The Open Carry Debate

[ATLDave]

Agreed there, as well, Sam.

Here's another way to look at it. We wouldn't think it was OK for someone to walk around with a pistol in their hand, as opposed to holstered. Nor would we be very pleased with someone who put a lanyard on that pistol and then wore it around their neck, loaded and flopping around.

Holstered handguns are one thing. A pistol may go off while being holstered, but once holstered (assuming a decent holster), a pistol is quite safe. When people talk about being safe while carrying a pistol, one of the most common refrains is to leave the gun in the holster.

When we're talking about OC of long arms, we're only talking about unholstered weapons. In a public environment, where people are around in a 360° arc, it is completely unacceptable.

 

[hardheart]

A lineman on a pole? A painter on a scaffold? An arborist pruning branches? A cyclist carrying groceries? A fly fisherman? At dinner or a movie? In the car? For defense in extremely close quarters?

Who has supported free gun zones or criminalization? Who has demonized the object? What is it about unsafe handling that you do not understand?

Do you think Soldiers never have to climb, navigate a narrow passage, trim foliage, ride a two wheeled conveyance, a four wheeled one (particularly a non-tactical), eat at a DFAC, or carry on close quarters? This is an issue of appearance, not practicality. Again, that falls right in line with the anti sentiment. It doesn't look right, so don't do it. That is a far line from it won't work or can't be done due to physical space. Plenty of posts have been made advocating for the arrest of these demonstrators, and the posting of no firearms allowed seems to be the proper response advocated by many. What I don't understand about unsafe handling is the automatic assumption that it will always happen with a long gun.

If one considers common sense, courtesy and discretion to be "Fudd-ish," then call me a Fudd.

Ah, no. Going to one's local Applebee's for a little football and a plate of nachos on Sunday afternoon isn't quite the same as gearing up to re-take Ramadi.

Having actually read through this entire thread, I will state for the record that I've seen no posters espousing "appeasing those in opposition ..."

You are spouting the much-expected hard-liner rhetoric that fans the flames the same as the two assclowns in Chipotle.

Eating at the TGIF of KAF, or the Thai place at KAIA, or the McD's at AAS aren't taking back Ramadi either, but they all involve the carry of a carbine or rifle for most of the uniformed personnel there. And not OC'ing is appeasement, since that is courtesy and discretion for others that must be obeyed. There are levels of positive or negative connotation for these words, but they all mean roughly the same, putting the thoughts and feelings of others above any other perceived or real benefits to yourself of a particular course of action.

Just as a counterpoint, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or rather, ignores reality to a degree which seems excessive.

Theoretically, sure, long guns are not more menacing or dangerous than sidearms (ignoring various technical details like energy and trajectory which might make them exceedingly more dangerous to use in densely populated areas).

However, practically they are not "appropriate" to carry in many/most situations. They are large, cumbersome, heavy. They are difficult to keep pointed in a safe direction while executing various tasks in a crowded place. Considering going about your daily routine, they are a huge pain in the butt. Even dragging along a completely inert 8-lb, 30" chunk of metal, with no social overtones or possible risk of endangering anyone, while you go shopping, stop by the bank, get your dry cleaning, eat a lunch out, etc. is supremely annoying, bothersome, and would cause everyone around you to wonder why you're saddling yourself with that impediment and presume you've got at least one screw slightly loose.

Now change the picture and make that inert chunk of steel your pet python. Great. Now you've got a bulky, heavy impediment hung around your neck every where you go, hanging up on things, and keeping at least one hand occupied half the time, that also half the population is seriously afraid of and alarmed by. But in reality, it still isn't capable (realistically) of hurting any bystanders.

Now make it a rifle? All the above absurdity and negatives, PLUS the fact that it actually could -- very realistically -- harm people if you are careless, negligent, horribly unlucky, or someone was to try a dumb stunt like messing with it while your attention is elsewhere.

But hey, there's that one in a million chance that you might need A gun today, and the perhaps one in a BILLION chance that whatever problem you need to employ a gun to solve, a handgun WON'T solve but a rifle WILL. There's no logic to this in the society we actually live in here in the USA in 2014.

Consider that the guys who are EMPLOYED to carry weapons in our society (police officers) and have a sworn duty to confront law-breakers and apprehend violent people DO NOT carry long guns in their daily life. They have them stored, ready, for very specific circumstances, but they know that there is no utility in carrying around a rifle or shotgun.

If they -- trouble magnets and duty-bound to go where you wouldn't, and deal with those you wouldn't face -- don't feel any need to carry rifles around, pretending that there is a realistic need for the average citizen to do so is either farcical or disingenuous. And probably both.

So, admit that these sorts of things either fall into the category of "stunt" or "protest" and then critically analyze whether a) either is effective at reaching the stated goals, and b) we should endorse them as such.

And you can swallow your silly "Fudd" comments right back down because you aren't among sunshine patriots here, or bunny busters and duck whackers. Speaking logically about the practicalities of carrying a rifle doesn't make one less of an RKBA die-hard. It just means we're not too chicken-hearted to speak the truth.

All of your criticisms fall on sidearms as well, lest we choose to ignore any posts and pics of NDs, holsters falling out, firearms falling out of holsters, problems in the bathroom, problems sitting in certain wooden chairs, accessibility while seated and buckled in a vehicle, the danger a bullet provides to anyone no matter the length of the barrel it exists, as long as it was built as considered practical for creating that danger to flesh. We can ignore the casual statement of using a handgun to fight to a long gun, but not so easily ignored is the truth in the physics that prompted it to begin with. If the odds are so low for the need for any gun, and it is just 'common sense' to not carry long guns, there surely we can agree on common sense gun control to keep these things off the street where the owner is assured to be lackadaisical and the risk to the many exceeds the benefit to the few.

I'm not advocating the demonstrations, but I'm noticing that the demonstrations have created this blanket response and criticism by several to the notion of anyone ever carrying a long gun at any time, anywhere that may be populated. Apparently OC means that bending over never flags anyone with a pistol barrel if its under a shirt, that no one is ever on anything but the ground floor when concealed carrying a pistol with the barrel pointed down, that the controls and safeties of a long gun are demonstrably less reliable than on handguns, and that anyone that at any time would choose to carry a long gun would be a threat due to negligence or incompetence. That is the demonization of the object, as it removes all doubt in its ability to reduce the worthiness of the owner due to the absolute rule that the carry of such indicates mental instability, and exponentially increases the risk of a mechanical failure or mishandling. And speaking of that, wouldn't that make a fine legal test for who we need to remove the right of ownership for?

And there is no theory about which is more menacing or dangerous. They are all inanimate hunks of metal and plastic, and they all fire a projectile. They are all dangerous if mishandled, and all not dangerous if handled properly.

But, the survival rate for being shot by a handgun is many, many times greater than for a long gun, so the desire to use a less effective tool with a more difficult ability to put shots on target, just to look less kooky to those who don't particularly support your individual choices is less than optimal. But hey, it's a one in a million chance, so you don't need a gun of any type anyway. However reasoned and logical the arguments about this seem, realize that they parallel the antis, and they certainly believe they are just as reasonable and logical in their beliefs. So when they can find any level of agreement, they would certainly be foolish to ignore it. So, the choice is to blame the protestors for bringing this to light. And the choice is also not to blame those who rally against the exercising of a current right because they don't like the way it looks. Well, then I guess that right should be lost, because who wants to look bad.

 

[hardheart]

I have never OC'd anything when not in uniform. Am I to then support a legal standard of no open carry for anyone who does not wear a uniform? I had not signed up to take such a stance.

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

I certainly hope that being a gun owner does not get me lumped in with such bottom-feeders as these two. I don't believe that I'm even comfortable with them being representatives of my race.

 

[hardluk1]

Time to close a tread about du-mass people carry'n longuns ain't it ??????????????????.
4 pages and nothing accomplished here. Foolish people do as foolish people will do.

 

[moxie]

It's not easy to actually safely carry and have "immediately ready" any rifle.

Back in the '70s at Base X in Europe, due to the imminent terrorist threat, we were ordered to either carry or have immediately ready an M16, which meant within arm's reach. The logistics were a real pain. Broomstick style clips were installed on the edges of work benches and desks. We made stands out of wood for places like urinals and toilets. And so forth. What a pain. When you got up and moved about you had to have your rifle in your hands or slung, requiring a lot of training to eliminate unintentional muzzling. Fortunately the requirement was backed off after about 6 months to either carried or "readily available," which meant your M16 could just be in a rifle rack in the same room, not right next to you. Whew.

Rifle carry indoors on a regular basis presents a host of problems very difficult to solve.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hardheart: Do you think Soldiers never have to climb, navigate a narrow passage, trim foliage, ride a two wheeled conveyance, a four wheeled one (particularly a non-tactical), eat at a DFAC, or carry on close quarters? This is an issue of appearance, not practicality.

Come now. The job of the warfighter with a small arm is to use his weapon. Whether he has or had a .45-70 Springfield cavalry carbine in a scabbard, a Garand with a sling, or a M-16 with a sling as he moves from place to place, it is or was his professional tool. He or she has to live with the inconvenience of handling it.

The carpenter, lineman, surveyor, gardener, veterinarian, dentist, optician, bricklayer, plumber, arborist, painter, and electrician have other tools. Should they choose to also carry defensive weapons, there are far more convenient weapons that are far easier to carry while doing other jobs, and far easier to deploy quickly than any long arm. That's all about practicality, and it has little to do with "appearance." And then there's the safety issue.

Plenty of posts have been made advocating for the arrest of these demonstrators, and the posting of no firearms allowed seems to be the proper response advocated by many.

I recall no such posts, but it has been demonstrated that the posting of anti-firarms signs is a probable result.

What I don't understand about unsafe handling is the automatic assumption that it will always happen with a long gun.

ATLDave put it this way:

There's essentially no way you're going to carry a rifle around at the low ready and not flag/sweep people routinely.

Sam added:

I'd extend that to slung rifles as well. Bend over to get something off the bottom shelf in the grocery store, muzzle comes up. Sit down, muzzle goes somewhere. Unsling to slide into a restaurant booth, where's your muzzle? Etc., etc.

All of your criticisms fall on sidearms as well, lest we choose to ignore any posts and pics of....

None of those criticisms apply to a properly holstered, concealed handgun.

But, the survival rate for being shot by a handgun is many, many times greater than for a long gun, so the desire to use a less effective tool... is less than optimal.

Well, lethality is not a design objective for a defensive weapon, and as GEM pointed out, a firearm that can be drawn, presented, and fired in a second and a half, is far closer to optimal for self defense than a weapon that has to be unslung and that has to have a round chambered before it can be used. Add to that the lesser effectiveness of the long arm in extremely close quarters and the increased problem wit retention is such situations.

So, the choice is to blame the protestors for bringing this to light. And the choice is also not to blame those who rally against the exercising of a current right because they don't like the way it looks. Well, then I guess that right should be lost, because who wants to look bad.

The anti-gun response we have seen has been brought about by the stimulus provided by the demonstrators, and for that reason, I think it is most appropriate to blame them.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I eat beside thousands of rifles, three times a day, without issue. A holstered pistol points somewhere too, depending on what activity you are engaged in. I think we can all agree that walking around town with a one-point at low ready is not a good idea, but let's stay away from pretending that a properly slung and handled rifle is passively dangerous.

 

[TennJed]

Do you think Soldiers never have to climb, navigate a narrow passage, trim foliage, ride a two wheeled conveyance, a four wheeled one (particularly a non-tactical), eat at a DFAC, or carry on close quarters?

lol

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: ...let's stay away from pretending that a properly slung and handled rifle is passively dangerous.

If the chamber is empty--sure. But curious little hands could pull the trigger, otherwise.

The real issue, I think, is that the sight of the barrel sweeping other people raises concern about possible safety risks. Where I shoot, they will throw you out for that. The long arm must be cased or on the bench or in a vertical rack with the action open unless it is being fired.

The handgun must be holstered (that covers the trigger), cased, or on the bench pointed downrange unless it is being fired.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

If the chamber is empty--sure. But curious little hands could pull the trigger, otherwise.

Notice I said properly handled and passively dangerous. When you lose track of your weapon and someone else starts grabbing it, that's no longer proper or passive. The chamber doesn't need to be empty to carry a safe weapon, including a rifle.

The real issue, I think, is that the sight of the barrel sweeping other people raises concern about possible safety risks.

Then anyone who chooses to carry a rifle should probably learn how to properly handle it, where they should and should not go, and what activities they should and should not do with it.

Everyone seems to be focused on "Going to one's local Applebee's for a little football and a plate of nachos". Probably not the best idea, however, there are other uses for openly carrying a rifle, or pistol.

Where I shoot, they will throw you out for that. The long arm must be cased or on the bench or in a vertical rack with the action open unless it is being fired.

The handgun must be holstered (that covers the trigger), cased, or on the bench pointed downrange unless it is being fired.

On many of my local ranges, you can't carry a pistol around either. Holstered or not, doesn't make a difference. Cased or on the bench, unloaded.

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^^^^^^^

Good points.

 

[short barrel]

If everyone carried long guns all the time, we wouldn't think much about it, but since they don't, it's too different to be acceptable.

I went fly fishing out west one time (Colorado), and the small town I stayed in were used to open carry; no one looked twice. Most every redneck on the street had a holstered Colt or Ruger single action six gun. They probably needed a gun on their person less than people in other parts of the nations, but it's just what they do and it seemed to be okay with everyone.

I reckon it's what we're used to.

 

[GoWolfpack]

If open carry of handguns were legal in Texas, these two would probably have done that instead. And we would all hate them for that too.


There is no debate about open carry. There are some who are OK with it but don't do it themselves, there are some who practice it personally, and some who are rigidly opposed. There is no crossover between these groups.

Debate implies that participants will present an argument to support their position and others will listen respectfully then present their own argument in the hopes of persuading an audience that their position is correct. Here we just skip the middle bits and head straight for arguing.


Why would someone start a thread reinforcing the majority opinion of THR on the subject of openly displayed firearms?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by GoWolfpack: There is no debate about open carry. There are some who are OK with it but don't do it themselves, there are some who practice it personally, and some who are rigidly opposed. There is no crossover between these groups.

Debate implies that participants will present an argument to support their position and others will listen respectfully then present their own argument in the hopes of persuading an audience that their position is correct.

The problem is that there is no "position" on open carry that "is correct" everywhere, all the time, for all people.

There is a thread on various facets of that discussion in ST&T. This thread, on the other hand, started with a discussion about the effect of open carry demonstrations.

That can be discussed, but it would seem that there results of some kinds of demonstrations are clear and that the "experiment" is repeatable.

The impacts of some of the ill advised long arm demonstrations on the decisions of private property owners have encompassed more than long arms and have extended well beyond the jurisdictions in which they have been conducted.

Why there is any debate on that subject is not clear to me.

 

[Sam Cade]

I'm going to close this thread since the temperature is starting to rise in here and most of the points have been well covered.





Addendum:

I open carry a holstered pistol 90% of the time.

 

[Sam1911]

All of your criticisms fall on sidearms as well,

Look, no they don't. And it is dishonest of you to try and prop up your argument on that claim.

lest we choose to ignore any posts and pics of NDs, holsters falling out, firearms falling out of holsters, problems in the bathroom, problems sitting in certain wooden chairs, accessibility while seated and buckled in a vehicle, the danger a bullet provides to anyone no matter the length of the barrel it exists, as long as it was built as considered practical for creating that danger to flesh.

Showing that difficulties exist EVEN for the carry of common holstered sidearms does in NO possible way set aside the far greater practical difficulties and risks of toting rifles in public.

"Hey, a pet cat will scratch you, so obviously keeping a tiger around the house really isn't any big deal..."

We can ignore the casual statement of using a handgun to fight to a long gun,

Only because it's utterly moronic ... no, utterly nonsensical, in the context of peacetime USA. The list of times in any given decade that any average Joe citizen engaged bad guys on the streets of the USA and the firefight continued on until he'd managed to make a fighting retreat to his stowed rifle, with which he finished the engagement ... well, those can probably be counted up on the fingers of NO hands. As GEM pointed out, even if folks DID carry rifles around for self defense, they'd be LESS able to respond to threats than someone with a holstered sidearm.

If the odds are so low for the need for any gun, and it is just 'common sense' to not carry long guns, there surely we can agree on common sense gun control to keep these things off the street where the owner is assured to be lackadaisical and the risk to the many exceeds the benefit to the few.

If you think your points are worth arguing for, you should avoid logical faults like reaching for absurd exaggeration. Might as well say "Nazis" and get it over with.

Apparently OC means that bending over never flags anyone with a pistol barrel if its under a shirt, that no one is ever on anything but the ground floor when concealed carrying a pistol with the barrel pointed down, that the controls and safeties of a long gun are demonstrably less reliable than on handguns, and that anyone that at any time would choose to carry a long gun would be a threat due to negligence or incompetence.

A holstered handgun is a SAFE handgun. Generally, the trigger is covered (auto-pistol holsters that do not cover the trigger are not very safe) as well as hands being far from the works. A loaded, cocked and chambered rifle is not as safe, because the safety lever(s) and trigger are exposed to the world's snags and whoopsies. And instead of being firmly secured in one covered location, a rifle on a sling shifts a very great deal, swinging around to not only point in all directions, but also to drag the trigger guard area and safety controls over the wearer's clothing and other gear -- and require fairly frequent re-positioning which means hands go on the gun again.

It is not AS safe, and you assuredly know this. So stop throwing out absurdities if you want to be taken seriously.

That is the demonization of the object, as it removes all doubt in its ability to reduce the worthiness of the owner...

Wha...??? Is that a thing? The object is demonized because the owner chooses to do something illogical with it? I'm ok with simply critiquing the actions of the owner, personally. As despair.com put it, "It could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others."

the carry of such indicates mental instability

One may be enormously unwise without coming close to being mentally unstable.

... and exponentially increases the risk of a mechanical failure or mishandling.

Ok, at least we're agreeing on that! Finally...

And speaking of that, wouldn't that make a fine legal test for who we need to remove the right of ownership for?

The reductio ad absurdum strawman argument again.

But, the survival rate for being shot by a handgun is many, many times greater than for a long gun, so the desire to use a less effective tool with a more difficult ability to put shots on target, just to look less kooky to those who don't particularly support your individual choices is less than optimal.

GEM pointed out very authoritatively that you're quite poorly defended carrying around a rifle, compared to being armed with a handgun in a holster at the ready. So your own argument defeats you. The only time you'd ever really want to be armed with a rifle is if you were quite certain that you'd have a LOT of time to prepare to deal with any threat. I.e.: a very low threat level. I wouldn't carry one if only because a threat might develop quickly and I need to be able to respond in haste which a rifle can't practically do.

For what its worth, my own range testing over the course of several years has backed this perception up comprehensively.

However reasoned and logical the arguments about this seem, realize that they parallel the antis

An argument may parallel the argument of your enemy without endorsing or supporting HIS argument in any way. You are very afraid of speaking a logical truth because you think it SOUNDS sort of like something an anti-gunner might say. But it's a different statement entirely so you shouldn't be so trepidatious.


[EDIT: Ack. Sorry Sam. Didn't see the closed message until I hit "reply."]