters.Clearly under the right circumstances it can be a positive influence. Just as under the wrong circumstances it can be a negtive influence. The key is KNOWING how to assess the situation and how to comport one's self so that the effect is positive. Knowing when and how to exercise the right to achieve the desired effect. In other words, being prudent.They don't protest and seek to change it.This is false. SOME take the approach you describe. SOME seek to change it. It's important to realize that both possibilities exist and work to achieve the one we all want.IMO, those who do OC, need to be aware of those negative perceptions and stereotypes and be model citizens. They need to realize they set the tone for how people will view armed citizens in much the same manner as someone wearing a WWJD shirt represents their faith.Very well said.

NavyLCDR
May 9, 2010, 10:14 PM
You should take a look at the concealed weapon MOVEMENT and see where it's brought us. It started with one state recognizing the right of its law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. It has expanded to the majority of the states in the union. And just recently one of the states with concealed carry has expanded that right so that it no longer requires a permit or fees.

Now THAT is progress. Positive movement. From no right to a recognized but permit-regulated right to a right that can be exercised with no permit. And it was done through the effective system set up by the people in your picture--with no need for being "unruly, chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly".

And I think this is a big disagreement amongst us. An activity that a person must pay the government a tax in order to engage in is NOT a right! It is a PRIVILEGE that the state is giving you permission to do, if you pay them in order to obtain that permission. There is nothing FREE about that, either in monetary terms or political terms.

And I agree, we don't need to be "unruly, chaotic, incredibly unsafe, and downright ugly" in order to change things. But what we do need to do is portray a positive image of those who carry guns to the public, and hiding the guns away from the public presents no image to them at all - and that is where we fall behind the anti-gun groups. They will always be portraying an image of those that carry guns to the public, and that image will never be positive.

One-Time
May 9, 2010, 10:18 PM
/thread

The10mmcure
May 10, 2010, 12:23 AM
First,I'd like to say I've been reading THR for a couple of years for input before I registered tonight,and it's a great forum. Now,open carry,where do I start...I've lived in NC my entire life. As a matter of fact,I'm about the 13th generation of us to live in NC . I've noticed over the past ten years or so, alot of people from out of state(mainly NY) are completely ignorant of the fact that we are an open carry state.

It's been my experience that most of them try to super impose NY's(or whatever state's) firearms laws on NC,thinking they are the same. I've also ran into the problem of when I try to explain these laws,which I can pretty much recite, there's always somebody that "knows better". Now I'm not bashing northeners,as most I know personally are pro 2nd Amendment. I've also ran into quite a few NC natives also ignorant of the fact.

However, I've also taken note that alot,and I mean ALOT of people,transplant and native alike(mostly 30 and under),are under the impression you must have a CCP to own ANY firearm. I find this quite disturbing and frustrating,so I decided a while back, the only time I will even attempt to explain NC weapons laws is when I'm fairly certain I have a receptive listener,and also one that's not a "I know better" type.

With all that said,one could possibly make an argument that CCW has set people back a great deal. Don't get me wrong,I'm all for it,but I'll assure you it's caused more people confusion about the law than open carry ever has. At least here.

I believe one reason for all the confusion,is that firearms law isn't common knowledge, say like traffic laws. You have to look them up,or at least talk to LEO's extensively.When I was 15,(ironically the age they mandate you have a hunting license to hunt) they started teaching mandatory Hunter's Safety as part of Health/Driver's ED. However it taught nothing at all of firearms law.

I think they could make that a part of all that rather easily. IMO,they don't want to because too many people would then be fully aware of their rights.

The10mmcure
May 10, 2010, 01:51 AM
Oh,I'd like to add one more thing. As of the past couple of years or so,I don't generally debate the 2nd amendment with liberals/commies. I've found it to be extremely mind numbing. You can't(as a general rule anyway) change their minds. These people are completely brainwashed,alot of the time from birth.

I find it simpler just not to bring it up,or if brought up to just walk away. Mind you I don't take any of their krapp period. I just find it extremely annoying and offensive when some commie wants to argue over a God given right!

Oh well just my thoughts....now back to playing with my new AK-74 LOL Have a good night.

walteray
May 10, 2010, 03:00 AM
10mm +1 for education, I was taught hunters/gun safety in 7th grade in PA. My history teacher taught it and had a gun safe in the class room, with weapons to teach us. Times have changed since I was in 7th grade but we had so many more people who even if they didnt hunt werent scared by the site of a gun, or a dead buck in the back of a truck, It was part of life and you were taught early its not a big deal and you were within your rights.

NavyLT I hope your not going to the buffet by KMart, havnt had a good meal there in a couple years... they might ask to borrow your gun for the cats in back....

Dokkalfar
May 10, 2010, 03:04 AM
I'm glad you asked.
Think about it... In our modern world, where do you see ordinary citizens carrying guns openly in large numbers?
Really.. be honest, dont say "at gun shows", or "shooting competitions" or "my local Militia" and other stuff.
In the real world, out in public.. where? Who? Why?

Lets see.. most places it is currently illegal to OC, and most of us don't have the time, and especially the finances, to fight an arrest based on that. Most people can only answer the places you just ruled out because it is illegal just about anywhere else.

I don't live anywhere near Vermont or Montana or Alaska (north Texas) so you might want to ask someone from those areas... But I think open carry is a good idea. you may lose some 'tactical' benefits, but the fact that alot of people see you, and more importantly see you NOT going crazy with your firearm is a real benefit to alot of people.

walteray
May 10, 2010, 03:19 AM
I support open carry one hundred percent, only these threads put me on the fence. I carry concealed everyday and I can see both points of view, it comes down to two sides

the positive- it exposes everyday citizens to a firearm ( and guess what it didnt jump out of your holster and shoot someone and run away)

the negative- the liberals freak out and tell there friends who might be on the fence about the redneck in star bucks with a huge gun on his hip (i might add it is huge and of course gorgeous)

I think we might need to organize an independent study and poll people in starbucks and the grocery store if it bothers them...

personally though i kinda of dont care if they are bothered like 10mm i cant argue anymore with dense people i have way to much gray hair for my age as it is... :)

evan price
May 10, 2010, 06:14 AM
In most cities it probably wont go over well at all. Walking into Macy's OC'ing a 6" 44 is going to send most people around here running...

Those of you who think its a good idea and want to strut around a kids soccer game or suburbia's malls and grocery stores with with a big ol gun hanging on your belt better think again...

Your standing with your back to the door picking out your favorite suds from the cooler with your bigass 1911 clearly visible on your hip...

First, when I read what you say I see someone that is upset. I also note that there is a continuous theme to what you say- "big" guns upset you. There's a couple reasons for that I suppose... but what about those of us who carry smaller guns than a 6" 44 mag?

I frequently OC a 5-shot J-frame, a single-stack 9mm, and a pocket-sized 9mm. Is the size of the gun directly proportional to the scariness quotient?

Second, Ohio is an open carry state. I like the fact that here in Ohio (unlike Texas) if my shirt blows up or I bend over to pick up something I've dropped, I'm not guilty of a misdemeanor that results in loss of CCW license or criminal charges.

Third, while I personally do not OC for the majority of my carrying, I certainly DO OC as the situation warrants, and I don't see people fleeing in terror or squadrons of cops coming to drag me away. Perhaps in backwards, unspophisticated Ohio we have different priorities... certainly, in some parts of Ohio (the big cities, usually) people might be more alert and concerned about OC, but in the rural areas I live, if you don't have a gun rack in your truck you're a poofter.

The idea here is that a right that is not expressed is a right lost; I for one wouldn't feel comfortable being That Guy who walks around with twin shoulder-holstered pistols and an attitude, but since when are rights reserved only for those who wear business casual or better attire and drive a beige 4-door sedan? What about the tatted Harley rider? The emo-Goth-wannabe? The Japanimation chick? They and you and me and everyone in the USA have been born with those most fortunate of gifts, US Citizenship and Freedom, and if we don't use those gifts, might as well not have them at all.

JohnKSA (ye gods, I agree with JohnKSA) specifically says "prudence", and I for one agree. I think what you, Daschund, means, is you don't want to portray our cause as "that guy" with the dropleg tactical holster and fifteen spare mags on his belt, or that other guy with the cheapy plastic holster that drops his gun while getting out his billfold. Don't be "that guy" and make us all look like uneducated redneck inbred hicks or Tacticool Tommies like the Bradys try so hard to keep Hollywood showing us as.

Stevepwns
May 10, 2010, 08:48 AM
to me OC should be aloud everywhere, thats just me. To me its like a house alarm sign in your front yard, saying "you can try but its not in your best interest". In my short 32 years of life I have found most fears come from not knowing, Most people now adays arent exposed to firearms aside from movies and the everynight story of someone getting shot. They dont realize people like me use them to feed my family, the view they hold is bias. Rush Limbaugh says ignorance is our most expensive commodity.

NavyLCDR
May 10, 2010, 09:56 AM
You know, maybe we should define what open carry looks like and decide if it is scary or setting us back from there:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5033/28929137059395632015758.jpg

That is a photo of my family and me. As usual, I am shoving my rights in other people's faces, as some people like to call it.

MisterMike
May 10, 2010, 10:08 AM
NavyLT--

Great family photo! This is the type of image that the OC movement should be conveying . . . real people with real families. The real face of OC is not the doofus who shows strolls around with an AK strapped to his back.

Dashunde
May 10, 2010, 10:42 AM
Not bad at all Navy. I'd call that respectable. You look like a [edit: off duty] cop. :D

But I still say its not a good idea in my locale.

personally though i kinda of dont care if they are bothered...

You should care... they vote. Every single one that gets upset is just another that can join and fund the anti's.
Like it or not, our gun laws are subject to voter scrutiny in many places every few years.



I also note that there is a continuous theme to what you say- "big" guns upset you..

I'm referencing a guns ability to attract attention to itself due to its size. I have a few 1911's and CC them when its cold out. Navy's picture whould take on a very different persona if he were sporting a USP Mark 23 or 6" Magnum.
The only level of upset I have here is a sense of concern that some seem hellbent to do harm to our cause through uncompromisingly ranting about 2A, and seemingly relishing any opportunity to rub raw the on-the-fencers and anti's alike.

I think what you, Dashunde, means is you don't want to portray our cause as "that guy" with the dropleg tactical holster and fifteen spare mags on his belt, or that other guy with the cheapy plastic holster that drops his gun while getting out his billfold. Don't be "that guy" and make us all look like uneducated redneck inbred hicks or Tacticool Tommies like the Bradys try so hard to keep Hollywood showing us as.

Right. You pretty much nailed my perspective on it.
I dont think OC should ever be used as a opportunity to "show off" a gun like its a diamond ring, a chromed out Harley or a gold tooth (haha).
And under NO circumstances should it EVER be used in ANY way that is intimidating or bully'ish. I'm referring to those BarnyBadA$$ who would cut in line with a GFYS attitude and dare anyone to say anything because they're obviously packing. We all know the the type, the one that should be be dropped with a zapper and have their gun taken down and parts scattered amongst the nearby trash cans and water ways.
Well ok, I got carried away with that, but you get the point.. :)

NavyLCDR
May 10, 2010, 02:04 PM
Not bad at all Navy. I'd call that respectable. You look like a cop.

Hmmm... I was trying to look like a Second Amendment supporter.

Big Boy
May 10, 2010, 03:01 PM
That pic is exactly what the average OC'er looks like. I don't understand where all of this paranoia is coming from.

basicblur
May 10, 2010, 03:44 PM
First off, OC is not really for me (prefer CC), but I support it 100%. There are times I have OCed, or more accurately, discreet carried (but by law it was still OC). ‘Course, trying to figure out a criminal mind AFA OC being safer/more dangerous is probably an exercise in futility? I like keeping mine hidden, but there was the case in GA recently where some guys were going to rob a restaurant, but decided to wait until the OCers left (think a waitress called the cops and they were apprehended). How many of these cases do we not know about because the BGs just left?

Lots of folks seem to be guilty of painting with a broad brush and hanging “that guy” around the OC movement’s neck. These are probably the same folks that (rightfully) whine when anti-2nd folks try to hang someone like Cho around all gun owners’ necks. Any group/movement is going to have some folks who need to be taken aside and given a few pointers on how to put the best foot forward for any movement.

AFA the Starbucks brooha, Starbucks did the right thing by not getting involved, and OCers should support them for that and not try to push the company further (and by not pushing, I don’t mean not OCing). I don’t know that they are being pressured by the OC movement, as this seems to have been started by the antis trying to drag Starbucks into it.

I’m also wondering if the OC debate is often split between hunters/non-hunters. I know not all hunters feel that way, but I used to have folks at work often state they had no problem with guns, but why do you need that handgun/AR?

FWIW, I see the recent NSSF industry survey (http://nssf.org/newsroom/pollresults/) has shown what a lot of us have known for some time (but politicians/SCOTUS/hunters) don’t seem to be aware of:
1. The majority of guns purchased are for SD/target shooting
2. The most popular rifle in the U.S. is the AR-15

You might want to check out this video (VCDL Picnic Featured on Nightline (http://www.vcdl.org/static/tv.html)) as a primer on how to help desensitize the public to OC?

Stevepwns
May 10, 2010, 04:36 PM
Dashunde Im curiuos to know where you live, you give an opinion of someone that lives in a big city, your opinion also gives me the impression your a liberal who only see's danger when it comes to guns( I hope Im wrong ). It really boils down to being able protect yourself in any given situation. The places you see in you head of caos are 3rd world countrys with no law or order. Ive been to some of those places and those places the problems arent the guns. Its the people holding them, they would fight like they do even if they didnt have guns. I dont know you and again I hope Im wrong but your opinion seems to be based on a lack of knowladge and a baised opinion of guns in general. Just because we want to carry openly doesnt mean we want to run around shooting them. You really should open your mind to whats REALLY going on in our country, open carry states have less crime, those where guns are either banned or highly regulated the crime is uncontrollable. Thats fact not opinion.

Dashunde
May 10, 2010, 05:50 PM
Good Grief.. Dont confuse me for my wife.
I live in a very wealthy western suburb of St. Louis were the Lexus-driving soccer moms number in the thousands. There's also a lot of Volvo's here too, thats rarely a good sign.
(I'm not particularly deep-pocketed, so clearly the riff-raff can sneak in on occasion)
I ccw everyday - even my wife and family dont really know that I carry, but they do know I'm a gun nut.
I guess you could say I'm liberal-minded in the sense that I'm generally a live-n-let-live guy, but I do have what I consider reasonable expectations of decency, class and courtesy. I usually exhibit common sense and come down in the middle on most issues. I love my guns and my smoke rolling diesel truck and I'm solidly Republican on money issues, but I also think a woman has a right to choose and that we shouldnt be making many decisions based on religion.
I definitely dislike any form of anti-American and think those who sling mud on our country should be slung out on their asses. Same for liberal judges who try to legislate from the bench. I'm not a fan of reading Spanish everywhere and I'm way past nausiated by the costs of illegals, the futile "war on drugs", and Obama's Presidency (so far).
I figure citizens should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesnt effect anyone else, but at the same time I dont want to see gays kissin in public, young girls dressing with their butts hangin out (where are their damn parents anyway??), young men who cant pull their pants up, and non-uniformed people walking around with visible guns hanging out.
And fyi... my wife is a much better person than I am... lol.

Those states you speak of are highly regulated due to bureaucrats/legislators trying to control crime by controlling the guns. We already know that doesnt work.

bigfatdave
May 10, 2010, 09:44 PM
I figure citizens should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesnt effect anyone else, but at the same time I dont want to see gays kissin in public, young girls dressing with their butts hangin out (where are their damn parents??), young men who cant pull their pants up, and non-uniformed people walking around with visible guns hanging out.These two statements don't go together, you know.

And your message is diluted by the awful spelling, is English not your first language?

Nick5182
May 10, 2010, 09:55 PM
My dad is former LEO and an ex-BATF firearms instructor and although he is pro 2A, he's against open carry. He feels that it gives away the element of surprise in a defensive situation. Even though he carries a weapon, he feels at a disadvantage if it's in plain view for the public to see.

NavyLCDR
May 10, 2010, 10:09 PM
He feels that it gives away the element of surprise in a defensive situation. Even though he carries a weapon, he feels at a disadvantage if it's in plain view for the public to see.

It's pretty hard to deter crime using the element of surprise. That's why LEO open carry - as a deterrent. If the element of surprise is so important, than I would suggest this - let's take the guns away from 1/2 of the cops, and the other 1/2 conceal theirs. That way the bad guy won't know which cops are armed and which aren't and the all important element of surprise will now be on the cop's side, right? :scrutiny:

And it will have another added benefit too. It is also claimed that people who are known to be carrying a gun are shot first and their guns taken from them, so my plan would also eliminate 1/2 of that threat too! If there was only 50% chance that a cop was carrying a gun, that would lower the criminal's desire to shoot them to take their gun, right?

Oh... heck, and a third benefit would be that more people would feel comfortable around cops if they didn't see their guns, because people carrying guns are scary, right?

AND! Wouldn't it make the Brady Campaign happy, too, to have 1/2 of LEO's guns off the streets? Isn't that what they say the problem is? Guns on the streets?

Oh, oh... and think of the budget savings only having to buy guns and ammo for 1/2 of the cops!

What a plan, I just don't see any down sides to it!

JohnKSa
May 11, 2010, 12:46 AM
And I think this is a big disagreement amongst us. An activity that a person must pay the government a tax in order to engage in is NOT a right! It is a PRIVILEGE that the state is giving you permission to do, if you pay them in order to obtain that permission.It's a right in that they can't deny you a permit unless you have done something illegal.

Rights can be taxed. You have the right to earn an income and to own real estate, but you will have to pay the government taxes in order to legally exercise either of those rights. You have the right to own a business but not without paying taxes.

Rights can be regulated via permits. You have a right to develop and build on your own land, but in some circumstances you may be required to purchase a permit to do so and get approval.

Besides, are you really saying that, based on principle, you would stop open carrying if it required a permit? Because it's no longer a right and you refuse to pay and petition the government for the privilege to carry?

What you wrote has a nice ring to it and I understand the point you're trying to get across, but that kind of rhetoric isn't really constructive.

NavyLCDR
May 11, 2010, 01:12 AM
It's a right in that they can't deny you a permit unless you have done something illegal.

Really? Tell that to the residents of California, Iowa (soon to change), New York, Connecticut, Maryland and Alabama. In those states, citizens are at the mercy of their local sheriff as to who gets a permit and who doesn't. And then there are other states that make the process incredibly difficult, requiring the sign-off from local mental hospitals and multiple references in order to obtain a permit.

Besides, are you really saying that, based on principle, you would stop open carrying if it required a permit? Because it's no longer a right and you refuse to pay and petition the government for the privilege to carry?

I open carry about 95% of the time because, in Washington state, it is exercising a RIGHT for which no permit is required. I also have a Washington state CPL, which gives me the PRIVILEGE of concealing the gun if I want to, and also gives me the PRIVILEGE to carry my gun loaded in a vehicle. What I will not do is ever claim that I am exercising my right to carry when I am under the conditions that require the permit to carry. In those circumstances, I am exercising a PRIVILEGE that I have paid the government a fee to in order to obtain membership into an elite group of people.

The problem is that too many pro-gun people around here consider it exercising their RIGHT to carry a gun that they are only capable of carrying because they have paid the state a fee for permission. And too many pro-gun people around here are perfectly OK with being required to obtain the government's permission in order to carry.

What about the citizen that simply cannot afford to pay for the training some states require to obtain a permit and cannot afford to pay for the permit? What about their rights in states that require a permit to carry at all such as Texas, Oklahoma, New York, etc. I guess they are just S.O.L. aren't they?

There are too many pro-gun people around here who are only willing to call a spade a heart for fear of offending the anti-gun crowd and aren't willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.

JoeSlomo
May 11, 2010, 02:53 AM
I open carry about 95% of the time because, in Washington state, it is exercising a RIGHT for which no permit is required.


Not much more to say about that imo.

Respect.

Dashunde
May 11, 2010, 10:14 AM
These two statements don't go together, you know.

And your message is diluted by the awful spelling, is English not your first language?


Yes they do.
I believe everyone has the right to do those things, I simply said I don’t like to see it.
It could also be broken down by actions that do or do not represent behavior, manners, decency, or public image.

Yep, I misspelled "nauseated", and intentionally dropped a "g" here and there, I’m also not much for using apostrophes. Good of you to notice all of that and point it out, too bad your spell checker doesn’t help you much with reading comprehension.

That's why LEO open carry - as a deterrent.
Navy, we are not cops nor are we supposed to individually act as crime deterrents, to OC like a LEO automatically makes citizens obstacles and targets who don’t wear vests.
And why is it not sinking in that cops are shot at all the time for simply being in the way of the criminal's objective?
Read up on Cookie Thornton (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/DF9F175C2F225844862573E9001BDB9A?OpenDocument) if you have any doubts about whether or not you and your visible gun would be targeted first.

Your mistaken if you think that visible gun on your hip will deter a motivated criminal… your just offering up a free spare gun.
And while I'm thinking about it, how many of you OC'ers are properly trained in defending your holstered firearm?

What about the citizen that simply cannot afford to pay for the training some states require to obtain a permit and cannot afford to pay for the permit?
The untrained should not carry. Period.
Under the circumstances you describe the chances are high that they can't afford practice ammo either.

NavyLCDR
May 11, 2010, 11:20 AM
nor are we supposed to individually act as crime deterrents

I very much beg to differ with you, my friend. I WILL deter every crime that might be potentially committed against me that is possible! So what you are saying is you would rather be a victim who has to defend himself against a crime in progress rather than a hardened target that just isn't worth it.

You very obviously have a different brand of criminals in your area than criminals that are in my area. I guess the criminals around here are smarter. They see a hardened target that has the capability of shooting and killing them and the criminals around here simply go down the street one block, or wait five minutes for the threat to pass and then they attack the next target that comes along that is not visibly armed. So let's see - advantage to criminal - greatly reducing the chances of getting shot; disadvantage - they have to walk one block down the road or wait five minutes.

It is just plain foolish to think that a criminal is going to risk getting shot at, and all the attention that draws, in order to get a couple credit cards from a wallet, or a couple hundred bucks out of a cash register when 95% of the other targets in very close proximity are visibly unarmed.

So- from that point of view, I would like to thank you and the other concealed carriers out there. Because you are of great benefit to me. You are increasing the number of visibly unarmed targets out there and making it easier for the criminal to decide to leave me and my gun alone. Thank you! And, if you should get the opportunity to test your element of surprise, I hope it works out well for you. Please aim accurately, and I hope you can deal with the aftermath of shooting a person. For me, I'll take the odds that the criminal will just move on by me because they don't particularly care for gunfights.

The untrained should not carry. Period.

And here it is. Only the trained, only the elite should be able to protect themselves, according to you. I am sure glad I live in America. And I am glad that your way of thinking is still the minority in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave - whether or not they are trained.

mrokern
May 11, 2010, 11:51 AM
I'm was going to stay out of this one, but there are two issues I have to comment on. For the record, I'm very pro-OC. It doesn't mean I always do it...heck, I rarely do it. But I have my own reasons for both OC and CC, and they are just that: my reasons.

The first was the assertion that the 2A was vaguely worded. Wrong. If you actually study the history and writings around the creation of it, you'll find that the founders were anything but vague. The current mess is nothing more than activist judges not being able to understand proper English writing from the 1700s. The 2A supports the citizenry, plain and simple.

The second issue is the comment that the untrained should not carry. Every set of statistics I've ever seen shows that there is zero difference between states where more intensive training (e.g. Minnesota) is required and states where no permit (e.g. Alaska) is required. The 2A doesn't apply only to those who have the money to go to Gunsite, or even to my permit classes (full disclosure, I am a MN Permit to Carry instructor). I teach my classes because the law says a class is required. I charge to cover my time and costs...this is a passion, not a job.

Is it a personal responsibility to educate oneself as to proper operation and safe use of a firearm? Absolutely. Does that require large amounts of cash? Of course not. To require otherwise is to restrict a right that belongs to ALL Americans, and that is simply not constitutional or moral.

-Mark

JohnBT
May 11, 2010, 12:18 PM
"The untrained should not carry. Period."

Do you believe that training should be required prior to exercising 1st Amendment rights?

Of course you don't. So why require it for the 2nd Amendment rights?

John

NavyLCDR
May 11, 2010, 12:26 PM
"The untrained should not carry. Period."

Do you believe that training should be required prior to exercising 1st Amendment rights?

Of course you don't. So why require it for the 2nd Amendment rights?

John

Actually, John, he never stated that training should be required. He just doesn't like being around people carrying guns who don't meet his "standards." And he has every right to feel that way. He also has every right to go somewhere else if he doesn't like being around armed Americans.

If you enjoyed reading about "Open carry is setting us back. IMO" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!