Open carry article

[SnowBlaZeR2]

There are places and circumstances in which you could not shoot someone if you were able to draw your firearm timely.

You definitely could not shoot someone with your watch or your camera. I'm not going back through everything (I'm not retired ), but I don't think we should compare getting your firearm stolen to a Rolex or Nikon.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

By the way, Florida and Texas have prohibited open carry except on private property for a very, very long time. Im MO, open carry is prohibited in the more populous areas.

There are a few other isolated circumstances where open carry is permitted in Florida as well. I open carry whenever I am able. In Alabama, open carry is permitted. It's nothing to see someone openly carry firearms there, without issue.

 

[Warp]

I should think that those conclusions would be intuitively obvious to anyone.

I'm quite certain those matter-of-fact ironclad assumptions you are applying broad brush to everybody and everything are flat out wrong. Most absolute statements like that are.

Take another look at the video, and see if you really disagree. Would you really fire a shot in that environment?

It is possible, it all depends on the exact scenario.

 

[arizonamailman]

I live in Arizona where constitutional carry is the rule. This means that I can carry openly or concealed without getting permission from big brother. I normally carry a Glock 19 or Springfield XD45. In all the time I have openly carried, I have yet to have someone confront me and be critical about my open carry. Around the area that I live in, open carry is seen widely. Even some stores whose corporate policies are anti-gun have allowed open carry in their stores. In particular, Target is an anti-gun corporation whose local store allows open carry.
What I guess I am trying to say is that if you open carry and enough of your fellow handgun owners open carry without trying to provoke people (i.e. go about your business and don't try to portray yourself as a bada**), most people will eventually not even notice. By open carrying, I believe that I am helping to contribute to the decline of the anti-gun atmosphere in the country.

 

[Warp]

I live in Arizona where constitutional carry is the rule. This means that I can carry openly or concealed without getting permission from big brother. I normally carry a Glock 19 or Springfield XD45. In all the time I have openly carried, I have yet to have someone confront me and be critical about my open carry. Around the area that I live in, open carry is seen widely. Even some stores whose corporate policies are anti-gun have allowed open carry in their stores. In particular, Target is an anti-gun corporation whose local store allows open carry.
What I guess I am trying to say is that if you open carry and enough of your fellow handgun owners open carry without trying to provoke people (i.e. go about your business and don't try to portray yourself as a), most people will eventually not even notice. By open carrying, I believe that I am helping to contribute to the decline of the anti-gun atmosphere in the country.

Good job and thank you. I believe that works.


But just a word of warning, THR does not allow the use of *'s in place of words. THR also does not allow the use of the word that you were using where the * appeared.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Unilaterally enforced social interaction is usually about power. Whether the social interaction is in the form of theft, rape, or general mayhem, the real attraction is rarely the obvious one. Workplace sexual harassment is not really about sex, and armed robbery is not really about Nikons. People who are interested in street value alone usually resort to asocial forms of theft such as burglary.

So here's the question: Will people who actualize their need for personal empowerment through acts which could justify deadly force feel they are more, or less, likely to feel empowered by engaging an obviously armed person?

Obviously that depends on the individual. Most will see the risk as disproportionate and choose others to interact with. Some will respond positively, feeling they would be more empowered by successful interaction with an armed individual. Woud the later group have ignored you otherwise? That is a difficult claim to support.



Most people, when faced with a rattlesnake, ignore it or back away. A percentage of the population will attempt to kill the snake out of fear. An even smaller group, faced with exactly the same animals, capture and keep them in their homes.

Most people, when faced with an open carrier, ignore it or back away. A percentage of the population will attempt to pass laws against open carry out of fear. An even smaller group, faced with exactly the same open carriers, thinks about stealing their guns.

I do not know what percentage of the population would capture a rattlesnake, but fear of capture is not the reason I wouldn't want to be a snake.

Bravo!

 

[Red Wind]

Second the Bravo! That was an excellent post, Ed Ames. The key part in your reasoning is spot on to me:

Obviously that depends on the individual. Most will see the risk as disproportionate and choose others to interact with. Some will respond positively, feeling they would be more empowered by successful interaction with an armed individual. Would the later group have ignored you otherwise? That is a difficult claim to support.

Most people, when faced with a rattlesnake, ignore it or back away. A percentage of the population will attempt to kill the snake out of fear. An even smaller group, faced with exactly the same animals, capture and keep them in their homes.

 

[buck460XVR]

And I do resent it when "activists" parade around like exhibitionists and cause the electorate and their representatives to oppose not only open carry, but also concealed carry, as has happened here. Their actions have not been helpful.

I do too. Just as I resent it when a school shooter uses a firearm with a high cap mag. Those actions have not helped our cause either, but I don't use it as an argument to convince other gun owners that Hi-Cap mags are bad. Just like I resent when someone uses any firearm to do horrendous crimes. Still it does not make me feel the need to tell other gun owners they need to keep their firearms hid under the bed and not talk about them. I resent any irresponsible actions with a firearm, they all make us look bad. That don't mean I'll suggest folks need to refrain from any actions with firearms. The inappropriate actions by a few does not represent the majority, is the argument we as gun owners have been using all along to try and convince naysayers otherwise. The common thread in this thread( a bad pun, sorry) is those gun owners despising/resenting the legal rights of others, because they fear the exercise of those rights will somehow interfere with their own. Again, no different that the hunter arguing that the use of Hi-Cap mags and AR type rifles are threatening his right to own a bolt gun for hunting deer so folks shouldn't buy them, or even worse, while I want them legal so I can use one to defend my home, folks shouldn't hunt with them or use them for something other than HD.

Again it comes down to common sense and responsible gun ownership. There is a time and place for everything. Doing what is appropriate for a specific situation is part of responsible gun ownership. Odds are the percentage of CWC license holders that act irresponsibly is the same as OCers that do. You see folks here all the time bragging about how they "flashed" their CWC and scared the Bad Guy away.......yeah right. Or how their shirt came up in the checkout line when they reached for their wallet and the girl at the cash register eyes got THIS BIG! Still, they insist that open carry is the major threat to their CWC rights.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by arizonamailman: I live in Arizona where constitutional carry is the rule. This means that I can carry openly or concealed ... Around the area that I live in, open carry is seen widely.

A friend who just moved back to Missouri from Arizona told me the other day that when he and his wife went out to dinner, there were people wearing guns at just about every table.

Several years ago, someone posted an article by someone in some kind of government field containing recommendations about how to avoid being singled out for attacks. There were the usual comments--situational awareness, projecting an air of confidence, keeping distance--but an important one was to not stand out.

In a nearby Missouri county where we camp, open carry is lawful, but the only person I have seen carrying openly there in the last year or so happened to be me (it was inadvertent). Most of the off-duty and retired LEOs with whom we camp recommend against it. The ol' "man with a gun" bugaboo doesn't really exist out there. The issue is that the open carrier stands out from others. That likely has a deterrent value against those who can be seen, but it also gives a couple of perps something valuable to consider stealing.

It would seem to me likely that if a crook or two looking for an easy mark were to observe people leaving a restaurant in Arizona, where most of the people were visibly armed, the one or two persons who were not carrying openly would look much more inviting.

I said earlier that I thought I might consider carrying openly if I were in Phoenix. Upon reflection, I think it likely that I would do so.

By the way, the Missouri county in question is a hotbed of meth users and dealers and producers and other drug people; one does not trifle with those people.

On a related subject, I had concluded some years ago, after listening to some SD trainers, that even if I were on a trail in that area, I would (unfortunately) opt for concealed carry. I no longer believe that. Upon consideration, I am reasonably confident that I could avoid being surprised for the gun in such a place; if someone should pass, coming or going, I would simply give them wide berth. And one of the handguns I would choose to carry does not conceal well at all.

Now, there is a not insignificant risk of stumbling into some bad guys in a marijuana patch or a couple of "cookers" out there, but how one happened to be carrying would not affect anything, IMHO. One who stumbles into a situation like that is likely to be in a lot of trouble regardless.

 

[buck460XVR]

On a related subject, I had concluded some years ago, after listening to some SD trainers, that even if I were on a trail in that area, I would (unfortunately) opt for concealed carry. I no longer believe that. Upon consideration, I am reasonably confident that I could avoid being surprised for the gun in such a place; if someone should pass, coming or going, I would simply give them wide berth. And one of the handguns I would choose to carry does not conceal well at all.

Consider this scenario: you are leaving the WalMart store, inside which you have been very safe indeed. You are walking through the lot to your car.

In front of you, milling around among the cars, are some shady looking characters. I should think that a firearm on your hip, carried openly, would likely add to your security.

But if there are people behind you who might do you harm, that firearm would be of little use to deter those whom you cannot see unless you can get to your car before they shoot you. And that nice, inviting firearm just might be what motivates them to do it.

I fail to see any difference in those two scenarios, other than one is in a open, well lit parking lot with security cameras and one is a deserted trail with plenty of ambush sites, yet you insist, your scenario, with the higher risk of being jumped for your weapon, is where you would open carry.......

 

[Mainsail]

...but an important one was to not stand out.

I think your error is in your belief that open carry and ‘blending in’ are mutually exclusive. They are not necessarily so. With a 1911 on my belt I still blend in….somehow. Anyone who regularly OCs will tell you they’re surprised at how few other people actually notice it. Unless or until you’re standing right next to the other person, most people are oblivious, and even that’s not guarantee they’ll see it.

So the question is; do the bad people scan everyone’s waistline looking for an openly carried handgun. I haven’t seen or heard evidence that they do. Going back to my previous post, both open and concealed carry offer the same (so-called) element of surprise, just played out at different times. OC plays it before the attack, CC plays it after the attack has begun and you’re already behind the curve.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: I fail to see any difference in those two scenarios, other than one is in a open, well lit parking lot with security cameras and one is a deserted trail with plenty of ambush sites, yet you insist, your scenario, with the higher risk of being jumped for your weapon, is where you would open carry.....

A WalMart lot, or the lot outside another big box store, is a veritable waterhole in the Serengeti (Tom Givens' phrase) that attracts predators from nearby areas, and the predators blend in among the many other people there. The shoppers leaving the store are their prey.

Sit in your car in a such a lot near a questionable neighborhood while someone else is inside shopping; be sure to keep your windows and doors locked, your head on a swivel, and your gun ready. Watch the landsharks cruise the lot obviously casing potential victims. You may even see a mugging or a carjacking.

On the trail, there is seldom anyone else out there; those who are almost always have reasons other than nefarious ones, and many are accompanied by their families; and one can readily hear them and see them. The big risk is a possible canine disagreement.

Most crimes of violence occur near the automobile. We have had more than our share of car-jackings and assaults in parking lots in the last few years. We have a friend who is a detective. She stays away from shopping centers, and she carries a gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mainsail: I think your error is in your belief that open carry and ‘blending in’ are mutually exclusive. They are not necessarily so.

I have not so contended. In some places, the open carrier will stand out. From what I am told, an open carrier in a restaurant in Phoenix, AZ in the evening will blend in.

Full disclosure: I have not been to Phoenix for almost twenty years, and I do not recall seeing open carriers then. But things have apparently changed.

Going back to my previous post, both open and concealed carry offer the same (so-called) element of surprise, just played out at different times. OC plays it before the attack, CC plays it after the attack has begun and you’re already behind the curve.

We have spoken about that before; "surprise" is s strategy for attacker(s).

If two or more perps have decided to take a firearm from someone, you can be sure that they will employ surprise, and quite possible, extreme violence, as RustyShackelford pointed out.

 

[Warp]

Deterrence exists. It is a real thing.

If you are indistinguishable from everybody else...from where does deterrence come?

I'm not sure how or why you are making it out to be a bad thing to present yourself as a less-soft target than almost everybody else.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: Deterrence exists. It is a real thing.

Of course.

If you are indistinguishable from everybody else...from where does deterrence come?

If you are referring to a concealed carrier, you do not deter; the strategy in an area in which few people carry openly is to not attract. But coming out of that restaurant in Phoenix in the evening, the persons who do not attract are likely those who visibly armed.

I cannot find the link, but it even went into clothing colors and sales, and behavior.

I'm not sure how or why you are making it out to be a bad thing to present yourself as a less-soft target than almost everybody else.

It is not a bad thing, at all.

It's just that someone who cannot see a very close attacker or two or three and prevent them from shooting, striking, sticking, or slashing him is not as "less soft" as he might think himself to be.

And under those circumstances, his best strategy is to not be a more attractive target than the next person.

"This circumstances" might include standing in line; we spoke about a gun grab of that kind here last year.

Or on a very crowded sidewalk, where many people are milling in all directions, some perhaps coordinating electronically, and most not only well well within Tueller distance, but within sticking range.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Kleanbore, you seem to have a lot of experience, insight, and knowledge about the criminal element. That's good, and I think the average person should have more understanding of those topics. However, I don't think you have much real world OC experience. From your posts, it does sound like you have some fear around OC (there is nothing wrong with that). But, some of the points you state as absolutes are not quite so absolute, from my experience and from others who practice OC often. If you were to gain some first-hand experience of OC, I think you might soften on some of your viewpoints. That is my guess, as I have seen many other people have that change in viewpoint... I have friends who have questioned and critiqued my choice to OC. Once I got them to try it, even for a part of a day (and they were uncomfortable to start), they have really come to realize that it's not that big of a deal.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Thugs; street people....

Do not underestimate the street people or "thugs" in your area.
Many may seem inept or unorganized but all it takes is one clever you-know-what to get them motivated/active.

It's a common problem where I live & work to see homeless people/street people being used in criminal activity. They could be given a hotel room if the act as a "look-out" or be duped into acting as a scout for more aggressive robbers.

Street gangs & criminal networks are becoming more & more savvy. These drug "kingpins" & gang leaders or "warlords"(a term used more in the 1970s/1980s) use the street people/drug addicts as part of a larger plan.
They know these elements need to survive on the streets & they'll be keenly aware of what/who's around.

Rusty

 

[Warp]

If you are referring to a concealed carrier, you do not deter; the strategy in an area in which few people carry openly is to not attract. But coming out of that restaurant in Phoenix in the evening, the persons who do not attract are likely those who visibly armed.

Some people sometimes choose not to just write off deterrence as not worth having/doing.

Some people do not believe that openly carrying attracts, they believe that it deters.

It's just that someone who cannot see a very close attacker or two or three and prevent them from shooting, striking, sticking, or slashing him is not as "less soft" as he might think himself to be.

How many openly carrying private citizens have been attacked?

We hear about concealed carrying private citizen being attacked pretty frequently. Sure, the fact that most conceal can be pointed to, but...where are the attacks on open carriers? Across the entire country, following this topic for years (nearly a decade now), asking people like you in discussions like this all the time, I have been made aware of ~3 instances of open carrying private citizens being targeted and attacked.

And under those circumstances, his best strategy is to not be a more attractive target than the next person.

I believe that being armed makes you a rather unattractive target next to people who are probably unarmed.

"This circumstances" might include standing in line; we spoke about a gun grab of that kind here last year.

How many years before another one of those happens?

Extraordinarily rare, is it not?

Or on a very crowded sidewalk, where many people are milling in all directions, some perhaps coordinating electronically, and most not only well well within Tueller distance, but within sticking range.

Happens all the time with open carriers.

Where are all the problems?


This sounds like the antis saying blood will run in the streets if shall issue is passed (referring to their specific state as if it differs from the rest of the country), or saying that college students can't be trusted with guns and allowing carry on campus won't will lead to shootings, or saying that guns and alcohol don't mix so allowing guns in bars will lead to shootings...but guess what...the real world actual factual incidents...or lack thereof...in the many states where it is legal and practice...they say otherwise.

Why postulate about what you think could happen when we have actual real world it-doesn't-happen experiences?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ShooterMcGavin: However, I don't think you have much real world OC experience.

You are correct.

From your posts, it does sound like you have some fear around OC (there is nothing wrong with that).

Not sure what you mean. I certainly do not worry about open carriers presenting a threat. Frankly, the open carrier is the last person I would fear.

But, some of the points you state as absolutes are not quite so absolute, from my experience and from others who practice OC often.

I think that the following are indisputably absolute:

• an openly carried firearm is, along with a few other things, a very desirable item for a criminal who can take it;
• no one can be competely vigilant all the time;
• it is possible for one or more determined criminals to surprise and disable anyone;
• a person who has been seriously injured cannot maintain posession of his firearm or other property.

Do you disagree?

The risks and benefits of open carry vary according to circumstance and location. In the Chicago scene mentioned by GEM and shown in the video posted above, I see all downside and no upside. There are other places like that. Other places are not the same. I have never been there, but I have believed for half a century that the Helena Montana that Elmer Keith described in Sixguns was an ideal place for open carry. There are other places like that, too. And there are a lot of places in between.

There are instructors who teach firearms retention. One of them says "I will have your gun" on his publicity page. And he does not harm the student. A staff member on another board suggests the most effective way to overcome retention techniques is to "introduce Mr. Rock to Mr. Skull".

Obviously, many people carry openly all the time without incident. Many people do not carry at all--also without incident. Neither settles anything. It's a matter of very basic risk management--identification of risks; evaluation of those risks, in terms of both likelihood of occurrence and severity of potential consequences; evaluation of candidate mitigation strategies; and a decision.

I should think that the very least that an open carrier would want to do is avail himself or herself of some good retention training.

Here's another idea. Hire some professionals and set up some realistic, safe FoF training. Put an open carrier among other people, and introduce some "bad guys" with contact weapons or firearms.

Reward the "bad guys" if they neutralize the open carrier, and penalize the open carrier very heavily if he shoots the wrong person or shoots too soon. Vary the circumstances; simulate a busy downtown setting, a mall, a parking lot, day, night....

See how it goes. The open carrier should learn a lot from that.

Speaking of risk management, if you will allow me an aside, I misspoke earlier.

I stated that I carry whenever I can. I do not.

When the sidewalks and streets and lots are covered with ice, I do not carry. Two reasons:

1. I believe that the risk of greater injury in the event of a fall on the firearm is something that should be mitgated; that would apply to concealed and open carry;
2. and I believe that the likelihood that violent criminal actors will be out and about is much lower after an ice storm.

 

[buck460XVR]

A WalMart lot, or the lot outside another big box store, is a veritable waterhole in the Serengeti (Tom Givens' phrase) that attracts predators from nearby areas, and the predators blend in among the many other people there. The shoppers leaving the store are their prey.



On the trail, there is seldom anyone else out there; those who are almost always have reasons other than nefarious ones, and many are accompanied by their families; and one can readily hear them and see them. The big risk is a possible canine disagreement.

So generalizing that all Wal-Mart parking lots are the center of all crime activity while walking trails are safe from everything but the occasion stray dog is the reasoning?

Around here I read and know of of women being attacked and therefore being warned about running/jogging/walking on trails because predators(2 legged kind) know they won't be seen, calls for help won't be heard and help is a long way off. It's well known that predators stalk these areas. The local Wal-Mart on the other hand has a parking lot that is so lit up that you need sunglasses at night and it can be seen from where I turkey hunt 6 miles away. Hard to tell the sun is coming up it's so bright. While there is a large truck stop across the road, most truckers park their rigs in the Wal-Mart lot because it is safer than the truck-stop lot. The local cops claim that accidents/incidents in the Wal-Mart lot are no brainers because the security cameras catch most everything that goes down there. Many on these types of forums when asked where's a safe place to do a FTF gun sale recommend Wal-Mart parking lots because of the lighting, cameras and the large amount of people there at all times. To to me, your justification does not make sense. Your perception does. Very easy to see that your perception is that OC is practiced mostly by irresponsible folks in irresponsible ways. It is clear your perception is that OC is only good when you or another irresponsible CWCer exposes their firearm or when it's appropriate for you. You insult those of us that are responsible while justifying your irresponsibility. I care less how you carry, nor will I argue that any legal way you choose to carry is wrong. I wouldn't insult you like that, in the long run, as a gun owner, doing that only insults myself.

Most crimes of violence occur near the automobile. We have had more than our share of car-jackings and assaults in parking lots in the last few years. We have a friend who is a detective. She stays away from shopping centers, and she carries a gun.

No, crimes of violence near automobiles actually are lower than in your own home, unless you are talking about just random cars on the street. You or your loved one are more likely to be attacked in your home, their friends house or at school than they are next to their car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. You friend needs to look at facts and figures, and I thought all detectives carried a gun. Unlike many folks think, Cities with populations of 500,000 or less are more prone to violent crimes than the larger municipalities.

I assume this thread will be closed shortly because a mod will claim it's going around in circles.....and it is.

 

[Warp]

You are correct.

It all makes sense now.

That's why this reads like the antis getting all worked up over things they think will be a problem that just plain aren't.

You may want to realize that these things you keep worrying about are happening all over the country all the time and have been for quite awhile, and are not a problem.

So generalizing that all Wal-Mart parking lots are the center of all crime activity while walking trails are safe from everything but the occasion stray dog is the reasoning?

Around here I read and know of of women being attacked and therefore being warned about running/jogging/walking on trails because predators(2 legged kind) know they won't be seen, calls for help won't be heard and help is a long way off. It's well known that predators stalk these areas. The local Wal-Mart on the other hand has a parking lot that is so lit up that you need sunglasses at night and it can be seen from where I turkey hunt 6 miles away. Hard to tell the sun is coming up it's so bright. While there is a large truck stop across the road, most truckers park their rigs in the Wal-Mart lot because it is safer than the truck-stop lot. The local cops claim that accidents/incidents in the Wal-Mart lot are no brainers because the security cameras catch most everything that goes down there. Many on these types of forums when asked where's a safe place to do a FTF gun sale recommend Wal-Mart parking lots because of the lighting, cameras and the large amount of people there at all times. To to me, your justification does not make sense. Your perception does. Very easy to see that your perception is that OC is practiced mostly by irresponsible folks in irresponsible ways. It is clear your perception is that OC is only good when you or another irresponsible CWCer exposes their firearm or when it's appropriate for you. You insult those of us that are responsible while justifying your irresponsibility. I care less how you carry, nor will I argue that any legal way you choose to carry is wrong. I wouldn't insult you like that, in the long run, as a gun owner, doing that only insults myself.




No, crimes of violence near automobiles actually are lower than in your own home, unless you are talking about just random cars on the street. You or your loved one are more likely to be attacked in your home, their friends house or at school than they are next to their car in the Wal-Mart parking lot. You friend needs to look at facts and figures, and I thought all detectives carried a gun. Unlike many folks think, Cities with populations of 500,000 or less are more prone to violent crimes than the larger municipalities.

I assume this thread will be closed shortly because a mod will claim it's going around in circles.....and it is.

I like this post ^

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: How many openly carrying private citizens have been attacked?

Very few, as has been stetted above more than once, and if you have been following the thread, you will knw that that has been discussed already. And you will understand one main oreason why. One cannot draw any valid conclusions from cumulative occurrence data when the conditions that create the risks occur only rarely.

We hear about concealed carrying private citizen being attacked pretty frequently.

Really? The likelihood of anyone being attacked is rather remote; and the proportion of the population people who carry concealed is extremely small.

I believe that being armed makes you a rather unattractive target next to people who are probably unarmed.

Under many circumstances, yes. But do you disagree with any of the following? An openly carried firearm is, along with a few other things, a very desirable item for a criminal who can take it; no one can be competely vigilant all the time; it is possible for one or more determined criminals to surprise and disable anyone; a person who has been seriously injured cannot maintain posession of his firearm or other property.

Extraordinarily rare, is it not?

Yes, and for the reasons previously discussed. You are going in circles. One cannot draw any valid conclusions from cumulative occurrence data when the conditions that create the risks occur only rarely.

Why postulate about what you think could happen when we have actual real world it-doesn't-happen experiences?

Same answer as above.

 

[Warp]

Very few, as has been stetted above more than once, and if you have been following the thread, you will knw that that has been discussed already. And you will understand one main oreason why. One cannot draw any valid conclusions from cumulative occurrence data when the conditions that create the risks occur only rarely.

They occur far more commonly than you want to believe.

Your lack of experience with open carry is probably a factor here.

Really? The likelihood of anyone being attacked is rather remote; and the proportion of the population people who carry concealed is extremely small.

Yes, really.

Are you implying concealed carriers only very rarely use their firearms to defend against attack?

Under many circumstances, yes. But do you disagree with any of the following? An openly carried firearm is, along with a few other things, a very desirable item for a criminal who can take it; no one can be competely vigilant all the time; it is possible for one or more determined criminals to surprise and disable anyone; a person who has been seriously injured cannot maintain posession of his firearm or other property.

Again, you can create hypothetical scenarios (not based on much if any experience) and worry about them, but why do that when you can look at te real world? I could make up scenarios and list facts that would support concealed carry being a bad idea, or support legal carrying in bars being bad, or support legal carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol being bad, or support handguns carried in cars without a license being bad, or...you get the idea. And the antis do that to us all the time.

But guess what. We have the real world. We have the actual factual results. And it's not a problem!!

Yes, and for the reasons previously discussed. You are going in circles. One cannot draw any valid conclusions from cumulative occurrence data when the conditions that create the risks occur only rarely.

They do NOT occur "only rarely".

Just because you personally do not have much, if any, experience with it, doesn't mean it is rare.

People openly carry on sidewalks, in parking lots, in stores, in malls, in close vicinity to strangers, etc, all the time. That is reality.

 

[Warp]

kleanbore: May I ask what state/area you spend your time in?

 

[Warp]

I mentioned the ~3 incidents I have heard of where an openly carrying private citizen was attacked.

FWIW, one of them was in the pacific northwest...OR or WA...and it was a single individual walking in/near a wooded area...on a trail/path...who was surprised and relieved of his pistol. No lines, no sidewalks, no rush hour, no crowd. Just outdoors by himself.

Another was in VA, entering a gas station.

And I think one was in WI maybe, on the sidewalk in front of his building.

Those are the three I know of. Do those sound right? Am I missing any?


Isn't it worth noting how very short that list is? And how none of them happened in or near a crowd, with one being outdoors in the open?