open carry: worth it?

[knockonit]

OC

Wow,
If you have to put pros and cons to everything you do, I"d expect the fun or the excitement is gone.

Open carry because its a right, exercise it or don't
its a choice, use it before its no longer a choice.
Its been said by me in a post earlier, " A right not excercised is a right lost", think about it for abit.

If you are afraid to open carry, then so be it, why try to convince others when there is no earthly reason for them not too, except your desire or fear to do so. Once a pawn always a pawn.
Thank goodness its only a discussion, I wonder what some would do if they were told they couldn't carry at all in any given mode.

Break the law, or be that pawn.
just curious.
happy thursday

 

[Warhawk83]

Originally posted by jahwarrior. ah! i just remembered: chicks dig open carry. if nothing else, open carry is worth it for that.

This has not been my experience, nervousness and kinda backing up a little bit, yeah.

 

[jakemccoy]

This has not been my experience, nervousness and kinda backing up a little bit, yeah.

That's a good thing. Those women are weeded out for you without you wasting your time. My current girlfriend made the initial cut because of her positive reaction to my gun ownership, in stark contrast to reactions from some other women.

 

[NavyLCDR]

That's a good thing. Those women are weeded out for you without you wasting your time. My current girlfriend made the initial cut because of her positive reaction to my gun ownership, in stark contrast to reactions from some other women.

I went out with a woman once that said, "I would rather my boyfriend carry a gun on his belt for protection rather than a condom in his wallet."

 

[makarovnik]

It about being part of a society and trying to get along. Sometimes that involves making small sacrifices as you might expect others to do.

 

[NavyLCDR]

It about being part of a society and trying to get along. Sometimes that involves making small sacrifices as you might expect others to do.

What small sacrifices are you thinking are reasonable?

 

[Erik M]

I OC when appropriate. In the woods and when I go fishing. I consider CC a casual affair. If I am going shopping, getting groceries, or have other business in town I CC.


This was a thread about OC wasnt it?

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

yeah there's some variables involved with ths question.
not around the general society. tote that ccw though where legal and fitting to the area going to.

 

[Sam1911]

What small sacrifices are you thinking are reasonable?

I'm gathering that he means sacrifices like supporting other folks' right to open carry, even if you do not choose to or feel comfortable doing so yourself.

At least, one hopes that's what he meant.

-S

 

[Shawn Dodson]

what is the ratio between people attacking you for open carrying and people being detered from open carrying, honestly i believe more people are detered by open carry than attracted.

Being singled out by a hardened street thug is merely one example of the unexpected.

In the 80’s and 90’s I patrolled a Navy town that was infested with brazen gang members who were not easily intimidated. Confrontations on the street with them were common for police and private citizens. (I once stood back to back with my partner keeping an angry crowd at bay with our batons until backup arrived (conditions weren’t right to use pepper spray). Google “gangs in Bremerton” and you’ll see examples of everyday stuff.)

A different example – you’re pumping gas at a mini-mart and approached by a mentally ill homeless person who’s attracted to your visible gun. He might be just interested in your gun and wants to talk to you about it and maybe ask to see it, but you’re uncomfortable with his approach and mannerisms and the situation in general. How are you going to handle the situation? What could possibly go wrong? Maybe he becomes belligerent at your reaction to him and starts to make a scene. Will the situation get out of hand? How will witnesses interpret your actions? Could he also be drunk or high on drugs?

When you open carry you assume a higher level of risk that requires a much higher level of preparedness to deal with unexpected, seemingly inconceivable situations.

 

[Kindrox]

I'm gathering that he means sacrifices like supporting other folks' right to open carry, even if you do not choose to or feel comfortable doing so yourself.

I hope so too.

He might be just interested in your gun and wants to talk to you about it and maybe ask to see it, but you’re uncomfortable with his approach and mannerisms and the situation in general.

Just like anyone else who wants to see/touch it. "it's not a toy sir". Uncomfortable is not against the law. Either engage in polite conversation, ignore, get in your car, or call the police. Just like your options if he came bumming for change, which happens to me from time to time as well.

An anti can make the same arguments for your having a gun at all. After all, you might shoot someone.

If OC was legal here, I would do it. Not all the time and not everywhere, but I'd do it. In my experiance trouble makers only make trouble with those they think are powerless. They aren't actually out for a real fight with someone they think could actually harm them.

 

[rswartsell]

Folks,

I support Shawn Dodson's views. I suspect a few more of us do too and simply don't need to add to what he has said. He has presented well reasoned and supported ideas for your consideration.

I personally am not interested in breaking laws, being called a pawn or heaven forbid being responsible for any loss of "fun and excitement" you may want to experience in relation to the proper handling and application of deadly weapons.

P.S. Another thought to think about for abit is a right abused can be a right lost also.

 

[bababooey32]

When you open carry you assume a higher level of risk that requires a much higher level of preparedness to deal with unexpected, seemingly inconceivable situations.

OK...So? We do that when carrying concealed as well. Most of us understand that responsibility and have undertaken some training in response.

I can certainly understand the individual decision not to OC based on that added responsibility, but so far there has been little in the way of evidence that OCing by folks who are willing to take that responsibility is any more (or less) dangerous/obnoxious/silly then CC or not carrying at all.

There is no evidence that OC makes you a target nor that it prevents you from being targeted. You can make an argument either way, but there is precious little evidence.

There is no evidence that OC "instills fear" in the general public. It seems that the instances of LEO being called are few and far between relative to the number of OC, and most instances are resolved fairly easily.

Ulitimately, it comes down to your own comfort level of comfort with the added reposnibility. I can't, however, see a convincing argument that OC is better or worse then CC.

I support Shawn Dodson's views. I suspect a few more of us do too and simply don't need to add to what he has said. He has presented well reasoned and supported ideas for your consideration.

I'm sorry, but no...he hasn't. What he thinks might happen when someone OCs is not a "supported argument"...it is speculation shich, in this case is either directly refuted by or completely lacks any evidence. His example of Police being targted is specious and really has no direct bearing on the discussion of OC. Police are generally targeted for being Police, not because they OC. So far Shawn's arguments are fine for his own decision on whether to OC, but they are vaccuous on the question of advantages/disadvantages of OC overall.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

We do that when carrying concealed as well. Most of us understand that responsibility and have undertaken some training in response.

OC attracts attention in public that CC doesn't. Threats and vulnerabilities are not the same. Diplomacy in dealing with unusual, novel, and uncomfortable situations is probably an important tactic.

What he thinks might happen...

What do YOU think might happen? What have you done to train and prepare for OC specific threats? What can you contribute to the discussion that can help others who OC?

 

[SsevenN]

It's an absolute waste of time to argue with you, shawn.

You have no evidence to support your claims.

Your wild speculation and sterotyping has been refuted by raw data.

You are unwilling to respond to the specific posts that revealed the fallacy of your statements.

Thanks for playing, later.

 

[rswartsell]

Look bababooey32,

He has told you the ideas he has put forth are from his experience. He can't make it your experience and you demanding that he "prove" it to you doesn't mean it isn't an idea worth consideration. I thought the Police shooting incident had merit even if it doesn't meet a narrowly defined definition of what you consider to be "evidence".

If you don't wish to consider the ideas or you disagree, so be it. That doesn't make them vaccuous on the disadvantages or advantages of OC, you overstate the case by saying that anything that cannot be empirically proven to your satisfaction is worthless.

Some are capable of abstract thought and application of an idea to varying situations. I won't debate rhetoric or rules of evidence or empirical method with you because to me that is what would be vaccuous. The ideas are put forward from observation and experience and if they touch some kind of nerve with the people reading them that is a separate issue. They either make sense to you and are worthy of consideration or they are not.

Whether you can rhetorically challenge them and win some kind of contest is fine for your own decision on whether to OC or not. Everyone else can then decide for themselves what is pertinent and what is not. Throw your own experience out there and tell us what observations you have from first hand experience and I personally will consider those too. Try to prove that the rhetorical contest should make my mind up and you have lost me.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

It's an absolute waste of time to argue with you, shawn.

You have no evidence to support your claims.

Your wild speculation and sterotyping has been refuted by raw data.

As I posted earlier, I'm merely playing the Devil's Advocate (for the purpose of helping others to think outside-the-box).

I'm not debating, I'm challenging stereotypes. Perhaps that's what has you frustrated. I've presented a handful of hypothetical situations that can happen when one open carries that are unlikely to be encountered when one carries concealed.

 

[chibiker]

rswartsell... very well said sir.

I live in a state that currently does not allow concealed OR open carry. I support 100% the right of an individual to do so. I am rather distressed with a current case that is arguing that you can ban one or the other, just not both. To me, CC or OC, no difference, you should be allowed to carry.. PERIOD.

The distressing part of the above is that when it comes time to adopt a law concerning carry they get that choice. If CC is deemed illegal and OC is fine, myself and a great many others I know will decide that it's not worth the risk to OC. Why do I assume I am more at risk? Because of the insanity I am surrounded on by a daily basis. I live where there is a chance you could get your skull caved in because they want your tennis shoes or your hoodie. I live in a city that can get you killed for being on the wrong corner wearing the wrong color shirt or shoelaces. Because of this I do not TRUST the people that would steal my shoes or an article of my clothing to not do me any harm should they decide they now want to steal my gun. That's not even mentioning all the paranoid people around me that would make my everyday life near impossible. I would not be able to leave my house without "man with a gun" being called in to the local popo.

I want to be able to keep my gun concealed and let them wonder. I'll support YOUR right to OC but that won't keep me from thinking you are a bit of a nut for putting yourself at what I deem far more of a risk of falling in harms way.
That does not make me anti-gun/anti 2A or your enemy.

 

[Kindrox]

I'm merely playing the Devil's Advocate (for the purpose of helping others to think outside-the-box).

Much of your devil's advocate is the same for carrying a gun at all. The only thing different is unwanted attention from police and bystanders of ill-intent.

As for police, if you are obeying the law, eventaually it solves itself. Police in some areas might be running amock right now because they can, but it will work itself out based on the law. Giving the police what they want because otherwise they will harass you is unamerican.

As for bystanders, well I think you are hyping up trouble. Would I walk to some areas of the city OCing, all by myself? No, but those same areas I wouldn't walk by myself anyway, gun or no.

Is some criminal on his way to knock over the home depot gunna see me OC and blow me away in the parking lot because he sees me as a potential problem to knocking over the home depot? That is stretching things a bit far for me.

Might some mentally ill headcase see my gun and attack me to get it? Where as otherwise he would have kept to himelf? I guess anything is possible. The possibility of it would keep me from OCing.

 

[Kindrox]

I would not be able to leave my house without "man with a gun" being called in to the local popo.

With a little work by the gun owning community the conversation could go like this:

Caller: "I see a man with a gun"
911 op: "Is he pointing it at someone?"
Caller: "No it is on his belt in a holster"
911 op: "Ma'am that is not illegal"
Caller: "Oh. Ok."

 

[rswartsell]

SsevenN,

Have you supported all opposing claims with "evidence"? If not you are unfair and if so then is it because you do not have experience in the matter at hand?

Regarding "raw data", according to Twain. there are 3 types of lies "lies, damn lies and statistics". People must make their own judgments and must decide for themselves how to do so. Throw out the benefits of observation from first hand experience at your own peril in this or any other question, with a little effort I could take any position whether my best judgment agreed or not and support it with "raw data". Ask any accountant and he will tell you that numbers are cowards, a little tortue and they will admit to anything.

He seems to me to be responding to as many posts as reasonable and you seem to be interested in "shouting down" rather than engaging in a free exchange of ideas.

The dismissive attitude in "Thanks for playing, later" reveals an animus that is not reason, a disrespect for opposing views and a clue that maybe you are "playing". Can I assume the game is smackdown anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint? Well some percentage of the people on these boards are playing smackdown. Their success at the game or lack thereof is not compelling proof of the good judgment of their ideas.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Police Shooting

The police shooting -- more properly: ambush and assassination of police officers -- is not related in any way to "good reasons not to open carry."

They were not killed because they had guns. They were not killed because they were open carrying. They were also not killed for eating donuts and drinking coffee -- which they were also doing at the time. The propter hoc family of fallacies applies.

They were ambushed because they were police. The perpetrator sought them out at a place known to be frequented by police officers. Their sock color and shoe size are likewise irrelevant to this discussion.

It's an inappropriate anecdote. It doesn't apply.


Now, just by way of a little comment of my own . . .

In a discussion of the etiquette of carrying, some time back, I made this remark:

It is incorrect and unethical for one's conduct to be driven by the taboos and phobias of another.

So, while it may be prudent under certain circumstances to avoid upsetting others, the broader, more general case is that if you repeatedly allow your scope and reach to be hobbled by the complaints of chronic and professional "worriers" you will, at length, cease to have any scope at all.

Another view of this can be had if one considers what kinds of public displays are "acceptable" (or at least no longer uncommon) today that would not have been acceptable -- to the point of people going to jail over it -- forty or fifty years ago. There is a level of "soft lewdness" (and some not so soft) that has become common to the point where it inspires no real commentary in the media. Stuff that you would never have seen on TV when I was a kid -- in fact, when I was a young adult -- is now commonplace, subject only to a "rating" system to warn of racy or violent content.

How did that happen? Through the persistent, repeated, unrelenting exposure of material in increasing increments until what was once "obscene" or "traumatically violent" is now boring.


I would suggest that the road back to the "unremarkable" presence of guns in our society is through the same mechanism of incremental exposure.

Not an in-your-face over-the-top confrontational thing, but a gradual, gentle-but-firm insistence that our rights actually mean something.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The distressing part of the above is that when it comes time to adopt a law concerning carry they get that choice. If CC is deemed illegal and OC is fine, myself and a great many others I know will decide that it's not worth the risk to OC. Why do I assume I am more at risk? Because of the insanity I am surrounded on by a daily basis. I live where there is a chance you could get your skull caved in because they want your tennis shoes or your hoodie. I live in a city that can get you killed for being on the wrong corner wearing the wrong color shirt or shoelaces. Because of this I do not TRUST the people that would steal my shoes or an article of my clothing to not do me any harm should they decide they now want to steal my gun. That's not even mentioning all the paranoid people around me that would make my everyday life near impossible. I would not be able to leave my house without "man with a gun" being called in to the local popo.

chibiker,
I have absolutely no problem with what you said above. In situations like that, I wouldn't open carry. Heck, there are situations here in Washington that I won't open carry in.

I'll support YOUR right to OC but that won't keep me from thinking you are a bit of a nut for putting yourself at what I deem far more of a risk of falling in harms way.
That does not make me anti-gun/anti 2A or your enemy.

Unfortunately, then you had to follow it up with this. The Brady bunch and their followers say EXACTLY the same things about anyone who carries a gun in any manner. I don't understand why there is the need to say things like this within our community when we get so upset about the anti-gun people saying exactly the same thing.

 

[jakemccoy]

Shawn Dodson,

The problem with everything you're saying is that you have not made one comment in support of a gun owner who has made the personal decision that open carry is best for him. That bothers me.

I can imagine you as a juror being prejudicial against a defendant merely because the defendant was open carrying. I fear gun owners like you more than I fear admittedly anti-gun people. With them, at least I know what the deal is upfront, and I can respect them for that.

As I posted earlier, I'm merely playing the Devil's Advocate (for the purpose of helping others to think outside-the-box).

That's B.S.

A devil's advocate is someone who takes a position he or she does not agree with merely for the sake of argument. Not only do you agree with the arguments you're presenting, you also seem to have a deep-seated passion for convincing others that open carry is bad and unsafe. You come across as fake and dishonest whenever you say you're merely playing the devil's advocate. You have also proven you don't know what that term means. I don't know how any self-respecting gun owner can be on board with what you're saying.

-Jake

 

[rswartsell]

If nothing else the Police shooting event points up;

1. the complete unpredictability of the behavior of the deranged, and I don't care if people that had long term knowledge of the person in question could have/should have predicted or not. As an OC the assumption is that you will be in contact with many people you know nothing about, some may be deranged
2. The fact that the victims (LEO or not), were armed and outnumbered the perp didn't save them.

Deciding that an OC gun will be a catalyst at least during a period of legal transition is a reasonable conclusion. Deciding that the reactions are not in any way completely predictable is also a reasonable conclusion.

Does this mean I think OC should be illegal,-NO

Does it mean to me that it is valuable to entertain and discuss the ideas set forth? Does it mean TO ME, that I need to decide just what purpose I am achieving by OC? -YES

Knowing terms like Propter Hoc or being a moderator does not give a unique perspective on what is being offered. By the way, what is your position on "break the law or be that pawn" Arfin?