Old Dog
Member
Geez. I read your post. Weak sauce. It's not about whether the practice has merit or is disadvantageous -- I was referring to those that characterized OC as "stupid" or "dumb." Supposedly our own side.
For those of us who live in an open carry state
- Thread starter doc hamer
- Start date
- Status
I realize that. It's clear when you are talking about rights and when you are not.
The problem comes when arguments against open carry made based on practicality are attacked on the basis that those arguments are about restricting rights. LIKE THIS:
Nobody on this thread is throwing anyone under the bus. No one on this thread is saying open carry should be illegal. No one on this thread is saying that it shouldn't be made legal where it is currently not allowed or that it should be restricted where it currently is allowed.
The arguments against open carry on this thread are about practicality and safety. Not about rights.
There is absolutely no question that some tactics are better than others. If good tactics are smart, then poor tactics are...not smart.
Being on the same side means we try to help each other. Letting people continue to believe that something that is potentially dangerous is perfectly safe is not helping each other.
Old Dog
Member
John, with all due respect (and normally, I find your thoughts and opinions full of common sense and well-reasoned), but -- when forum members are decrying a particular LEGAL mode of carry as "stupid" and "dumb" -- they're throwing other members under the bus, publicly. You and I both know that the folks in the anti-gun factions peruse the internet firearms forums for information that they can use.
There are many things that are legal that are not prudent in every circumstance or that have disadvantages or that are potentially harmful to the person doing them. Pointing that out is not arguing that people's rights should be restricted. I'm sure the anti-gunners will use whatever ammunition they can find against us, but that knowledge can't stop us from discussing the advantages and disadvantages of various practices. The whole point of the forum is helping firearm owners--that purpose would be severely hampered if no one were ever allowed to point out that certain practices can be potentially harmful to the firearm owner who does them.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
They aren't throwing anyone under the bus. They, me included, are throwing a method of carry under the bus ONLY. They have the right to have and express their negative opinions about OC as others have the right to have the complete opposite opinion. It's not a personal attack no more than it's a personal attack when there's disagreements about calibers, capacity, platforms, and which firearm manufactures are trustworthy or not.
The fact remains that OC is a bad idea except in a handful of situations. It's not "stupid" or "dumb" in all situations, but it's just as "dumb" as I'm sure we would all agree carrying hundreds of dollars of cash openly on our hips would be. Yes, open carrying a wade of cash is LEGAL. Leaving your car and home doors unlocked is LEGAL. Walking down a tax payer funded public street at night in a bad neighborhood is a LEGAL RIGHT. We all know that the aforementioned still are not a smart thing to do, and pointing that fact out isn't a personal attack or advocating to make doing those things illegal.
To your point about the anti-gunners watching firearm forums, respectfully, so what? No one here has advocated for making OC illegal or removing the right like anti-gunners are. We have been advocating exercising the right to OC responsibly for other member's own safety. We are also advocating exercising the right in a manner that's respectful to others just like we do when it comes to non firearm and political related rights such as, how example, how we speak and dress in public.
I witnessed firsthand a man who was OCing be relieved of his firearm at gunpoint, and I have to be in court this June over it. The firearm that was taken will be used to rob, injury, or take life. That’s going to hurt our 2A efforts and anti-gunners are going to use these type of instances to push their agenda more so than what anonymous nameless and faceless members says on a gun forum.
Last edited:
How so?
Miami_JBT
Member
When platforms like this have repeated statements that make it appear that the majority of the membership is against a certain aspect of gun ownership. Lawmakers, lobbyists, politicians, etc. take that and use it for the push to further restrict the Second Amendment. It is no different than at a committee hearing for a Second Amendment related bill, and a person says:
“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - Karl T. Frederick, Former President of the National Rifle Assocation
"The 'bump-stock' device, used by the killer in the Las Vegas shooting, converts a semi-auto rifle to a full-auto rifle. Anyone who has ever used a bump-stock or watched a video demonstrating its use, can only conclude that it is a converter." - Marion Hammer, Former President of the National Rifle Assocation
Collectively, statements made on platforms like here and elsewhere in the social media info-sphere are collected and used by to shape policy and law. I see it all the time. The staffers working for Congress and various State Legislatures are hired to specifically trove social media platforms for statements to support their political causes and use it as fuel to advance legislation.
Edit to add:
The mindset I see with a number of posts that basically say "I'm against open carry because I don't want to scare karens" translates to "toss something you don't care too much about upon the altar of gun control to appease the antis."
You can never appease the anti-gunners. Folks need to stop trying to appease them. Appeasement never works.
Last edited:
That is NOT true, at least not here. It's not about a specific aspect of "gun ownership" it's about a particular "tactic". Saying that it's disadvantageous to use a particular TACTIC in some situations is absolutely not being "against a certain aspect of gun OWNERSHIP".
Well then, what they will see here, repeatedly, is people saying that they are in favor of the right to open carry. Let that shape policy and law.
There are all kinds of things that will put a person at a tactical disadvantage in some situations that shouldn't be made illegal.
I think it's amusing that the strongest argument for OC as a tactic seems to be the strawman argument that people who note that OC presents severe tactical disadvantages in some situations must be anti-gun. That should be very telling.
.308 Norma
Member
I haven't dug through all 5 pages of this thread, but has anyone answered doc hamer's (the OP) question yet? It seems like all we're doing is, once again, debating open carry versus concealed carry, when the OP is actually asking if open carry and constitutional carry are "two different terms for the same thing?"
Well, if the discussion moves to the merits of OC then the gun itself isn't that important. If the OP carries at home (in the house), then OC outside isn't relevant. If we want to get into another scream-fest on whether the best EDC is a SAA Colt, given the obvious superiority of modern semis - let the flames begin.
I mentioned 'fighting' and someone said they don't carry their gun for fighting - that wasn't what I meant. I mean that you carry the gun because you may have to fight with it. Thus, having the best possible advantage given reasonable dress and carry scenarios is important. Lots of folks seem to like to OC in low risk areas for interpersonal violence, so that's great. I did when hunting on private land. Would I carry in an urban, crowded environment with potential folks who might see OC as an opportunity or challenge - NO.
As far as it being denying rights or being antigun - John laid it out beautifully. I'm sorry folks get their panties in a wad when their posturing behavior is called 'stupid' - when it is.
Just OC on the crowded subway - butt to front as I did going to work and see how that works for you in a modern urban populace. Whether a SAA Colt or a Staccato - enjoy the ride.
Absolutely!
Old Dog
Member
Really, guys, I'm not trying to have the last word here, but...
Again, the casual observer (perhaps a newbie or fence-sitter) -- or the anti-gun spy looking for information on a pro-gun website -- is gonna be susceptible to the obvious optics -- seeing one (supposedly pro-gun person) call another (supposedly pro-gun person) on a very popular website "stupid" and "dumb" because they don't agree on "tactics" (of which the anti-gun person probably has zero concept) or more simply, a particular mode of lawful bearing of arms, do you really think that person is going to consider tactical advantages or relative intelligence of the practitioner?
1. That's a very different objection than saying that someone is "fine with picking and choosing which parts of the right to keep and bear arms they want to defend" for pointing out that certain practices. have potentially serious disadvantages.
2. You've already raised this issue and I've already responded to it.
Should we stop discussing the relative merits of various types of operating system (manual safeties, striker-fired pistols, hammer-fired pistols) and how they do or don't contribute to negligent discharges for fear that someone might take information from that discussion and use it to try to ban/restrict certain types of firearms in the interest of reducing negligent discharges?
Should we stop pointing out that some legal practices put a firearm owner at risk and suggesting that other practices can reduce the risk because anti-gunners might see the discussion and assume that the risky legal practice should be banned?
No, of course not. It's important for people to discuss topics like that to learn, to exchange ideas, to share experiences and knowledge. It is probably true that some of what is discussed here, and some of the differences that arise might be exploited by unethical or uninformed people to try to further an anti-gun agenda, but the value of having these discussions, of sharing information far outweighs that risk.
2. You've already raised this issue and I've already responded to it.
Should we stop talking about firearm safety because the antigunners will see it and use it as proof that firearms are dangerous?JohnKSa said:
Should we stop discussing the relative merits of various types of operating system (manual safeties, striker-fired pistols, hammer-fired pistols) and how they do or don't contribute to negligent discharges for fear that someone might take information from that discussion and use it to try to ban/restrict certain types of firearms in the interest of reducing negligent discharges?
Should we stop pointing out that some legal practices put a firearm owner at risk and suggesting that other practices can reduce the risk because anti-gunners might see the discussion and assume that the risky legal practice should be banned?
No, of course not. It's important for people to discuss topics like that to learn, to exchange ideas, to share experiences and knowledge. It is probably true that some of what is discussed here, and some of the differences that arise might be exploited by unethical or uninformed people to try to further an anti-gun agenda, but the value of having these discussions, of sharing information far outweighs that risk.
Old Dog
Member
Good lord, man. Most here are perfectly fine parroting the "slippery slope" argument (as well as the "frog in the pot over the burner being slowly turned up") yet fail to understand that when we, the ostensibly pure in heart RKBA supporters, mock and denigrate those within our community who engage in practices in which we disagree -- for whatever reason -- we are in effect providing more ammunition for the arguments of the anti-gun faction. I'm not talking about defending obvious stupidity such as those that willfully violate The Four Rules or as gun owners, knowingly project public images antithetical to our ethics and goals. I'm speaking to how we routinely disparage and make fun of folks in our community for how they choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Good grief. Have you ever read anything I've posted here in the past 20 year friggin' years?
For (hopefully) the last/final time: my objection is solely based on members calling out other members as "stupid" and/or "dumb" in threads that those (the newbies, the fence-sitters, the antis) otherwise unfamiliar with all the varieties of modes and nuances of gun-carrying will not have a frame of reference/context to understand what is actually being said.
Why do you persist in trying to make it appear that I'm making an argument that I absolutely am not making? -- there are ways to respectfully disagree with what other forum members have to say, and then there are ways to try and make them look stupid while smugly trying to make yourself smarter and more literate.
If a tactic has disadvantages, people should be told that it does. Sharing important information about owning and using firearms is what this forum is all about. I'm not advocating disparaging people, but pointing out that a practice is foolish in some circumstances is certainly warranted if that's the truth about it.
For what it's worth, if you go back through the thread, you will see that while there have been comments about how the practice of OC is stupid in some circumstances, no one has explicitly called other members dumb or stupid. Smart people can do stupid things, particularly if they are uninformed or misinformed. Which is why it's important that people be properly informed by discussions like this one.
You keep trying to make this discussion into something it's not because your original argument was too weak to support. First it was people attacking other people's rights, (that wasn't what was happening), so then it was that the antigunners could take something that was said and use it against us, (but we routinely discuss things on THR that could potentially be spun by the antis), then it was members calling other members stupid even though that's not been done. Why do you think that it's necessary to keep changing your argument and creating strawmen and red herrings instead of just sticking with the facts of the matter?
Yes I have. That's precisely why I used that specific example. I KNOW that you understand why it's important to let people know why certain practices are inadvisable, EVEN when it's possible that someone could take that information and try to twist it into an anti-gun agenda.
Go back and read the thread. I've been carefully addressing the arguments you've been making, but you've been changing your assertions as the discussion progresses because they are unsupportable.
I do agree that there are ways to respectfully disagree, and that's precisely what's been happening here, in spite of how you've been attempting to mischaracterize the exchange.
Old Dog
Member
John, at this point, I'll just let you have the last word.
Still unlocked?
I like that OC is legal in most of MO it allows me to be a little sloppy with my concealed carry. I don't need to worry about printing or the bottom of my OWB holster sticking out under my untucked shirt. I don't need to worry about someone seeing my OWB carried gun when reaching things off the top shelf of the grocery store or changing shirts out in the parking lot.
I don't need to use an uncomfortable method of carry like IWB or AIWB.
During Deer Season, I can stop at the gas station, buy a soda and either cover my OWB carried 357 mag or leave it uncovered. When I'm out in the National Forest, I will frequently uncover my OWB carried handgun when airing down the tires on my Jeep at a lonely trail head.
I see plenty of people carrying open in my area, at local restaurants, and the farmer's market.
Now that we have a variation of Constitutional Carry those OC'ers can cover up when necessary. I will keep my CCW license up to date as I like to travel.
I'm currently in Cape Coral Florida.
I need to go visit my Aunt and Uncle that are in their mid 80's in Washington state. WA doesn't recognize my MO CCW license. While they have OC, I'm going to obtain a Utah CCW license which WA recognizes. It's illegal to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle in WA without a CCW license.
I like that OC is legal in most of MO it allows me to be a little sloppy with my concealed carry. I don't need to worry about printing or the bottom of my OWB holster sticking out under my untucked shirt. I don't need to worry about someone seeing my OWB carried gun when reaching things off the top shelf of the grocery store or changing shirts out in the parking lot.
I don't need to use an uncomfortable method of carry like IWB or AIWB.
During Deer Season, I can stop at the gas station, buy a soda and either cover my OWB carried 357 mag or leave it uncovered. When I'm out in the National Forest, I will frequently uncover my OWB carried handgun when airing down the tires on my Jeep at a lonely trail head.
I see plenty of people carrying open in my area, at local restaurants, and the farmer's market.
Now that we have a variation of Constitutional Carry those OC'ers can cover up when necessary. I will keep my CCW license up to date as I like to travel.
I'm currently in Cape Coral Florida.
I need to go visit my Aunt and Uncle that are in their mid 80's in Washington state. WA doesn't recognize my MO CCW license. While they have OC, I'm going to obtain a Utah CCW license which WA recognizes. It's illegal to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle in WA without a CCW license.
Last edited:
jar
Contributing Member
Towards the question of whether "open carry and constitutional carry are "two different terms for the same thing" it really can't be answered without defining exactly what is covered by each term in the specific State or locale. Unfortunately we as a people seem to love throwing misleading, undefined and even utterly dishonest words and labels around.
Starting with "Constitutional Carry". I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Starting with "Constitutional Carry". I have absolutely no idea what that means.
Steve in PA
Member
I live in an open carry state, but I never open carry.
I’m either carrying a Glock 26, Ruger SP101 or a S&W 642.
I’m either carrying a Glock 26, Ruger SP101 or a S&W 642.
Terry G
Member
Open carry has been legal here forever. I open carry in the woods, but not "in public". I just don't want anyone to know I'm armed. I see it from time to time and unfortunately not in a flattering light. The "Commando" dressed in a black T shirt and black short's with a full equipment belt of OC, spare magazines, and sheath knife. The T shirt and shorts are to show off all the tattoos. The gun was a Phoenix Arms .22. The T shirt and short's? It was January. In Wisconsin. Another was in a grocery store carrying a Beretta or Taurus 9 MM in a nylon revolver holster. The gun fell out twice in the store and once in the parking lot. That's the stuff I hate to see.
.308 Norma
Member
Yep, I hate to see that stuff too. However, a gun falling out of an inappropriate holster doesn't just happen with open carry. A few weeks ago, my wife and I were walking into Costco and a 1911 clattered to the concrete floor not 10 feet in front of us. It had obviously fallen out from under the shirt the fat gun in front of us was wearing, because as we walked on by, I saw him stop, pick up the gun, and stuff it back in what I think was a "holster" he was wearing at about 5:00 o'clock.
I didn't get a good enough look to see if he was carrying IWB or OWB. Whichever it was though, the gun was concealed under his shirt. And he needed a better holster.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
- Status
