An "Open Carry" poster to think about.


PDA






Mp7
July 31, 2014, 04:27 AM
Isn't this the core of it all?
The reason why there cannot be consensus
on this?

Think about it. (Before preaching .....)

If you enjoyed reading about "An "Open Carry" poster to think about." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
X-Rap
July 31, 2014, 04:50 AM
Considering the source of the attachment I put little value on the question.

Mp7
July 31, 2014, 08:06 AM
Not considering the source would actually make
the action called "thinking" more effective.
(On both sides of any of these arguments)

my 02$.

Praxidike
July 31, 2014, 08:15 AM
Isn't this the core of it all?
The reason why there cannot be consensus
on this?

Think about it. (Before preaching .....)
The core of what exactly, and how is carrying a firearm "anti-social, deviant behavior?"

I do not understand what you are getting at...

Billy Shears
July 31, 2014, 08:18 AM
Possibly there's something to that, at least in terms of how some people perceive it. Lugging around an AR-15 does tend to look rather extreme. Looking at it strictly from a tactical perspective, what do you need all that firepower for? What situation, as a civilian, do you imagine you are going to get into that will require that? Most civilians who have had to use a firearm to defend themselves have not had to do more than show the gun to cause the threat to flee, and those who have had to fire have almost never had to reload. The reality is that finding cases where a private citizen needed to reload in the midst of an attack is tough to do; in the vast, overwhelming number of incidents people have solved their problems with the ammunition that was in their gun to start. Civilians carrying weapons for personal defense are not going to face the same threat a police S.W.A.T. team would, and don't really need the same kind of firepower. Moreover, you're going to be a lot faster drawing your handgun out of a strong side holster than you would unslinging that rifle from your back if a threat suddenly appears in front of you.

From a strictly social perspective, even in those places where its historically been not uncommon to see people carrying weapons openly, that has almost always meant holstered pistols most of the time. It's never been normal for people to go about their daily business all the time with long guns slung on their backs. Engaging in this sort of behavior is NOT going to make non-gun owners see firearms as normal or everyday and acclimatize them to it, because it's never been normal in our society. It is, however, going to make most non-gun people see the guys doing this as paranoid nuts or mall ninjas, and regard them with the sort of (sometimes amused) contempt people look at such with.

RustyShackelford
July 31, 2014, 08:33 AM
A) is where you live/work a open carry or open display of rifles/shotguns/firearms? If so, then your personal opinion doesn't matter. :uhoh: If you don't like it, leave the business or property. You don't need wag your finger or rail against people who might disagree with your political views. :rolleyes:
I don't like it when motorcycle riders rev the motors or make a lot of noise. Do I run out into the street or parking lot & lose my ___ over it? No.
B) Some of these 2A supporters or gun owners just want press or attention, if you ignore them, they will stop or leave. Just be civil, stay calm & avoid talking or standing near them.
C) If you really get steamed by it & don't like OC, then ask your local elected officials to stop it or pass laws/city ordinances. My state passed a gun law about 5 years ago saying no local government or municipality can make new firearm/weapon laws so look into your local laws first. ;)
D) A private business can set SOPs or policy so you can ask mgmt or the corporate office to not allow open carry or guns.

hso
July 31, 2014, 08:51 AM
Moved to Activism Discussion in the hopes a clear point can be revealed since no plan of action that members can use was provided.

Praxidike
July 31, 2014, 08:54 AM
A) is where you live/work a open carry or open display of rifles/shotguns/firearms? If so, then your personal opinion doesn't matter. :uhoh: If you don't like it, leave the business or property. You don't need wag your finger or rail against people who might disagree with your political views. :rolleyes:
I don't like it when motorcycle riders rev the motors or make a lot of noise. Do I run out into the street or parking lot & lose my ___ over it? No.
B) Some of these 2A supporters or gun owners just want press or attention, if you ignore them, they will stop or leave. Just be civil, stay calm & avoid talking or standing near them.
C) If you really get steamed by it & don't like OC, then ask your local elected officials to stop it or pass laws/city ordinances. My state passed a gun law about 5 years ago saying no local government or municipality can make new firearm/weapon laws so look into your local laws first. ;)
D) A private business can set SOPs or policy so you can ask mgmt or the corporate office to not allow open carry or guns.
E) We do not EDC because we do not trust people in general as if we're paranoid that any and everyone we come in contact with is out to get us like the image you posted is suggesting. We carry to be prepared for situation where people have made it clear to us that they can not be trusted.

F) Yes, we want people who do not like firearms to "distinguish" between us and criminals; however, I do not need or want their approval. Most people who do not like firearms are never going to trust those that choose to carry no matter what size gun they are carrying because they believe that there's no point in owning a gun, only criminals carry guns, and L.E. will always come to the rescue. It's just that some antigun groups are using and exploiting the "scary" imagery of people carrying long guns to drum up support to ban all civilians from owning them, and to push for other restrictive gun laws. They will only trust us when we're completely disarmed...

RX-178
July 31, 2014, 08:56 AM
Well, I've never open carried a long gun in my life, and have never seen a compelling reason to, here's my take on it:

The first flaw in that comment is the explicit categorizing of those who carry guns as doing it because they (we) 'don't trust people'.

Speaking for myself, I'm not suspicious or distrusting of people, so trying to characterize this as making me hypocritical doesn't work.

Second flaw is labeling that form of open carry as 'antisocial, deviant behavior'. That is at best, a subjective interpretation. In other words, they use fancy words to make it sound like something factual, when they're actually just stating their opinion, and expecting everyone else to agree with it. As well as carrying the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with that opinion is some kind of 'weirdo'.

hso
July 31, 2014, 08:58 AM
The carrying of rifles in public places came about because of the lack of open carry provisions in state carry laws and OC discussions haven't traditionally included carrying rifles until very recently because of it. As such, carrying rifles in public isn't "carry" in and of itself, but a form of protest against the lack of OC provisions in state law.

An honest discussion of carrying rifles in public has to consider openly carrying rifles in unusual places as a form of activism, however much you agree or disagree with the approach.

hovercat
July 31, 2014, 09:20 AM
I can imagine an Occupy Wall Street person saying the same about a police officer. Leaving out the anti social and deviant parts, the comment does apply to many police who are allowed to carry even when off duty, and do.
If someone is being deviant it will be obvious by a factual description of their actions. If you have to say so, you are trying to bolster a weak point.
I wish I knew how to post the photo of the Israeli teacher and her class on an outing, slung M16 included. Or the group of young Israeli ladies in in a shop OC.
If the photo in the poster bothers you, then the idea that those same people have even more firearms and more ammo in the houses next door, next to the playground, next to the school and hospital....EEEK!!! They might be everywhere!!! Need to have the Police check them out!

bigfatdave
July 31, 2014, 09:28 AM
Marmel is the worst kind of scum

His little poster is idiotic collectivist nonsense

For the 3489635967th time, OPEN CARRY OF A HANDGUN IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS.
The only options for OC in Texas (which is 1A protected free speech, 1A protected free assembly, and 2A protected bearing arms) are long guns and antiques.

Stop buying into the media hype and gun-control garbage on this subject, folks.

Sam1911
July 31, 2014, 10:11 AM
The reason why there cannot be consensus on this?

Chasing the social fiction of "consensus?" Well, imagining for a second that there's some use in chasing that chimera, how can there be consensus when society includes folks who think that carrying a firearm is "anti-social" and "deviant?"

Keeping, and bearing arms is part of the fabric of American life. It in some ways defines a piece of what and American is, or has the personal freedom and RIGHT to be.

Fortunately, far more Americans seem to innately understand this than do not, and the effect of voices like these appear to be dwindling to historically low levels of irrelevancy.

Nom de Forum
July 31, 2014, 02:11 PM
In my opinion the concealed carry or open carry of a handgun in a public space is something that can be explained to and understood by the majority of people as a rational and reasonable decision to be prepared for a very unlikely event that because of the catastrophic consequences should the event occur it is prudent to be prepared.

In my opinion the open carry of a rifle or shotgun in a public space is something that can only be explained as a rational and reasonable decision when it is very likely you will be subjected to the threat of deadly force if you attempt to access water, food, and medical care because civil and military authorities are incapable of providing safe access during a natural or man-made disaster.

In my opinion when you see someone openly carrying a rifle or shotgun in a public space during other than the situation described in the preceding paragraph it is rational and reasonable to assume any of the following possibilities: the person may be preparing to commit a violent act, the person has a dangerous misperception of the threat level of his surroundings and may overreact with inappropriate deadly force, or the person is making a political statement by displaying a deadly weapon. Because the first two of these possibilities require rational and reasonable people to become alarmed, prepare for imminent need to flee or defend oneself from deadly assault, and results in a disturbance of the peace; it makes the third possibility a unlawful disturbance of the peace and unlawful disorderly conduct. It is also damn rude public behavior and detrimental to the political defense of Second Amendment rights.

Nom de Forum
July 31, 2014, 02:23 PM
The core of what exactly, and how is carrying a firearm "anti-social, deviant behavior?"

I do not understand what you are getting at...

It is deviant behavior because it deviates from the behavior of the vast majority of people in our society. It is perceived as anti-social because the vast majority of people in our society do not believe their daily routine is conducted in a environment where danger requiring the use of rifles for defense is imminent and do believe that someone carrying a rifle is more likely to preparing to engage in criminal activity or believes they need to intimidate others to ensure their personal safety.

jr_watkins
July 31, 2014, 02:52 PM
What if, in the photo above, the two men are uniformed police officers? Does that change the general opinion at all? If so, there should be room for quite a bit of discussion there. That is, why would it be more reasonable for police to be more armed than the law abiding citizen. Especially when the police are not engaged in an active crime situation warranting. The weapons slung, not deployed.

Cump
July 31, 2014, 02:58 PM
I'm repeating others less clearly: but the problem with the poster and quote is that it conflates general open carry -- which does not imply distrust of everyone, antisociability or deviance -- with the open carry of rifles in consumer places, which would seem unnecessary and and thus would seem to reflect antisocial distrust or deviance (*if it were not a politicized choice or one influenced by restrictions*).

The general connection to carry is inappropriate since we carry because of an unlikely threat (rather than distrust of everyone), and neither does the evaluative argument apply to rifle carry since it is often a political statement, not really a representation of one's self-defense calculations.

An aside: In my home states, where open carry of handguns is legal, after recent gun control proposals, someone will occasionally open-carry an AR. Most have claimed the purpose was to make them seem more normal to the public. But they did not in fact have the motivation to protest the restriction of open handgun carry ...

Billy Shears
July 31, 2014, 04:39 PM
What if, in the photo above, the two men are uniformed police officers? Does that change the general opinion at all? If so, there should be room for quite a bit of discussion there. That is, why would it be more reasonable for police to be more armed than the law abiding citizen. Especially when the police are not engaged in an active crime situation warranting. The weapons slung, not deployed.
You wouldn't see that. I say this as a currently serving police officer. We don't go into restaurants to eat, or in Starbuck's to order coffee, or in citizens' homes to answer calls, with shotguns and rifles, slung or not. Unless there is a serious threat, the shotguns and patrol rifles stay secured in the car. So flip your question around, if we don't do it, why would it look normal for a citizen?

hso
July 31, 2014, 06:26 PM
Carrying rifles in public places like this is not normal and that's part of the point of OC protesters doing it. Originally intended to make a political/social statement about OC not being legal for handguns in TX the protesters were doing something out of the ordinary to get OC for handguns promoted. It didn't work out the way they intended because the message was lost on the public and, apparently, on most of the people carrying out this demonstration.

It was a risky approach in the activism sense because it took advantage of the TX law that allowed carrying rifles in the open (due to the extensive rural/ranch/range land issues in TX) while risking a backlash that might have made it illegal to carry rifles in the open for anyone. It went from being an extreme idea to draw attention to OC for rifles not being a threat to public safety extending to OC for handguns to an odd one when the the OC for handguns message got lost.

When you lose your message, in your face political "speech" just becomes whatever your opponents and the folks muddying the message want to turn it into.

RustyShackelford
July 31, 2014, 06:31 PM
I think the bigger question is what is normal?
Is it normal to walk into a business or go around in public with a AK47 or M4 in a tactical sling?
No, not really. :rolleyes:
But, but If citizens have a legal right to do it or they feel they need the gun(s) for protection/defense then so be it.
As I stated before, open carry of shotguns/rifles/ARs only becomes a issue if you let it.
I don't give 2 hoots what some anti-gun wag or lib says.
If you see a OCer, don't engage them. If they are tricked out in full Mall Ninja outfits & carry tactical kit guns, ignore them. :rolleyes:
When these gun owners see no one wants to play their sad game, they'll peter out.
I've seen online clips of citizens going up & arguing or screaming at the 2Aers. That's what they want. So they can run home & post online rants/jeers.

I'd add that if open carry(or "full" open carry) was legal in my location, Id pack my Glock 21 .45acp sometimes or wear my Shield/J frame openly just for comfort/convenience not to "play cop" or protest 2A issues.

Welding Rod
July 31, 2014, 09:40 PM
This poster would be a great classroom training aid for a discussion on critical thinking skills.... potentially a false premise stated as fact, leading to a potentially false conclusion which was predicated on opinion, and which was also stated as fact.

Johannes_Paulsen
July 31, 2014, 10:25 PM
A handgun is, by its nature, a defensive weapon.

A rifle is an offensive one.

I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind. If I see someone carrying a pistol in a holster walking down the street, my first reaction is that they're simply prepared. If I see someone walking down the street carrying a rifle, my first instinct is to get out of there, because someone is expecting and/or seeking a fight.

{The above assumes that we're in a city. If it's the country, and it's hunting season, then the situation changes. But, even then, the carrier is still seeking a fight...just not with another person.}

Sam1911
July 31, 2014, 10:36 PM
A handgun is, by its nature, a defensive weapon.

A rifle is an offensive one.

I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind.

That's a reasonable opinion, but not a fact-based distinction. I understand why you might feel that way, but it really is no more universally TRUE than the statement that small guns are for women and big guns are for men.

Some might say so, and have reasons why they feel that way, but it's all a matter of opinion-based generalization, with plenty of EASY examples to negate that opinion.

hso
August 1, 2014, 12:11 AM
The majority of people didn't have handguns until suburbanization took place. The rifle over the door was the rural standard and that rifle was commonly used to protect livestock, feed the family, or protect the family. The rifle was the defensive firearm.

hovercat
August 1, 2014, 12:54 AM
The statement in the poster can just as easily be used against CC.

barnbwt
August 1, 2014, 01:12 AM
"The rifle over the door was the rural standard and that rifle was commonly used to protect livestock, feed the family, or protect the family. The rifle was the defensive firearm."

That Orwell guy had a famous quote to that effect, if I am remembering correctly... It's worth noting that handguns have only been particularly effective defensive tools for most folks for a bit over 100 years (before then, the quality revolvers around were very expensive for most people; hardly a near-commodity appliance like today)

TCB

RustyShackelford
August 1, 2014, 04:43 AM
I, for one, do not look at a rifle as "offensive". Rifles are used for target matches, hunting, collecting, etc.
In turn, a handgun can be used as a lethal weapon. It can injury or kill a person the same way a rifle or shotgun could.

Rusty

Johannes_Paulsen
August 1, 2014, 08:58 AM
@Sam1911: Sure, you absolutely would win that argument on technical grounds. Technically, nuclear weapons aimed at a nation's population centers can be 'defensive' too, if the intent is to deter attack. As with all things, context is king, and the reality is always more complicated than what is apparent at first blush.

I don't think, however, that you win public opinion on technicalities very often. If we're talking about winning hearts and minds of those in the middle, I don't think open carry of rifles is the way to do it, just because we don't get past the appearance factor. Remember what happened in California, when that noted conservative hero Ronald Reagan signed gun control legislation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) in response to open carrying at political protests. Appearances matter in political discourse. The civil rights movement in the South was very successful at cutting a non-violent appearance. But we also know that the 'non-violent' approach was possible thanks to the fact that the community was prepared (http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/22/how-crazy-negroes-with-guns-he).

This is where I'm coming from. That said, I can be (and am willing to be) talked out of this opinion.

Let's talk through a scenario here. This sort of situation is weighing on my mind.

My daughter is almost 2 years old. We live in the city, and there are several playgrounds nearby that we go to occasionally. Let's say we're both there. It's an urban residential area. A few other children are playing nearby. A person unknown to me is walking down the street near the playground carrying an M1 Garand. He's wearing a tacticool vest. He turns into the playground. He hasn't taken any action other than to walk into the playground. I don't think the person has seen either me or my daughter yet. I have concealed on my person a 9mm Glock and one spare magazine (as typical).

What should I do in this situation?

Apachedriver
August 1, 2014, 01:52 PM
Let's talk through a scenario here. This sort of situation is weighing on my mind.

My daughter is almost 2 years old. We live in the city, and there are several playgrounds nearby that we go to occasionally. Let's say we're both there. It's an urban residential area. A few other children are playing nearby. A person unknown to me is walking down the street near the playground carrying an M1 Garand. He's wearing a tacticool vest. He turns into the playground. He hasn't taken any action other than to walk into the playground. I don't think the person has seen either me or my daughter yet. I have concealed on my person a 9mm Glock and one spare magazine (as typical).

What should I do in this situation?

What if we modify your scenario just a bit?

Let's say the person walking has his shirt blow open by the breeze and you clearly see a pistol tucked into his waistband without a holster. Instead of a tacticool vest, he's wearing tats on his arms and neck, and baggy clothing with a bandana hanging out.

In either situation, you can pick from the same four options.
1. Collect your daughter while spreading the alarm and starting a panic.
2. Collect your daughter, leave the park, and contact authorities as a concerned citizen.
3. Stay and square off on the individual since you are armed also.
4. Stay and maintain vigilance as your daughter plays until an actual threat is presented. Then act. If no threat is there, then continue to enjoy your day.

I'd say 2 and 4 are reasonable, but 1 and 3 are not. Why? Neither scenario gives you enough situational data to assume that something is wrong or illegal. The jerky boy in your scenario may just be another dad coming to collect his child at the park. The jerky boy in mine might also be a dad doing the same.

I realize our experiences are different in life. As a result, I look at tacticool boys and think of how foolish they looks. I look at the assumed thugs and think the same. Either way, I'd still keep an eye open for danger, or I'd leave the area calmly.

Elkins45
August 1, 2014, 02:03 PM
A rifle slung over your back like the ones in the photos is not a self-defense tool unless you live in an area where attackers customarily give you a few seconds early warning. It's a statement, and not one that seems to be helping our cause.

Sam1911
August 1, 2014, 02:08 PM
... He hasn't taken any action other than to walk into the playground. I don't think the person has seen either me or my daughter yet. I have concealed on my person a 9mm Glock and one spare magazine (as typical).

What should I do in this situation?
Without really wanting to get into a specific situation that may or may not exactly pertain to any similar one brought up by the OP...

I'd say that's where your "OODA" loop kicks into gear. You have to Observe what this guy's doing so you can Orient yourself appropriately to him and Decide how you should Act. In other words, you've got to figure out what's going on. As I've pointed out in other threads, that's not commonly normal in peacetime American society, so what's he about? He might be a really bad guy. He might be a really ok guy, but looking for an "OC rights" type non-violent confrontation with the Police. You may completely reasonably decide you don't want to be present for what happens next, regardless.

(If he's a really BAD guy, your options just may be grim. Neither fight nor flight may be likely to end in a positive way.)

Vern Humphrey
August 1, 2014, 05:38 PM
Who or what is Marcia Bryant?

Sam Cade
August 1, 2014, 05:52 PM
"The rifle over the door was the rural standard and that rifle was commonly used to protect livestock, feed the family, or protect the family. The rifle was the defensive firearm."

That Orwell guy had a famous quote to that effect, if I am remembering correctly...


Orwell was talking about how citizen militias (or an irregular armed working class) can only exist as a status quo in egalitarian democracies and are a counterbalance to statism. Specifically the right wing conservative kind.

Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.

il.bill
August 1, 2014, 07:02 PM
Carrying rifles in public places like this is not normal and that's part of the point of OC protesters doing it. Originally intended to make a political/social statement about OC not being legal for handguns in TX the protesters were doing something out of the ordinary to get OC for handguns promoted. ...

Now I get it - it is embarrassing to admit that up until this thread I did not really understand the rationale behind the often-perceived confrontational public demonstrations in family restaurants, et al.


When you lose your message, in your face political "speech" just becomes whatever your opponents and the folks muddying the message want to turn it into.

Very well put. I can distinctly remember how that applied to some rather outlandish 'street theater' I (ahem) 'witnessed' in the early 1970's working to stop the War in Vietnam and to Impeach Nixon.

Sentryau2
August 1, 2014, 11:00 PM
The open carry of a rifle is silly at best, harmful at worst. Why live you're life looking for an unnecessary and non beneficial confrontation? You will never make someone scared of guns comfortable around them by waving and lugging rifles around on you're back. You do succeed however in annoying them, and inconveniencing them if they feel so unsafe that they choose to leave. You waste your time and any officers who respond. That's another thing if the police get a call about a guy acting strange carrying a semi automatic rifle or shotgun they are going to send a unit to respond, it would be idiotic not to. Each time you open carry rifles in a blatant disregard for other people it just increases the chance of something going wrong. Its not giving you a tactical advantage, its jst as slow or slower on the draw than concealed carry and much more obvious than the open carry of a handgun. If you find yourself needing a rifle and several magazines of ammunition you probably dont have the training to deal with said situation, or are already dead because you were an obvious threat to the criminal. You want to use it as a form of protest? Fine just do it properly and make sure its clear that's what it is, a protest and not some attempt to inconvenience people. You dont want to be like the WBC protesting funeral and the like? That's what anti gunners view you as, or similar to and its not the way to win hearts and minds. I'm not saying dont OC but do it for the right reasons and not just to stick your tounge out at the rest of society.

Johannes_Paulsen
August 2, 2014, 07:40 AM
@Apachedriver: Our perspectives really aren't that different, although you clearly don't live in a northeastern urban area, as I know a few people who sport tats and wear bandannas who are just good folk. :) Sure, in your hypothetical, if someone was (say) wearing gang colors/ink and carrying a poorly-concealed firearm, and if it was a man, and if he was in a certain age bracket, I'd be on alert with him, too. No question.

That said, I'll note that you had to change the description of the person in the hypothetical. In fact, if we keep it as is - some guy wearing a tacticool vest, except he's open-carrying a pistol at the playground instead of a rifle. He becomes a person of interest, but again, I know lots of people who open carry around here (and it's perfectly legal in Pennsylvania, although carriage of a firearm either open or concealed in a 'city of the first class' requires a license). He becomes a person of interest, and I'd watch to see what he does, but I'm not immediately going to run screaming for the hills. This is my own bias that a handgun, since it is easily portable and can be carried with little effort while one goes about their daily business, is typically going to be carried for defensive purposes, because if you were seriously expecting or going to start trouble, you'd be carrying a long gun.

In fact, my wife encountered a fellow open-carrying a 1911 at one of the Pittsburgh parks a few months ago. (No, it wasn't me.) He was just...some guy.

I'm having a hard time with the rifle carry because, the wisest decision I can see to make in this scenario (at playground with 2 y/o daughter, guy carrying a rifle shows up,) is to leave. Carrying a rifle takes considerably more effort than carrying a pistol. It is quite out of the ordinary in an urban area. The person is either doing it to (a) make a political protest, (b) because he expects a serious attack on his life, or (c) because he's there with malicious intent. I'm not inclined to stick around because (a) I wasn't consulted about joining any protest that day (and protests can get violent, or at least unpleasant -- remember I have my daughter with me,) (b) I have no intent to stay around if someone's gunning for this guy, and (c) I certainly don't want to stick around if he's about to open fire.

And that's the problem I'm having with this rifle open carry business. Under normal circumstances, one doesn't just say, "Well, I'm going to head to the grocery store, pick up a few things at Home Depot, heck, I'd better grab the .30-06." It is (bringing it back to the OP,) outside the norm, and while I support the legal right, I also try to be cognizant of the fact that having the legal right to do something doesn't always make it the right thing to do.

Mainsail
August 2, 2014, 12:34 PM
The open carry of a rifle is silly at best, harmful at worst.

I was stationed at Charleston AFB fom '86 to '97. At that point in my life I owned a shotgun (Franchi SAS-12) and one handgun (Gen1 Glock 17 back when Glocks were illegal to sell in SC) and had never carried in public legally. Permits were hard to get, so if you *really* needed to carry you stuffed it down in your waistband and hoped for the best. My opinion on carry in public wasn't really even formed yet.

I remember walking around Tel Aviv at night back in the late 90s; people everywhere with loaded automatic rifles slung on their backs. Both men and women. Not all, or even most, but scattered amongst the mass of people moving around in the cool of the evening were regular citizens, heavily armed and ready to do violence if violence were necessary.

Even with my relative ignorance about firearms carry, I felt more safe there in Tel Aviv than I ever did in NYC, Madrid, London, or Boston.

So, is it merely cultural, or have you been brainwashed by the media portrayal of firearms as being purely instruments of misdeed?

People have asked me what I consider to be the greatest benefit to having flown worldwide missions for over 17 years, and I have to say it's the experience of being immersed in so many diverse cultures. Something being 'different' doesn't mean that something is wrong, it's just different. The term "ugly American" comes from Americans traveling abroad and demanding other cultures change to suit ours.

What's truly "silly" and "harmful" (your terms) is making such absolute declarations.

Sam Cade
August 2, 2014, 03:25 PM
I remember walking around Tel Aviv at night back in the late 90s; people everywhere with loaded automatic rifles slung on their backs. Both men and women. Not all, or even most, but scattered amongst the mass of people moving around in the cool of the evening were regular citizens, heavily armed and ready to do violence if violence were necessary.

Hold on. If you saw an Israeli carrying a rifle, they were in the military.

If an individual meets the stringent requirements for private firearms ownership they are only allowed a single handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition for personal defense.

Also,
"Limiting gun ownership is at the top of our agenda, and I intend to hold a weekly follow-up meeting on the subject," Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said in the statement.

"The security situation in Israel in recent decades has led to the granting of numerous gun licenses. We intend to restrict this while protecting necessary balance. In the last 10 years the number of licenses of firearms has been reduced from 300,000 to 160,000, and now we are reducing the number of licensed firearm-carriers by 10,000 a year," Aharonovitch said in the statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Aharonovich

Mainsail
August 2, 2014, 03:41 PM
Hold on. If you saw an Israeli carrying a rifle, they were in the military. I won't argue that point, I wasn't then aware of any of their gun laws- we left ours on the airplane. I was only there for one night (stupid airplane breaks easy in Ivory Coast, but hardly ever someplace you'd like to stay for a few days) and all I could see were young and middle age people in civilian clothes with slung auto rifles. I don't recall seeing any handguns.

The point is the same though. From what I knew then, regular citizens were walking around with automatic rifles. It didn't make me uncomfortable, which was a time in my life it had the most possibility of doing so.

Sam Cade
August 2, 2014, 04:13 PM
It is also worth noting that Israeli soldiers are not allowed to have a magazine in their rifle while toting it about.

Billy Shears
August 2, 2014, 04:34 PM
The point is the same though. From what I knew then, regular citizens were walking around with automatic rifles. It didn't make me uncomfortable, which was a time in my life it had the most possibility of doing so.
Perhaps it didn't, but don't make the mistake of thinking that if that was your take on it, it will be or ought to be everyone else's too. I see far too many people here making that mistake, especially in regards to open carry. I've cited letters to the editor from my local paper wherein the letter writers stated they felt an aversion to a guy openly carrying a pistol openly (holstered, of course, the entire time). They were not moved to think "oh, this is just an ordinary guy who happens to be carrying a gun; I guess gun owners are just like the rest of us." And this, even though one woman said the open carrier was perfectly polite, and even seemed to want to help her find something she was looking for in the store where she encountered him. Nevertheless, she found him ridiculous, and her impression of him was that he was a mall ninja or something.

I'm not saying this to defend her position; I happen to think her reaction was unreasonable, her thinking emotional, not logical. I merely point this out to state facts. People do tend to think emotionally, rather that logically, and whether or not you have any respect for their opinions, these are voters who have just as much influence on public policy as you or I, perhaps more, if they are at all politically active.

Another example is the open carry advocates who stridently assert that it's a deterrent. And the same people will sneer at the suggestion from those (like me) who maintain concealed carry is almost always a better option when available, because a bad guy really intent on doing harm will just target you first, and maintain that this never happens. (This turns out not to be the case, BTW -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY. As an aside, listen to one of the ordinary citizens interviewed for this piece, a young female -- she says she has seen the guy around the neighborhood carrying openly all the time, and she found him scary.) The problem, again, is they are equating what they think, to what everyone else thinks. They are making a rational calculation in their heads, and it certainly seems like the most reasonable thing in the world, so they figure everyone must think that way. Folks, it's just not necessarily so. These posters are law abiding citizens, and they don't really think like a criminal does, especially not a hardened, violent, repeat offender with a long list of felonies on his record.

So again, bear in mind that what you think on this issue is your opinion, and a lot of other people have differing ones that they hold just as strongly as you hold yours, and that they think are every bit as reasonable and natural for other people to share.

Vern Humphrey
August 2, 2014, 07:41 PM
It is also worth noting that Israeli soldiers are not allowed to have a magazine in their rifle while toting it about.
They're not allowed to have a round chambered when carrying a handgun, either.

But Israel's writ don't run in the US.

Sentryau2
August 2, 2014, 10:39 PM
So comparing a thirdword/less developed country to the us? Cultural differences ingrained so deep that complete removal is almost impossible, throwing it in their faces makes them hate it more and spread their hate faster, even if its not as fast as the desire to own forearms is. You still cannot refute that it is abnormal, and I hope it stays that way because if it doesn't it means something will have gone terrible wrong. It also makes you a very obvious target to any thug in the area and pushes other people to avoid you. Its not socially acceptable to most people. Atleast answer why you simply with to alienate other people and have them avoid you? Those people carried because that's the only realistic option they had, atleast from what I can tell from you're comment. Please if you can CC or OC a handgun then yes please do carry a rifle if you feel the benefits outweighs the negatives but be realistic about it. Its not an action movie putting that rifle into play is going to take time if something bad goes wrong, time you may not have. Even more so if a round isn't chambered.

Vern Humphrey
August 2, 2014, 11:26 PM
It also makes you a very obvious target to any thug in the area
That's why you can't hardly walk down the street without stepping on the bodies of dead policemen -- because police carry openly and become "a very obvious target to any thug in the area.":rolleyes:

Sentryau2
August 3, 2014, 12:05 AM
Wow
>completely ignoring the fact police often have backup/a partner
>Usually don't patrole the worst of the gang neighbor hoods on foot
>Wear body armor
>have a cb radio
>are seen as more of a nuisance
>are not usually the victims of armed robbery either

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470871
http://icarry.org/ftopict-3299.html

You cannot compare law enforcement to the average citizen. Don't be willfully dense.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 12:17 AM
That's why you can't hardly walk down the street without stepping on the bodies of dead policemen -- because police carry openly and become "a very obvious target to any thug in the area.
Sentryau2 covered this pretty well. You are comparing apples and oranges.

That said... if you are going to be targeted by someone really intent on robbery or murder, your carrying openly is not liable to be much of a deterrent. I've already linked to a video of a news report about a man who was targeted apparently because he was armed -- the robber took his gun. And even police officers do get killed by people who target them. Remember the 4 Lakewood, Washington police officers were murdered at the former Forza Coffee Company in 2009? A lone gunman walked into the coffee shop, walked right over to their table and shot them all dead. Their being armed certainly didn't automatically deter him.

The thing is, a criminal intent on doing harm has the initiative. He acts. Others have to react to him, whether they are law enforcement or civilians, and they will often be caught completely by surprise. In other words, he's likely to have the drop on you. If you are carrying openly, you have identified yourself, before you are even aware there is going to be trouble, as someone to be dealt with, if he's not willing to walk away and try again some other time. If you are carrying openly, you are showing your hole card. Sometimes open carry is the only option you have, and if that's so, and you have a need to be armed, then that's what you'll have to do. But if you have the option, it's almost always smarter to carry concealed.

Mainsail
August 3, 2014, 01:07 AM
That said... if you are going to be targeted by someone really intent on robbery or murder, your carrying openly is not liable to be much of a deterrent.
That said... if you are going to be targeted by someone really intent on robbery or murder, your carrying concealed is not liable to be much of a deterrent. In fact, it's no deterrent whatsoever.

But if you have the option, it's almost always smarter to carry concealed.That's certainly an opinion, but why do you state it like it's common knowledge?

I've been carrying openly for ten years now, no drama. I carried openly every day very close to that Forza Coffee Shop too.

So who are you that I should take your advice? Do you or have you carried openly in the most crime infested city in the PNW? All you have is your speculation and maybe an outlier attack- you haven't proven anything. You haven't shown it to be common or even somewhat expected. I've seen open carry deter a crime, from about five feet away (that's how close he got before he noticed it).

Wait...what? Open carry isn't even a guarantee that "someone really intent on robbery or murder" will even notice it in the first place? Well doesn't that just blow your unsubstantiated theory away....

We go 'round and 'round on this forum about open carry all the time and not everyone will ever agree, but I can tell you from substantiated experience that while it [OC makes you a target] certainly *could* happen, so could anything else.

When you have actually gone out and carried openly, and have done it for years, then you will have an opinion based on experience, until then all you have is youtube and so-and-so said... which is to say you have very little. If you at minimum had someone else's experience upon which to draw your opinion, then maybe you could generate an informed opinion, but you don't even have that.

So what do you actually have? The unsubstantiated theory that it's better to wait until after the attack has already begun and only then react to that....from waaaaay behind the curve.... :rolleyes: Riiiiight....

Is OC better than CC? Of course not. Both have their place (at least in the free states) and both have advantages and disadvantages. For me and the threat most likely to present itself where I often am, open carry is far better. In some places where I go, concealed carry is better. Most often, carrying concealed-then-open or open-then-concealed works great. Options are always great. Too hot, screw CC and take off the coat, now I'm OC.

If your mind is closed, so be it. If you really believe that openly carrying a handgun in a holster is going to destroy your right to keep and bear arms, I suggest that you prepare for that now, because we aren't going to stop carrying [a handgun openly in a holster] based on your theories and fantasies. So if you really believe it, you better start digging holes in the yard.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 02:09 AM
That said... if you are going to be targeted by someone really intent on robbery or murder, your carrying concealed is not liable to be much of a deterrent. In fact, it's no deterrent whatsoever.
Demonstrably false. A definite statistical drop in violent crimes has occurred in every jurisdiction where they have passed shall-issue concealed carry laws. And what's more, the laws help protect citizens who aren't carrying, by introducing an element of uncertainty about who is armed, something that certainly cannot be said of open carry.

That's certainly an opinion, but why do you state it like it's common knowledge?
Because I've already posted an example of a person being targeted despite, and perhaps because of carrying openly. Open carry not only did not deter, but also did not help him. They bad guy had the drop on him, and by the time he knew he needed to defend himself, it was too late to react. He had no alternative but to meekly surrender his weapon to the mugger.

On the other hand, there are instances of concealed carriers able to deploy their weapons to save themselves, and take the bad guy unawares when it became clear they were probably going to be killed, such as in this story, http://www.kfvs12.com/story/24474261/names-released-after-customer-kills-gun-wielding-man-in-dallas-co-store, where a citizen was able to draw and shoot a gunman who tried to herd him and the store clerk into the break room. This would not have been possible had the bad guy been able to spot him as armed. And lest you think that's an isolated incident, here's a page with a similar incident from a Walgreen's in St. Joseph, Missouri in 2007, http://www.armed-citizens.com/ArmedCitizens/ArmedCitizens.aspx (unfortunately the heroic store employee was fired by Walgreen's for violating policy and carrying a weapon -- no good deed goes unpunished).

Open carry gives you little to no advantage in an urban area, where you are surrounded by people and will be reacting rather than acting. I am not the only one who thinks this either. Here's firearm's expert and trainer Rob Pincus on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxvOjO7XjMU. And for myself, while I am not a recognized expert, I am a serving law enforcement officer with far more training than most armed citizens ever get, and Mr. Pincus' opinions certainly go along with mine on this. Based on my own training and experience, I don't see any tactical advantage to open carry for a citizen in an urban area, and there are significant disadvantages.

I've been carrying openly for ten years now, no drama. I carried openly every day very close to that Forza Coffee Shop too.

So who are you that I should take your advice?
See above.

Do you or have you carried openly in the most crime infested city in the PNW?
Yes, including a ride-along with the Seattle PD in 2007 when I almost moved out there to join that department. And in other cities besides, both concealed and open.

All you have is your speculation and maybe an outlier attack- you haven't proven anything.
No, I have a good deal of training as well, and that includes weapon retention -- something essential if you are going to carry openly. I also have far more experience dealing directly with violent criminals than most armed citizens will ever have, thanks to being a cop. Prior to joining the police department in 2000, I got a concealed permit in Virginia in 1996, as soon as they passed the shall-issue concealed carry permit law here, and prior to that, when it was all I could legally do, I did carry openly on some occasions.

You haven't shown it to be common or even somewhat expected. I've seen open carry deter a crime, from about five feet away (that's how close he got before he noticed it).
Really? What crime was this person about to commit? How do you know that? Did he tell you?

Wait...what? Open carry isn't even a guarantee that "someone really intent on robbery or murder" will even notice it in the first place? Well doesn't that just blow your unsubstantiated theory away....
I have cited examples for my "unsubstantiated theory." Last time I checked supporting evidence was substantiating. It is you who have offered only unsupported opinion.

We go 'round and 'round on this forum about open carry all the time and not everyone will ever agree, but I can tell you from substantiated experience that while it [OC makes you a target] certainly *could* happen, so could anything else.

When you have actually gone out and carried openly, and have done it for years, then you will have an opinion based on experience, until then all you have is youtube and so-and-so said... which is to say you have very little.
Yeah, I've only been a cop for fourteen years, what would I know?

If you at minimum had someone else's experience upon which to draw your opinion, then maybe you could generate an informed opinion, but you don't even have that.
Now, in addition to unsupported opinion, you are also making totally unwarranted assumptions, which are also false, as it turns out. What was your basis for such assumptions? You don't know me from Adam, and couldn't possibly have any idea what my level of experience is.

So what do you actually have? The unsubstantiated theory that it's better to wait until after the attack has already begun and only then react to that....from waaaaay behind the curve.... Riiiiight....
When the bad guy is acting, and you are reacting, you are already "waaaaay behind the curve." I say this from experience getting into fights with criminals. Not gunfights (yet, thank God!), but violent confrontations. You'll be standing there calmly talking to someone and the next thing you know, the fight's on. If you are alert, you may pick up cues from his behavior that he's about to break bad on you, but maybe not.

At least if your weapon is concealed, and you come under attack, there may come a moment when your assailant looks away or turns to focus his attention on someone else, and you have the opportunity to draw and fire. That's how it played out in the two examples I linked to above where robbers tried to herd employees and customers toward a back room in a store -- a scenario that too often results in deaths (q.v. Stanley "Tookie" Williams).

I can also tell you, from experience on the range on the qualification course, that I can deploy my department-issue Glock 19 from a concealed holster under my suit coat about as fast as I can from my level 2 retention duty holster that I carry it openly in when I am in uniform. Here's Rob Pincus again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlojGZeu6GA, showing the difference in draw speed, and it's only just a tenth of a second slower drawing from a concealed holster than it is an open one. In an actual gunfight, what is going to really slow you down is the element of surprise and your startle response, and the delay while your shocked brain is still trying to figure out what's going on and then evaluate the threat. The extra tenth of a second you will need to sweep aside your concealing garment is not going to be the most significant factor delaying your response.

You seem to leap to the conclusion that I have little training or experience. But if you really think you are going to be miles slower drawing from concealed carry than open, then I have to say it is you who seems to be lacking either training or experience. Your expectations in this area are unrealistic.

Is OC better than CC? Of course not. Both have their place (at least in the free states) and both have advantages and disadvantages. For me and the threat most likely to present itself where I often am, open carry is far better.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.

In some places where I go, concealed carry is better. Most often, carrying concealed-then-open or open-then-concealed works great. Options are always great. Too hot, screw CC and take off the coat, now I'm OC.

If your mind is closed, so be it.
My mind is not closed, it is informed by training and experience -- again, more than the average armed citizen has.

If you really believe that openly carrying a handgun in a holster is going to destroy your right to keep and bear arms, I suggest that you prepare for that now, because we aren't going to stop carrying [a handgun openly in a holster] based on your theories and fantasies. So if you really believe it, you better start digging holes in the yard.
Well, I never said that. But open carry activists did succeed in getting the state of California to outlaw the practice. They've also demonstrably motivated businesses who wanted to stay out of the whole debate about gun rights to come down on the side of excluding weapons from their property. So if you are carrying openly for defense, fine, and I support your right to do so. If you are carrying openly when you can carry concealed, in an urban setting, then I respectfully submit, you are probably not choosing the better option. But if you are carrying openly for the purpose of making a political statement, then I submit you are indeed more likely to be instrumental in getting the right curtailed.

CoalTrain49
August 3, 2014, 11:28 AM
To me this is just another public demonstration or I'm going to demonstrate to you, the public, that I can do do this because I have a right to do it. To me it isn't any different than women going topless in public to demonstrate that they can legally do it. It doesn't mean that they will continue to do it everyday in public because of obvious reasons just as a guy isn't going to lug his AR with him to Walmart. Some women want to go topless in public, I used to see it all the time in Europe at the beach and I'm starting to see it more here. I don't consider it antisocial any more than someone who wants to carry a gun. People who have issues with public nudity or OC should take a look at their own slightly askew views and quit trying to shape the world so they will be more comfortable with those around them. That to me is antisocial deviant behavior. To those people I say get over yourself.

JDBoardman
August 3, 2014, 11:44 AM
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.

When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.

And for those who are "shocked" by my comparing equal opportunity and equal accommodation to open carry, may I remind you that both principles are enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact that a portion of the public doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad.

hso
August 3, 2014, 12:02 PM
Let's try to get this back on track and focus on the issues with the poster.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 12:43 PM
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.

When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.
But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted. The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.

Analogies are never perfect, and comparing civil rights for Blacks to gun ownership is no exception. One of the reason sit ins and marches worked is that it brought national attention to the plight of blacks in a time when much of the rest of the country genuinely didn't know how badly Blacks were treated in the Jim Crow South. People saw on the news how bad it was and they were outraged. Gun owners cannot expect and will not get the same level of sympathy. Being Black is something that you are (or not), and cannot help being (or not being), therefore people were moved to sympathy and outrage seeing how people who could not help being what they were, were being treated abominably simply for being what they were. They were being persecuted for something they had no control over. Non-racist Americans had no difficulty perceiving the fundamental, gross injustice of this.

Carrying firearms is an entirely different kettle of fish, as far as most people are concerned. It is a behavior. It is something you do control. And yes, I know it's a constitutionally protected right. That doesn't for a moment mean most people just don't see it differently. And I promise you, people seeing yahoos like the ones in the poster, with a spooky looking "assault weapon" standing in line at a counter, are not going to be looked at the same way. They're just not.

A better analogy might be the situation with gays, which some people, whether rightly or not, also see as a choice (I'm not inclined to think that it is, for the most part). The in your face gay pride parades were not what really changed the picture on gay rights. Displays of men in drag, men wearing assless chaps in public, gimp masks and so on were not what did it. Those things tended to revolt most people, and reinforce the stereotype of gays as deviant, lascivious perverts and a corrupting influence to be resisted. What changed things was people coming out and the realization among an ever greater number of people that that guy you've worked with for the last five years, or the neighbor two houses over who's always been a decent guy, or dry cleaner who's done your shirts and suits for ages, or the restaurant manager who always greets you kindly and makes sure you have excellent service are, in fact, gay, and they're perfectly ordinary, perfectly decent people.

Nom de Forum
August 3, 2014, 02:58 PM
In the mid-1950's into the 1960's, Blacks staged sit-ins and demonstrations throughout the South to bring attention to the inequities in their treatment; exclusion from public accommodations, restaurants, lunch counters, and so forth. The behavior of many of my fellow Southerners was one of shock and horror, with a "how dare they do that! don't they know their place?". Now, we look back in embarrassment at those archaic attitudes, and those Americans who stood up peaceably for their equal rights are now looked upon very favorably.

When one protests against the status quo, one can at first expect horror and derision, then later, simply being ignored, and finally, acceptance. As it was with the Civil Rights movement in the '60's, so may it be with Open Carry in the 2000's.

And for those who are "shocked" by my comparing equal opportunity and equal accommodation to open carry, may I remind you that both principles are enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact that a portion of the public doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad.


In my opinion comparing the struggle for equality that was/is the Civil Rights Movement to promoting/defending OC/CCW will result in the majority of people derisively laughing at you rather than sympathizing with you. Telling that "portion of the public" (a extremely large portion) that "doesn't like the free exercise of our rights is just too D@#$ bad" is likely to result in angering that "portion" to action against our OC/CC. When a strong majority of people support OC/CC then it might be wiser, but still rude, to express such sentiment.

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 05:18 PM
Wow
>completely ignoring the fact police often have backup/a partner
>Usually don't patrole the worst of the gang neighbor hoods on foot
>Wear body armor
>have a cb radio
>are seen as more of a nuisance
>are not usually the victims of armed robbery either

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470871
http://icarry.org/ftopict-3299.html

You cannot compare law enforcement to the average citizen. Don't be willfully dense.
I certainly can make the comparison.

If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 05:32 PM
I certainly can make the comparison.
You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.

If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.
So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/teen-homicide-suspects-have-criminal-histories/article_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 05:38 PM
Quote:
I certainly can make the comparison.

You can make it, true enough. That doesn't mean the comparison is well taken, however.
It's better than sheer imagination.

Quote:
If other people, out of sheer imagination, can claim that open carry will result "in the bad guy shooting you first" it's perfectly fair to point to a widespread example where the bad guys DON'T kill the guys carrying openly.

Reality trumps imagination.

So it does. This story from the Richmond Times-Dispatch ought to be real enough to suit you: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/te...a0a2b26ba.html It concerns an open carrier in Richmond, Virginia who was killed with his own openly carried gun after a couple of juvenile savages took it away from him.

A single anecdote refutes millions of open carrying cops?

What you're doing is the old anti-gun argument of, "A gun won't do you any good. The bad guy will just take it away from you."

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 06:01 PM
It's better than sheer imagination.
If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination. Something that has been demonstrated to occur in reality is not some kind of fantasy. Wishing it were will not change this.

A single anecdote refutes millions of open carrying cops?
Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him. He didn't get killed, but he might well have been if he had resisted like the victim in the story from Richmond. And here's yet another story about an attempt at snatching a gun out of the holster of an open carrier: http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/unarmed-man-attempts-to-rob-emu-student-carrying-holstered-gun/

This sort of thing may not be commonplace, but it does happen. And the vaunted deterrence of open carry didn't stop it. In fact a very compelling argument can be made that each of these three individuals was targeted precisely because they were carrying openly.

And as for millions of cops carrying openly. Yeah, they do. I'm one of them. And as such I am aware of the dangers. Such as the fact that every year a significant percentage of them who are killed in the line of duty are shot and killed with their own guns. Cops are trained to be alert, they often work with partners, and they have the best retention holsters available and are trained in weapon retention. Yet they still get their guns taken from them! You think you can do better if a bad guy comes up behind you and tried to take your gun? Most armed citizens have “level zero” retention holsters, and no training in weapon retention. Many of the holsters citizens wear openly will rip right off their belts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeKtgkZKmQ), unlike a police duty belt, which is designed to resist someone trying to forcibly wrench the holster off.

The argument that "a gun won't do you any good; the bad guy will just take it away from you," is all too likely to be true if the bad guy gets the drop on you. And marking yourself out for his notice increases your likelihood of this happening. Each of the three victims in the news stories I have cited would almost certainly never have been victimized if they had been carrying concealed instead of openly. Their assailants would not even have known they were armed. But they still would have been able to defend themselves, and perhaps would have been better able to do so by virtue of possessing a defensive capability their assailants were unaware of, and which they could then deploy with the element of surprise on their side.

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 06:12 PM
If it has happened in the real world, and it has, then it is more than just imagination.
It's still anecdotal.
Who said it was a single anecdote? I've already posted a link to yet another story about a guy having his gun taken away from him.
Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.

On the other hand, cops carry openly by the millions -- and a few anecdotes don't cancel out evidence like that.

zxcvbob
August 3, 2014, 06:12 PM
What exactly are we supposed to be thinking about? I'm confused.

And as for millions of cops carrying openly. Yeah, they do, and guess what, every year a significant percentage of them who are killed in the line of duty are shot and killed with their own guns. Cops are trained to be alert, they often work with partners, and they have the best retention holsters available and are trained in weapon retention. Yet they still get their guns taken from them! You think you can do better if a bad guy comes up behind you and tried to take your gun? Most armed citizens have “level zero” retention holsters, and no training in weapon retention.


Significant percentage? Really?

And marking yourself out for his notice increases your likelihood of this happening. Each of the three victims in the news stories I have cited would almost certainly never have been victimized if they had been carrying concealed instead of openly. Their assailants would not even have known they were armed. But they still would have been able to defend themselves, and perhaps would have been better able to do so by virtue of possessing a defensive capability their assailants were unaware of, and which they could then deploy with the element of surprise on their side.

And how many OC'er were never assaulted in the first place because the bad guy decided to find a softer target? (that's a rhetorical question because the answer is unknowable) If a bad guy targets you *because* you have a gun instead of avoiding you because you have a gun, you're probably screwed. That's a tradeoff the individual has to weigh, not really something to pontificate about. I tend to think most criminals are cowards... but I CC most of the time anyway. I also don't see where this has anything to do with the OP's poster.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 06:28 PM
Significant percentage? Really?
Yes.

But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.

And how many OC'er were never assaulted in the first place because the bad guy decided to find a softer target? (that's a rhetorical question because the answer is unknowable) If a bad guy targets you *because* you have a gun instead of avoiding you because you have a gun, you're probably screwed. That's a tradeoff the individual has to weigh, not really something to pontificate about.
"Pontificate?" That's one word to use, I suppose. But to argue strongly for the disadvantages of a certain practice can also be described in less loaded terminology, I think. And if you're going to carry a gun for self protection, it's certainly something that bears thinking about realistically.

I tend to think most criminals are cowards... but I CC most of the time anyway. I also don't see where this has anything to do with the OP's poster.
It's all related to open carry. Some people do it in preference to concealed, as much to make a statement as for self protection, and they justify the practice partly on the basis of deterring crime, so this bears discussion as well.

Mainsail
August 3, 2014, 06:31 PM
But one has to ask, "is this approach working?" Open carry activists in California succeeded in getting open carry made illegal in that state, not accepted. There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.

The buffoons in Texas carrying rifles into restaurants have succeeded in bringing business down against gun owners, not on their side.You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 06:31 PM
It's still anecdotal.

Two examples -- or even twenty -- don't mean it isn't still anecdotal.
First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.

On the other hand, cops carry openly by the millions -- and a few anecdotes don't cancel out evidence like that.
And I notice you have no response to the fact that some of them get their own guns taken from them, despite having better gear and better training than most armed citizens ever have. Nor does that address the apples and oranges aspect of comparing sworn police to armed citizens, despite the vast differences between them.

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 06:31 PM
Quote:
But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. http://www.policeone.com/close-quart...-R-I-Policies/
From all the research I've ever done, it seems to hover right there around ten percent. I'd call that significant.
And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 06:34 PM
First it was "imagination," now it's "anecdotal." Anything you can latch onto to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient, I suppose.
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 06:38 PM
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
Yes. I will. Because I, at least, always try to back up my assertions with some kind of supporting evidence, instead of simply asserting something baldly. And I will use news stories, statistics, training, experience, and whatever other tools will enable me to provide that supporting evidence.

I will also address all my opponent's points, instead of conveniently ignoring the arguments I have no answer for.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 06:47 PM
There are dynamics to what happened in CA you're leaving out. First, CA has NO right to arms provision in its constitution. Second, the people that were able to ban open carry were able to do so because they divided the gun owners. It always works. Joe Concealed doesn't care if they ban OC because he doesn't do it. John Revolver doesn't care if they ban "high capacity magazines" because he doesn't own one. Third, the people who pushed the ban on OC would GLADLY ban concealed carry, as well as home carry, or even private gun ownership if they can further divide the CA gun owners. So no, it wasn't open carry that got open carry banned, it was a divided gun owner base.
This is what denial looks like.

Sure the antis were able to divide gun owners. This facilitated the California ban, to be sure. But it didn't provide the impetus for it. Dividing gun owners against themselves was a tactic, a method, not the reason for taking action. That reason, that impetus was provided by the ill-considered actions of the OC activists who used open carry as an in-your-face tactic that backfired and provoked the antis to greater action.

You are being intentionally vague here. The buffoons brought businesses down against buffoonery, not necessarily guns. Most, if not all of those places still allow guns, they're just asking not to be made part of a political movement. Also, for all they hype, Texas doesn't really have a strong right to arms provision in their constitution.
Yes, but notice what they asked people to do? They asked people to leave the guns at home. They took no position before, but now they have taken one, and it's not pro-gun. Let the OC activists continue their ostentatious carry, however, and they may provoke yet another backlash, stronger next time.

Vern Humphrey
August 3, 2014, 07:06 PM
Quote:
And anything you can latch onto, from pure imagination to a few anecdotes, you will use, I suppose.
Yes. I will
That pretty much ends the discussion.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 07:15 PM
That pretty much ends the discussion.
Since you are unwilling to use intellectually honest debate tactics, I suppose it does.

First, you fail to provide any support for your opinions, you simply state them as if they are fact. Second, you accuse those objecting to your points of using "sheer imagination" to come up with reasons for their objections. Third, when they find actual examples that bear their objections out you not only dismiss said examples, unconsidered, you continue to throw the charge of their using "pure imagination." These are real world examples, mind you, but you dismiss them as "pure imagination." This is intellectually dishonest by any standard. Fourth, you simply ignore certain key points of their arguments, responding to a comparison you brought up. And fifth, you quote them selectively. Again, this is intellectually dishonest.

My impression was that "high road" behavior wasn't simply the avoidance of personal insults and other such nastiness, it was also about integrity and honesty, and not intentionally misrepresenting your opponent's statements by leaving out key parts of his explanations.

Billy Shears
August 3, 2014, 07:25 PM
And from this you conclude that LEOs should not wear uniforms or carry openly?
Oh, and I missed this. I might as well address it, since I did say I try to respond to all an opponent's points.

No. Don't be obtuse.

Police still have to wear uniforms, and carry openly, and accept the risks inherent in doing so, because for them, it is a better tradeoff. Police have to respond to crimes in progress, not seek to avoid them the way a citizen does. Citizens have an actual obligation to retreat from danger in many jurisdictions (and even where there are "stand your ground" laws, and they don't, they can still be locked up if they are found to have been responsible for escalating a confrontation to the point where lethal force was employed). Police, on the other hand, have a duty to respond where citizens are expected to retreat. They need to be uniformed so they can recognize each other and avoid "blue on blue" shootings, among other reasons. It's the better tradeoff, even if that means standing out visibly and sometimes being targeted because of it. Since they already have to be uniformed, and identifiable as police officers, what would be the point of carrying concealed?

None of this is true for a armed citizen. The situation is completely different. A citizen can remain inconspicuous, and need not broadcast his armed status, and is generally better off not doing so.

Sam1911
August 3, 2014, 07:28 PM
Not sure why an inane, quippy, poster made up by someone with clearly insufficient grasp of the issues, and certainly WITHOUT our best interests at heart, has gotten so much traction here of all places. This deserves less discussion and more of a bemused pat on the head and a gentle, "Run along now, dearie, the adults are talking."

But once more we've tried to plumb the depth of OC -vs.- CC and all we've come up with is the obseravation that some folks like one set of tall tales and anecdotes and logic, and desire to support their own conclusions with them, and that other folks have their own favorite tall tales and anecdotes and logic, and are committed to supporting THEIR own deeply entrenched position with those "data."

It would be sheer folly to expect that there's going to be eventual consensus reached.

hso
August 4, 2014, 12:16 AM
Closed since members don't want to get back to the original topic and there's no point to allowing arguments take over.

If you enjoyed reading about "An "Open Carry" poster to think about." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!