Open Carry again

[CoalTrain49]

Again...when people around here, or in any other firearms community talk about "open carry", they are not talking about carrying a rifle (or any other firearm) in public in their hands.

They may not be talking about it but they do it anyway. The photos are all over the internet.

 

[Warp]

I guess it's different down in Texas where handgun open carry is illegal.

Also things seem to be very different when it is an open carry "event" with a group of people, apparently.

Maybe I need to get out more, I've never seen a person with a rifle in their hands in public.

 

[silicosys4]

I guess it's different down in Texas where handgun open carry is illegal.

Texas is not the only place in the US where such demonstrations take place, and these incidents are not isolated to Texas.

Also things seem to be very different when it is an open carry "event" with a group of people, apparently.

Are you suggesting that open carry demonstrators suddenly become more unsafe and confrontational when congregated and demonstrating? That would seem to be pretty counterproductive, and sends the wrong message. Disturbing.

Maybe I need to get out more, I've never seen a person with a rifle in their hands in public.

Or go to more open carry demonstrations.

 

[JRH6856]

Part of the OCT demos in Texas seem to be a calculated attempt to induce support for a bill in the next legislative session legalizing open carry of hand guns, or another bill proposing an amendment to the TX Constitution allowing carry similar to NH. The thought is that people will support one or both of these bills so these people can carry something besides EBRs and shotguns.

Another part is that the law in Texas is silent on open carry of long guns so people who are unable to get a CHL are able to openly carry a rifle for SD.

And another part is that some people just like to rock the boat no matter who eventually gets wet.

 

[silicosys4]

None of the holsters I can conceal in most weather offer level III retention.

That's because they are concealed. The reason you'd want level 3 retention on an open carry holster is because they are hanging out in the open, free for anyone walking by to grab.

The pistols I am most proficient with, with the best combination of capacity and cartridge, are not readily concealable most of the time.

So practice more with a concealable gun. Reevaluate the meaning of "best combination of capacity and cartridge" to include concealment. That's what people do.

Deterrence, like everything else, doesn't work 100% of the time, but I believe it to work a great deal of the time.

No, it doesn't work 100% of the time. But it can't be said with any proof that it works even 10% of the time. In the absence of any evidence affirming, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, "hope" is a better word than "belief".

I'd rather deter something from happening than use the 'tactical advantage' of concealment to bring my pistol into play after something happened.

Again, there is no evidence that the appearance of your open carried handgun or rifle is a deterrence at all. Besides, "after something has happened" is about the only legal way you can bring your pistol into play, unless you plan on being the aggressor. With an openly carried firearm the bad guy is going to know exactly where the threat is going to come from, and can act/plan accordingly. Unless you are going around holding your gun and covering everyone walking by, you are always going to be at a disadvantage if attacked, as the bad guy is already planning on doing something bad before you know he's doing it. He knows where your gun is. You don't even know he has one or would use it against you. You are already at a disadvantage.
At least a concealed firearm is unexpected and YOU have control of how, if, or when you can use it without the bad guy's knowledge of when/where.

OWB is typically more comfortable than IWB.

That is completely dependent on how you choose your gun and your holster, and the research you do. If you get lazy and pick any old IWB holster, then try to stuff in a gun that's not conducive to concealment, then yes. Most people who carry concealed don't go that route.
Myself, I prefer IWB because the belt keeps the gun tight to my side, behaves better entering and exiting vehicles than an OWB concealed or open carry, is more comfortable than any OWB holster I own while driving, and retains a gun better than an OWB without a thumb break.

I sometimes like to try and remind people that yes, regular people can do do carry guns. Lots of positive conversations have resulted.

That really is the only positive benefit of open carrying in my eyes, and is very tricky and dependent on the carriers ability to interact with the public and present a responsible and reasonable persona.

 

[JRH6856]

Besides, "after something has happened" is about the only legal way you can bring your pistol into play, unless you plan on being the aggressor.

Unless you open carry, IWC the pistol is always legally "in play" to a degree by its visible presence. Are you suggesting this is a form of aggression?

 

[silicosys4]

Unless you open carry, IWC the pistol is always legally "in play" to a degree by its visible presence. Are you suggesting this is a form of aggression?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post. I might be confused but it seems you are nitpicking semantics on "in play" to mean something it does not in the context of this thread. I was working under the assumption that "in play" in the context of this discussion means out of the holster and ready for social work.
I take "IWC" to mean "in the waistband concealed"...? If it has a "visible presence" its not concealed, or at least not properly
If that's the case though, yea. It could be depending on the state you are located in, how you choose to display it, why you are displaying it, and who you are displaying it to. In some states "concealed" means no allowable visible presence at all.
If you go around flashing your "concealed" gun or purposefully allow it to be visible to anyone who tickles your senses the wrong way in the absence of any actual threat, I would have to say that's being pretty aggressive.
If you are showing your concealed gun then not drawing it, you are doing it wrong imo. If you have insufficient reason to draw it, you have insufficient reason to show it.
If it is apparent or you have reasonable suspicion that your life is under imminent threat and you have no choice, you pull the gun if you are able and prepare to shoot, then shoot until the threat stops. If the threat ends of its own accord at the sight of the gun before you shoot, you don't shoot. To me, deterrence should not be the reason to show a concealed gun, but it could be a positive side effect of preparing to defend ones life.
That's the only useful deterrence I'm willing to attribute, the kind that happens when the muzzle is leveled
I have walked by a few situations with my hand discretely under my coat ready to draw. No handgun visible but prepared nonetheless.
In that capacity, I feel I have a much better edge over someone open carrying, against someone who might be surreptiously approaching to do me harm. I can't see their gun if they have one and intend to use it, but they can't see mine or that I'm prepared to unholster if they are indeed nefarious.
Much easier to discreetly remain at the ready without giving away my hand. And nobody is going to stick a gun in my face suddenly over my open carried gun.

Really, it seems very simple to walk by someone you see open carrying, with a gun under your coat, then stick it in their face as they go by before they can go from "suspicious" to "alarmed" to action. Can you outdraw someone already holding a gun under their coat, or at their side as they pop their gun up into your face? I can't.
Why make yourself more of a target than you already are, and why guarantee that if you are attacked, that the attacker will probably have seen your weapon and take specific measures to ensure you can't employ it?

 

[JRH6856]

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post. I might be confused but it seems you are nitpicking semantics on "in play" to mean something it does not in the context of this thread. I was working under the assumption that "in play" in the context of this discussion means out of the holster and ready for social work.
I take "IWC" to mean "in the waistband concealed"...? If it has a "visible presence" its not concealed, or at least not properly
If that's the case though, yea. It could be depending on the state you are located in, how you choose to display it, why you are displaying it, and who you are displaying it to. In some states "concealed" means no allowable visible presence at all.
If you go around flashing your "concealed" gun or purposefully allow it to be visible to anyone who tickles your senses the wrong way in the absence of any actual threat, I would have to say that's being pretty aggressive.
If you are showing your concealed gun then not drawing it, you are doing it wrong imo. If you have insufficient reason to draw it, you have insufficient reason to show it.
If it is apparent or you have reasonable suspicion that your life is under imminent threat and you have no choice, you pull the gun if you are able and prepare to shoot, then shoot until the threat stops. If the threat ends of its own accord at the sight of the gun before you shoot, you don't shoot. To me, deterrence should not be the reason to show a concealed gun, but it could be a positive side effect of preparing to defend ones life.
That's the only useful deterrence I'm willing to attribute, the kind that happens when the muzzle is leveled
I have walked by a few situations with my hand discretely under my coat ready to draw. No handgun visible but prepared nonetheless.
In that capacity, I feel I have a much better edge over someone open carrying, against someone who might be surreptiously approaching to do me harm. I can't see their gun if they have one and intend to use it, but they can't see mine or that I'm prepared to unholster if they are indeed nefarious.
Much easier to discreetly remain at the ready without giving away my hand.

And that it certainly true for concealed carry

As has been made clear in several other threads, especially those asking, "When may I draw to to deter a perceived threat", there are states in which the act of seeming to reach for, or preparing to reach for, or exposing a weapon, or showing oneself to be armed can legally constitute assault as it can be construed as a threatening or intimidating act. I assumed you knew this (and you have confirmed that you do) because you said the only time once legally bring a pistol into play is 'after something has happened'.

But that suggests that making a pistol visible before something has happened is a way of bringing a pistol into play. If the pistol were not somehow "in play" by being made visible, how could exposing it be an illegally threatening act?

But if one is legally open carrying that pistol, the pistol is visible, and being visible, is "in play" in the mind of anyone who might be intimidated by it. That intimidation is the basis for the MWAG calls that started this thread.

So I asked, Do you believe open carry to be an aggressive act?

ETA: now we are editing past each other. this should be confusing. IWC = In Which Case.

 

[silicosys4]

And that it certainly true for concealed carry

As has been made clear in several other threads, especially those asking, "When may I draw to to deter a perceived threat", there are states in which the act of seeming to reach for, or preparing to reach for, or exposing a weapon, or showing oneself to be armed can legally constitute assault as it can be construed as a threatening or intimidating act. I assumed you knew this (and you have confirmed that you do) because you said the only time once legally bring a pistol into play is 'after something has happened'.

But that suggests that making a pistol visible before something has happened is a way of bringing a pistol into play. If the pistol were not somehow "in play" by being made visible, how could exposing it be an illegally threatening act?

But if one is legally open carrying that pistol, the pistol is visible, and being visible, is "in play" in the mind of anyone who might be intimidated by it. That intimidation is the basis for the MWAG calls that started this thread.

So I asked, Do you believe open carry to be an aggressive act?

ETA: now we are editing past each other. this should be confusing. IWC = In Which Case.

Lol, this is confusing, I'm not sure what you are asking in the first part of your post...perhaps some clarification?

But anyways, the man with a gun situation that started this thread was not a case of open carry intimidating a robber out of committing a crime. It was about a couple who falsified a police report, by all accounts, in an attempt to fabricate an "active shooter" scenario where none existed. They were not in my opinion intimidated so much as being "activists" (and terrible people)

Do I believe open carrying to be an act aggressive in itself? It doesn't strike me as a passive action.
Most times no, depending on options available and the situation.
Many times yes. If there are other options than open carry and one still chooses to open carry, with there being no evidence of open carry being anything but less advantagious than concealed carry, In the absence of other incentives I would have to attribute the desire to open carry over concealed carry as having some base in aggression and dominance, as the only societal difference between the two is how other people perceive you. If it can be broken down psychologically as an act of one person displaying their power over other people, in hopes of preventing confrontation, then that is an aggressive act by definition. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not saying this is open carry in general, just how I perceive some peoples approach.

Are there a lot of people who do, who are nonchalant until they are forced to interact with them in a manner they are not comfortable with and view as unreasonable and perhaps rightly so depending on the place/weapon/carry methods?
Yes.
Are these people influential once they are riled up?
You bet.

 

[JRH6856]

Once upon a time, we had very few laws regarding the bearing of firearms, and once such laws started to appear, many of the early ones prohibited concealed carry as it was deemed to indicate a desire for a nefarious advantage. But at some point, we, as a society, in many states decided that open carry was threatening and intimidating and contributory to violence. This is clear because laws were passed on those states prohibiting open carry as well.

Perhaps we have gone so long as an unarmed society that we don't fully recognize the dangers of so many people being armed. Maybe that is a lesson we have yet to learn again.

Or perhaps we have matured as society to the point that those dangers are no longer as great. But looking around, I kind of doubt it. I know I'm OK. I'm not sure about anyone else.

 

[silicosys4]

Once upon a time, we had very few laws regarding the bearing of firearms, and once such laws started to appear, many of the early ones prohibited concealed carry as it was deemed to indicate a desire for a nefarious advantage. But at some point, we, as a society, in many states decided that open carry was threatening and intimidating and contributory to violence. This is clear because laws were passed on those states prohibiting open carry as well.

Perhaps we have gone so long as an unarmed society that we don't fully recognize the dangers of so many people being armed. Maybe that is a lesson we have yet to learn again.

Or perhaps we have matured as society to the point that those dangers are no longer as great. But looking around, I kind of doubt it. I know I'm OK. I'm not sure about anyone else.

It can be disconcerting sometimes,
But I personally feel that in general a society that is unused to seeing articles of personal protection displayed out in the open and ready for use is probably a more peaceful society than one used to seeing guns everywhere, so I don't share the negativity in firearms being seen less and less openly carried. I of course do not support the removal of any rights concerning concealed or open carry, but I don't necessarily support the aggressive and in-your-face open carry that some prescribe to in order to "condition" society into accepting all open carry, mostly because that tactic just doesn't work, and quite frankly its kind of rude.
Besides, violent crime has been on the decline in this country for a long time, while gun ownership has gone up. That's good news!


Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who don't view firearms in a friendly light, or they view them in a neutral light.
There are gun owners who want to use in-your-face tactics with the purpose of forcing people to acknowledge and accept the public display of guns through open carrying and public demonstrations,
And there are gun owners who would rather take a different approach and convince people in other less aggressive ways that they feel ultimately show more success....or they work through the legal system where their efforts do the most good.

Aggressive open carry demonstrations in private businesses have proven to be detrimental, other ways have been proven to be successful.
Its a battle that has to be fought with public relations foremost on our minds. It's not enough to sit on a stack of guns and quote the 2nd amendment over and over while wearing a "molon labe" shirt sitting at a computer blogging to fellow gun owners about "liberals"....a lot of so called 2a activists seem to think this is how we are going to win. That and going everywhere open carrying a gun that is completely impractical but very impressive, specifically into places that will create the most shock value, simply for the sake of making a statement that is more often than not taken negatively by the majority of people exposed to it.
I'm not talking about anyone here, that's what I like about THR.

 

[Warp]

Are you suggesting that open carry demonstrators suddenly become more unsafe and confrontational when congregated and demonstrating? That would seem to be pretty counterproductive, and sends the wrong message. Disturbing.

I think there is something wrong with you.

 

[Warp]

That's because they are concealed. The reason you'd want level 3 retention on an open carry holster is because they are hanging out in the open, free for anyone walking by to grab.

Uh...no.

So practice more with a concealable gun. Reevaluate the meaning of "best combination of capacity and cartridge" to include concealment. That's what people do.

So when competitors typically use larger pistols, it's because they don't practice enough? Also, how does practice make additional rounds fit into the pistol?

No, it doesn't work 100% of the time. But it can't be said with any proof that it works even 10% of the time. In the absence of any evidence affirming, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, "hope" is a better word than "belief".

You can hope concealed carry works better 90% of the time, if you like. Your choice. So carry concealed.

Again, there is no evidence that the appearance of your open carried handgun or rifle is a deterrence at all.

Yes, there is. And you are well aware of it. You simply choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

Besides, "after something has happened" is about the only legal way you can bring your pistol into play, unless you plan on being the aggressor. With an openly carried firearm the bad guy is going to know exactly where the threat is going to come from, and can act/plan accordingly.

Exactly. Wait for the threat to leave or pick a different intended victim who makes a better victim than a threat.

Unless you are going around holding your gun and covering everyone walking by, you are always going to be at a disadvantage if attacked, as the bad guy is already planning on doing something bad before you know he's doing it.

This is why I would rather not have to "surprise" the bad guy who already chose to attack me, thinking I was unarmed. Better to not be attacked in the first place.

That is completely dependent on how you choose your gun and your holster, and the research you do. If you get lazy and pick any old IWB holster, then try to stuff in a gun that's not conducive to concealment, then yes. Most people who carry concealed don't go that route.

Most people under estimate how much they print or tell, IME.

Myself, I prefer IWB because the belt keeps the gun tight to my side, behaves better entering and exiting vehicles than an OWB concealed or open carry, is more comfortable than any OWB holster I own while driving, and retains a gun better than an OWB without a thumb break.

Cool. Go for it.

 

[buck460XVR]

The REAL lesson from that story is situational awareness.

There was recently a Wal mart shooting that happened that involved a man who was by all appearances open carrying. The gun in question was a BB gun, but if it were a real gun would have been perfectly legal. He was reported by a couple who called 911 to complain of a man waving a gun at people....which was debunked by surveillance video.

lol

Dude.

Please read this thread (this one, that we are currently in)

Silicosys4 not noticing the mention of the Wal-Mart shooting 85 posts into a thread, with a good portion of them ranting about the incident, is an excellent example of no situational awareness and a prime example of why so many folks make themselves victims. They jump into a situation with both feet without making themselves aware of the circumstances or the risks surrounding them. These are folks that will become victims regardless of whether they open or conceal carry.

We have been down this road before. Folks against open carry selectively bring up every negative experience and internet picture of some idiot waving a AK or AR around in Wendy's with a bunch of 3rd grade girls scared in the corner. Same thing anti's do when it comes to guns in general. Their argument for gun control is because a few random idiots shot up a school or a irresponsible gun owner accidentally shot their cat. So we all must suffer.

Enough is enough. Carry the way you prefer responsibly, legally, using good judgement and safe gun handling skills. Respect others that do the same. Promote responsible gun ownership and quit stabbing your fellow gun owners in the back. Sheesh.:banghead:

 

[JRH6856]

Quote:
Originally Posted by silicosys4
Again, there is no evidence that the appearance of your open carried handgun or rifle is a deterrence at all.

Originally Posted by Warp
Yes, there is. And you are well aware of it. You simply choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

What evidence is that? What studies have been done on this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silicosys4
Unless you are going around holding your gun and covering everyone walking by, you are always going to be at a disadvantage if attacked, as the bad guy is already planning on doing something bad before you know he's doing it.

Originally Posted by Warp
This is why I would rather not have to "surprise" the bad guy who already chose to attack me, thinking I was unarmed. Better to not be attacked in the first place.

Not being attacked is always better, but there is really nothing you can do of a defensive nature that will guarantee you will not be. Some bad guys will not care if you are armed or not, and letting the attacker know in advance how you are armed, so he can plan your disarming as part of the attack is not better.

There may be cases where OC has a deterrent effect, but when it does not, things go rather badly very quickly. With OC and CC, a high degree of situational awareness is necessary, but with OC, there is less room for distraction.

As has been said, carry in whatever legal manner you choose, just be fully aware of what is involved in doing so so that you can make a fully informed choice.

 

[BSA1]

silicosy4,

Most of your comments are so far off the wall I wondered how much knowledge and experience you really have with carrying handguns.

I open carry. Just how to you expect me to react when you try to snatch my gun? Fall to my knees and beg you to spare me? Think again Francis.

I carry in a Rosen high ride with a FBI forward tilt. This means my gun cannot be snatched from behind me. So my attacker will have to be at least partially in front of me. When you grab for my gun that means you intend to seriously injury or kill me. In doing so all bets are off.

So what is going to happen is I am going to lock my right elbow against my gun and right arm against my body to protect it. I am going to stomp on your feet injuring your insoles, kick you in the lower legs and knees and kick you in the groin. At the same time with my free hand I am going to deliver open hand blows to your nose driving the blow through into your sinus cavities, twist your ear, gouge your eyes, hook my thumb into the inside corner of your mouth ripping the skin. If I can find a piece of your bare skin I am going to bite…hard! When I am able to draw my gun I will give you the bullets.

Now are you sure you want to open this dance? You lack of experience and training in defensive tactics doesn’t apply across the board. A read of "Fight Like A Cornered Cat" might be useful for you.

I have only been able to find one document incident of a citizen open carrying (i.e. handgun in holster on body) being disarmed by a unexpected attack. The attacker was able to get the gun and shot and killed the gun owner after the now unarmed gun owner chased the attacker as he fled the scene with the gun.

If you have any documented reports of the incidents you are describing please post them.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I don't think we will ever reach a point where OC is considered the norm in populated urban areas for several reason.

One, in states where OC and CC is legal and has been forever, at least 90% of people who carry do it concealed. The primary reason is the ability to blend in with your surroundings and go undetected. It's the same reason soldiers wear camo. They build aircraft to be stealth and they even paint battle tanks with camo. I have never seen a battle tank painted orange unless it was being used for target practice. The military learned this lesson about 70 years ago.

Second, OC upsets the natives. I was in the military in an Arab country and never wore anything in public that would ID me as anything except a tourist from Europe. That was lesson #1 the first day in. Where I was if the natives could ID you as foreign military they would probably just cut your throat and leave you in an alley if they found an opportunity. When the natives here get upset they do things like call 911, make false claims and a SWAT team shows up. It becomes more of a drill than anything for SWAT but occasionally someone ends up being detained or shot because of rookie cops, poor training or both. I'm sure we will begin to see more of this as the AG crowd has found a new tactic to harass people who OC. I'm not sure that Crawford wasn't a victim of this tactic. The people at my range are aware of the problems of OC and have requested everyone who shoots there to not OC in their parking lot. This is a place where people come to shoot everyday but it is in a residential area surrounded by private property. It's a courtesy to home owners who live next to the parking lot.

And we always get around to the "It's my right and if we never OC the police and the natives will never get used to it". So we always get down to people do it to inform the public and LE of a right they already have that most people who know their rights don't practice for one reason or another. And another reason I hear is "if we don't practice our rights we will lose them". Well, most people don't vote and I really don't see that right being challenged anywhere successfully in court either.

 

[Kleanbore]

Obviously an emotional subject that usually evokes a lot in the way of unsubstantiated claims and opinion.....here are relevant excerpts from a sticky in ST&T:

A openly carried weapon usually takes less time to draw and present than a pistol that is carried concealed. Well-known trainer Rob Pincus sets the difference at about 0.3 seconds. Note that to unsling a rifle and load the chamber takes much longer than the time required to draw a pistol.

Another factor that is often discussed is that of deterrence--the likelihood that the sight of an openly carried firearm may deter a would-be mugger, robber, or thief. Although no objective data are (or can be made) available to substantiate it, subjective reasoning and common sense would suggest that, given the choice, criminals who notice the presence of open carriers in an establishment would tend to choose a different time or place for wrong doing. However, such deterrence is not absolute. Criminals can and do choose to rob convenience stores and other establishments in which the clerks or managers are known to be armed. Additionally, there is no way to deter an individual, such as a mass killer, who intends to die in the commission of a crime. And finally, violent criminal actors under the influence of mind-altering substances should not be expect to behave in a rational manner. The only effective prevention is the effective use of force.

Open carry can remove one element of flexibility from the defender in terms of his or her response options. Should a citizen be among persons suddenly surprised by one or more violent criminal actors, an open carrier who is noticed will likely have no choice but to try to act immediately, and will likely not be afforded the options of remaining uninvolved or of biding his time until a better opportunity to act presents itself, as would a person carrying concealed.

Because of its market value and its intrinsic value as a weapon, an openly carried firearm may serve as an attraction to those who would take the gun by force. Situational awareness can only partially mitigate that risk. The psychology of vigilance is well studied, and no one can maintain constant vigilance against threats from 360 degrees. While a properly designed retention holster and proper training can reduce the likelihood of a “gun grab” of the kind in which uniformed officers have been victimized, they cannot protect the carrier against injury from an unseen assailant with a blade or bludgeon.

On the other hand, while there are few or no readily available quantifiable, objective data to prove it, it would be reasonable to assume that, in one of the rare environments in which numerous persons carry openly, potential criminals would be much less inclined to risk trying to surprise and attack one open carrier in the presence of others. Elmer Keith mentioned that in Sixguns several decades ago when he discussed the carrying of guns in Helena, Idaho. Casual observations in Israel would also tend to support that hypothesis rather strongly.

However, deterrence is likely to be far less effective, and the vulnerability of the open carrier much higher, in an extremely crowded urban environment---visualize Michigan Avenue or Wacker Drive in Chicago when thousands of people are running for their trains. When an armed citizen is in an area in which large numbers of people move rapidly into and out of what is generally known as “Tueller Distance” all the time, no firearm, whether concealed or carried openly, would be of much immediate use as a defensive weapon, because there would not be anywhere near enough time to bring it into play in the event of a surprise attack by one or more violent criminal actors. In the case of an open carrier, it is likely that the gun would simply serve as an attraction.

The facts that police officers have had their guns taken and that many officers have in fact been shot with their own guns is noteworthy, but it is not entirely relevant to the question of open carry by others. Police officers do have the duty to pursue and apprehend criminals, and other citizens who do not are therefore not as highly exposed to that particular risk.

 

[buck460XVR]

One, in states where OC and CC is legal and has been forever, at least 90% of people who carry do it concealed. The primary reason is the ability to blend in with your surroundings and go undetected. It's the same reason soldiers wear camo. They build aircraft to be stealth and they even paint battle tanks with camo. I have never seen a battle tank painted florescent orange unless it was being used for target practice. The military learned this lesson about 70 years ago.

Can you give me a list of states where CWC has been legal forever? You must be quite young to think that CWC has been the norm in any state before the 1990s. In most states before that, if one could carry at all, other for sporting purposes, as a civilian, it had to be OC. For some of us, legal CWC is as recent as 5 years or less.

One does not always have to "blend in" with their surroundings. There are many scenarios where CWC has absolutely no advantage over OC and in some cases is more of an impediment. Not every one is at war, nor are they trying to be tactical. Sometimes they are just going out to cut wood, walk the dog or do chores outside in the backyard.

As for not losing your rights by not voting.......sorry but you have. You've lost the right to complain about those in office and how they affect your life.

 

[JRH6856]

As for not losing your rights by not voting.......sorry but you have. You've lost the right to complain about those in office and how they affect your life.

Nope. The right to complain still exists, is still protected by the 1st amendment, and many people who do not vote exercise it regularly.

 

[buck460XVR]

Nope. The right to complain still exists, is still protected by the 1st amendment, and many people who do not vote exercise it regularly.

Well, maybe. But by not exercising their right to vote, they are endangering their rights given to them not only by the 1st Amendment, but also the 2nd and others. Always amazes me tho, that those that whine the loudest are generally those that don't bother to vote. Maybe I should have said, those that don't vote have lost the right to have me give them any credence when they whine.

 

[Warp]

What evidence is that? What studies have been done on this?

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence regarding deterrence, interviews with criminals and their perspective on picking armed victims, and, even though this kind of thing is almost impossible to document, a documented case of a couple open carry guys with holstered handguns eating in a restaurant deterring a crew of armed robbers (Waffle House here in Georgia)

 

[CoalTrain49]

Can you give me a list of states where CWC has been legal forever? You must be quite young to think that CWC has been the norm in any state before the 1990s. In most states before that, if one could carry at all, other for sporting purposes, as a civilian, it had to be OC. For some of us, legal CWC is as recent as 5 years or less.

Vermont (forever), New Hampshire (1923), Washington (1961), Indiana (1980), Maine and North Dakota in 1985, South Dakota (1986) and Florida (1988)

That's 8 states before 1990. In those states it has been the norm for 25 years or longer. Granted, 25 years is not forever but you get the idea. I live in one of those states and I just don't see a lot of OC going on in the cities although it's been legal here since statehood.

As for not losing your rights by not voting.......sorry but you have. You've lost the right to complain about those in office and how they affect your life.

You are confusing your right with not exercising your right. The result of not exercising your right is the laws that idiot politicians make that affect your life. They have not taken away your right, just screwed up your life because you didn't exercise your right. Big difference. If it's something you feel like you need to do like OC, then by all means exercise your right. The problem I'm having is with people that demand their rights when I know for a fact, by living in a state where both are legal and have been for a very long time, that it has been found to be generally impractical and not worth the trouble by most people who carry.
__________________

 

[Warp]

Vermont (forever), New Hampshire (1923), Washington (1961), Indiana (1980), Maine and North Dakota in 1985, South Dakota (1986) and Florida (1988)

That's 8 states before 1990. In those states it has been the norm for 25 years or longer. Granted, 25 years is not forever but you get the idea. I live in one of those states and I just don't see a lot of OC going on in the cities although it's been legal here since statehood.

East or West Washington?

I grew up in one of those states as well (IN), FWIW, and got my first carry license there.

There simply isn't a lot of OC anywhere that I have ever been. I think I've seen all of...three people?...open carrying out randomly in public in the last year. One was a women though so that was neat.

 

[CoalTrain49]

East or West Washington?

Both. I live on the west side but go to the east side a lot.