rswartsell
Member
During the period of transition when OC is not common, might a deranged cop hater think you are a cop from the gun on your hip, whether true or not?
open carry: worth it?
- Thread starter -eaux-
- Start date
- Status
rswartsell
Member
Does the idea that not being driven TO OC by the phobias and taboos of others mean that if all you are doing is intentionally "breaking down" resistance by OC it is incorrect or unethical? I may not be perfectly at ease with social activism being the driving force for some to OC, but I am hardly arrogant enough to suggest that they are automatically incorrect or unethical to strap on and pick up the video camera where it is their legal right to do so.
I am saying that if social activism is not my chosen purpose, then I will consider the ideas of Shawn Dodson (consider, not blindly obey), before strapping on.
I am saying that if social activism is not my chosen purpose, then I will consider the ideas of Shawn Dodson (consider, not blindly obey), before strapping on.
bababooey32
Member
Exactly the opposite. I HAVE considered his ideas which, as you point out, are based on his experience (i.e. anecdotal), and I have decided that his one data point does not support anything more than his decision whether or not to OC...But then, that is not what we are discussing. I think we all agree that the decision is an individual one (assuming it's legal). The question IS "Is it worth it?" In order to have a legitimate answer to that broader question, yes evidence, data and honesty are required. Anecdotes will not suffice to make sweeping generalizations such as:
You can deem all you'd like, but again there is no evidence that there is more danger while OCing than not.
So unless I have first hand experience OCing, I can't have an opinion? Personally, I would rather look for broad based evidence/data to support my decision to OC or not rather than gather a few anecdoets from the web.
The shooting had no merit because it had nothing to do with OC!!! Not because of my definition of evidence.
Deranged people do deranged things. I don't see the logic in basing any analysis of OC on the behavior of the deranged.
No, you have presented a series of hypotheticals that you say WILL happen, and then argue that for those reasons (that are made up), open carry is insane. That's called a strawman. Making something up (hypothetical) so you can tear it down and then claim your position as logical. It's a fallacy and that is why you are meeting such resistance. There is no evidence that your hypotheticals are realistic. OC doesn't attract attention. If so, where is the evidence? OC doesn't cause the carrier tobecome a target. If so, it should be easy to prove. Etc.
Again, if you are not comfortable OCing and those are your reasons...fine by me. But don't tell other people that they are "asking for trouble" when you have based your whole case on suppositions and hypotheticals.
Last edited:
rswartsell
Member
I have an opinion that may not be widely agreed with, but nonetheless it is mine. That opinion is that whenever I pick up a gun I must also pick up a set of responsibilities with it.
Among those responsibilities is determining the purpose for doing so and answering if I am ready to be accountable for any consequences of my actions. That means a reasoned awareness of what those consequences MIGHT be. The ideas of Shawn Dodson are valuable even if you do not agree that they are feasible or likely. CONSIDERING them prior to jumping in IMHO is a big part of what his point is. Also preparing for the unforseen.
If anyone truly has answered to himself what his purpose is, weighed the possible consequences and prepared for them, and in personal inventory of benefit vs. liability honestly chosen OC, I have no argument with him. If one blindly dismisses ANYTHING that sounds like it could possibly be construed as restrictive to 2a rights, I very much doubt that the reasoned awareness component has been fulfilled.
We as a community are so spring-loaded to automatically oppose "antis" that we often go a bit far and not all of the methods are pretty. Did anyone bother to look at his website? Do you really think he is hurting our cause?
Among those responsibilities is determining the purpose for doing so and answering if I am ready to be accountable for any consequences of my actions. That means a reasoned awareness of what those consequences MIGHT be. The ideas of Shawn Dodson are valuable even if you do not agree that they are feasible or likely. CONSIDERING them prior to jumping in IMHO is a big part of what his point is. Also preparing for the unforseen.
If anyone truly has answered to himself what his purpose is, weighed the possible consequences and prepared for them, and in personal inventory of benefit vs. liability honestly chosen OC, I have no argument with him. If one blindly dismisses ANYTHING that sounds like it could possibly be construed as restrictive to 2a rights, I very much doubt that the reasoned awareness component has been fulfilled.
We as a community are so spring-loaded to automatically oppose "antis" that we often go a bit far and not all of the methods are pretty. Did anyone bother to look at his website? Do you really think he is hurting our cause?
rswartsell
Member
Answering whether it is worth it would require filling in the blanks about what purpose is being served as well as possible consequences. I am not saying that social activism as a purpose is invalid, but it changes the equation to how can I be an effective social activist.
chibiker
Member
NavyLT,
Sir, with all due respect, the Brady Bunch does not support your right to even own a gun let alone carry it. I do. They think ANYONE outside of LEO or the military that owns a gun is nuts. I do not. They have THEIR reasons for thinking people are nuts, I have MINE.
If I may, I am an avid motorcyclist. I DO NOT support any laws requiring the mandatory wearing of helmets. I support freedom of choice, an individuals right to make their own decisions and do what they think is best for them. Based on first hand knowledge of what can happen when somebody does not wear a helmet I think anyone that doesn't is a bit crazy. I have never been told by my fellow enthusiasts that I am saying the EXACT same thing as those that want to make laws stating we must. Much like the Brady bunch, the majority of public safety officials think riding a motorcycle in the first place is insane.
That being said, I will stand by you to the death to defend your right to carry your gun anywhere you want, anyway you want. Me thinking your nuts for certain ways you choose to excercise your right is based on a concern from someone who supports you, not opposes you.
rswartsell
Member
Especially during the period of transition, might a citizen in distress assume you are a cop from the gun on your hip and seek your aid? Say an armed robbery? Are you prepared to wade in? Will you have a choice?
bad4dr
Member
Hello all,
Just joined, and this is my first post. What a thread to start with, huh?
After reading all seven pages, I noticed one thing. While the slaying of the Lakewood police officers was tragic, there is a detail that was seemingly overlooked on this forum. The article said that the officers were shot as they worked on their laptop computers. To me, this indicates that the officers were in condition white. If even one of them was "on the ball," they MAY have noticed a suspicious individual in line who was looking around nervously...especially if one of the cops was a SWAT member (as was alluded to in a previous post). Now, I'm not a LEO, and I certainly wasn't there. But I've seen people on their laptops in public, and they're oblivious to their surroundings. Couple that with early morning, getting ready to start their shift. It's a horrible thing that happened, but maybe it could have been avoided if they had their game faces on. Again, purely speculation on my part, but I feel it's a valid point.
However, this doesn't discount that the BG was not in his right mind and was purposely targeting police. But maybe only one of them would have been hit while the perp was turned into a fine pink mist by the other three.
Grain of salt rule applies...
Just joined, and this is my first post. What a thread to start with, huh?
After reading all seven pages, I noticed one thing. While the slaying of the Lakewood police officers was tragic, there is a detail that was seemingly overlooked on this forum. The article said that the officers were shot as they worked on their laptop computers. To me, this indicates that the officers were in condition white. If even one of them was "on the ball," they MAY have noticed a suspicious individual in line who was looking around nervously...especially if one of the cops was a SWAT member (as was alluded to in a previous post). Now, I'm not a LEO, and I certainly wasn't there. But I've seen people on their laptops in public, and they're oblivious to their surroundings. Couple that with early morning, getting ready to start their shift. It's a horrible thing that happened, but maybe it could have been avoided if they had their game faces on. Again, purely speculation on my part, but I feel it's a valid point.
However, this doesn't discount that the BG was not in his right mind and was purposely targeting police. But maybe only one of them would have been hit while the perp was turned into a fine pink mist by the other three.
Grain of salt rule applies...
rswartsell
Member
If a citizen exercising OC had been in that coffee shop with those officers my opinion is that they would have quite likely become a target also. Knowing the latin term for the faulty reasoning of the perp would be cold comfort.
rswartsell
Member
Welcome bad4dr.
Your point is taken, and the question now is does an OC civilian need to maintain the same awareness?
Your point is taken, and the question now is does an OC civilian need to maintain the same awareness?
bad4dr
Member
They absolutely must. I agree that strapping on a gun (be it open or concealed) brings with it a set of responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to be aware of those around you. It can be as casual as just "people-watching," but one should have a general awareness of his surroundings if he's carrying.
Regarding your opinion that an OC civilian may also have been targeted in the coffee shop; that may be true. But I'm certain that individual would not have stood out like the cops did in their uniforms. In fact, had a citizen been armed in the coffee shop, the arriving forces may have found one dead bad guy and a shop full of witnesses rather than having to conduct manhunts and offer rewards.
Regarding your opinion that an OC civilian may also have been targeted in the coffee shop; that may be true. But I'm certain that individual would not have stood out like the cops did in their uniforms. In fact, had a citizen been armed in the coffee shop, the arriving forces may have found one dead bad guy and a shop full of witnesses rather than having to conduct manhunts and offer rewards.
Last edited:
Gungnir
Member
That's not a question.
The OC Civilian should be maintaining a higher degree of awareness than merely condition white.
Somewhere around Post #90 I mentioned the fact that Shawn Dodson was using a mechanism to carry a tool on a failure in mindset (during the scrmbling of the OODA loop debate). I think that it's obvious whether your concealed or open carrying you MUST maintain a level of awareness higher than condition white. After all if you get mugged, you lose much more than just your wallet, you also lose your handgun, which can then be used against someone else.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
Take them out of uniform, make 'em plainclothes police, with no weapons visible to betray their status. They're still police officers but the threat and vulnerabilities just changed.
What kind of "support" do you want? Political support? You have that from me, I just haven't expressed it. Training support? If it can happen it then it will happen to somebody, somewhere, eventually. Maybe, just maybe, some of those who OC or who are contemplating OC have learned something they've never thought about before and have a greater appreciation of the risks involved. The knowledge gained may empower them to be a little more prepared to mitigate their risk as a result.
jakemccoy
Member
Shawn Dodson said:
I can't take you seriously. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't support OC in any way, shape or form, but you say you do. You say you're merely a devil's advocate, but you're really not, as I explained in my last post. I'm just going by the 20 or so posts you've made in this thread on this subject.
-Jake
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
My very first post:
A point of view similar to mine, but published more than a dozen years after I first published my "Five Rules for CONCEALED Carry": http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/10-commandments-of-concealed-carry/:
Last edited:
jakemccoy
Member
Shawn,
I read your first post. It doesn't support OC whatsoever, sorry. The most anti-gun person on earth could easily say the same thing about open carry. All you're doing is issuing warnings. Your other twenty or so posts indicate that you're only trying to convince others that OC is bad and unsafe. It's unclear as to why you need to repeat your disdain for open carry over and over again, but it is becoming clearer the more you post...
-Jake
I read your first post. It doesn't support OC whatsoever, sorry. The most anti-gun person on earth could easily say the same thing about open carry. All you're doing is issuing warnings. Your other twenty or so posts indicate that you're only trying to convince others that OC is bad and unsafe. It's unclear as to why you need to repeat your disdain for open carry over and over again, but it is becoming clearer the more you post...
-Jake
NavyLCDR
member
I am still trying to figure out why Shawn has not refuted my conclusion that in the case of Lakewood, OC made do difference whatsoever, but in Kennesaw, OC deterred an armed robbery, so it seems to me the odds are that by open carrying in areas similar to Lakewood and Kennesaw that you will deter a crime 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time it just won't matter. These are the facts based on actual happenings presented here and not some contrived what-if's based on so far imagined occurrences of Joe Schmoe being attacked because he has a gun.
I can also remind the police of my sovereignty by, on every possible occasion, going up and shouting "Pig! Jack booted thug! Tool of the Man! Who have you oppressed today pig?" That'll show 'em.
Do you do that, along with your open carry?
The argument against it is just because something is a right doesn't mean that you can't and/or shouldn't exercise that right in a way that is non-confrontational. It is a philosophical difference between believing that you can beat people into agreeing with you as opposed to persuading them.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Huh?
Which would make it an altogether different event.
If you like, I can invent a series of hypothetical examples to support some position, and I can adjust them as needed as the argument proceeds so that they continue to support my position while ducking any objections, so I can pretty much be right no matter what opposing views are presented.
However, I don't think that's a particularly productive way to have a discussion, so I won't do that.
Yes, I'm aware that it's a bad idea to switch off your awareness; yes, I'm aware that crazy people are pretty random, and that therefore your car may have its windshield smashed by a nutjob at any moment . . . oh, wait, no, we weren't talking about that, we were talking about how being around crazy people is dangerous if you have a gun. Or something.
Anyway, open carry is bad because something bad can happen and you can't predict it and you can't guard against everything and you'll frighten people and lose your tactical advantage and the judge will throw you in jail forever. I think.
You know, Hitchcock made a movie in 1938 called The Lady Vanishes. It's an early Hitchcock film, and pretty overwhelmingly British. It's a kind of "ordinary people caught up in spy-vs-spy intrigue" movie. Well into the movie, there's a scene where the bad guys (outside the train) and the good guys (inside the train) are engaged in a shoot-out. One of the good guys secures a pistol, remarking in passing that he's a good shot, and proceeds to do his part in holding off the bad guys.
What's remarkable is that -- and remember, these are Brits -- no one is the least bit phased at the presence of a revolver or pistol, and the idea that someone might be a good shot, and thus useful, is simply accepted as belonging on the "assets" side of their balance sheet. The gun is simply one of those useful things you might happen to have along with you on your travels.
The climate in which you find yourself today where open carry is a potential source of hysteria, instead of evoking criticism of your fashion sense, is wholly contrived. The tool has been demonized to the point where it "just makes sense" not to carry one about.
Remember that, only a few years ago, CCW was going to lead to blood in the streets. Random shootings over parking spaces. The extinction of school children was at hand.
I would never suggest that in all contexts and all venues one should immediately strap on a pistol and strut about just daring anyone to do something about it.
I am, however, suggesting that, while we simultaneously repair our crippled culture, we should also apply gradual pressure to restore the banality of firearms, the unremarkableness of self defense and its tools.
The watchword for open carry is judicious. That, and persistence.
Which would make it an altogether different event.
If you like, I can invent a series of hypothetical examples to support some position, and I can adjust them as needed as the argument proceeds so that they continue to support my position while ducking any objections, so I can pretty much be right no matter what opposing views are presented.
However, I don't think that's a particularly productive way to have a discussion, so I won't do that.
Yes, I'm aware that it's a bad idea to switch off your awareness; yes, I'm aware that crazy people are pretty random, and that therefore your car may have its windshield smashed by a nutjob at any moment . . . oh, wait, no, we weren't talking about that, we were talking about how being around crazy people is dangerous if you have a gun. Or something.
Anyway, open carry is bad because something bad can happen and you can't predict it and you can't guard against everything and you'll frighten people and lose your tactical advantage and the judge will throw you in jail forever. I think.
You know, Hitchcock made a movie in 1938 called The Lady Vanishes. It's an early Hitchcock film, and pretty overwhelmingly British. It's a kind of "ordinary people caught up in spy-vs-spy intrigue" movie. Well into the movie, there's a scene where the bad guys (outside the train) and the good guys (inside the train) are engaged in a shoot-out. One of the good guys secures a pistol, remarking in passing that he's a good shot, and proceeds to do his part in holding off the bad guys.
What's remarkable is that -- and remember, these are Brits -- no one is the least bit phased at the presence of a revolver or pistol, and the idea that someone might be a good shot, and thus useful, is simply accepted as belonging on the "assets" side of their balance sheet. The gun is simply one of those useful things you might happen to have along with you on your travels.
The climate in which you find yourself today where open carry is a potential source of hysteria, instead of evoking criticism of your fashion sense, is wholly contrived. The tool has been demonized to the point where it "just makes sense" not to carry one about.
Remember that, only a few years ago, CCW was going to lead to blood in the streets. Random shootings over parking spaces. The extinction of school children was at hand.
I would never suggest that in all contexts and all venues one should immediately strap on a pistol and strut about just daring anyone to do something about it.
I am, however, suggesting that, while we simultaneously repair our crippled culture, we should also apply gradual pressure to restore the banality of firearms, the unremarkableness of self defense and its tools.
The watchword for open carry is judicious. That, and persistence.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
Aside from the fact that two cases don't represent anything other than two cases, percentages are irrelevant. If you wanna play the odds, the odds are you'll never need a gun to defend against a violent crime, so why carry a gun? We carry because of the POSSIBILITY that we may need it to defend against a violent crime, regardless of the odds.
During my LEO days, I drew my handgun and shotgun more times than I can count during felony stops, K9 pursuits, and when responding/reacting to violent crimes in progress.
As a private citizen in public - I've never drawn my gun or felt the need to (although I did witness a near fatal stabbing in the parking lot of my local movie theater while I was out with my family). I've been licensed to carry concealed continuously since 1984.
Home defense - I armed myself a handful of times when investigating suspicious/unusual noises and late night knocks at the door.
Percentages, even if they were to accurately reflect reality, which is unlikely, don't mean a thing. When it happens to you it's 100%. When it doesn't happen to you it's 0%.
BINGO!
Last edited:
Now there is a reason to not OC if I ever heard one.
Shawn sounds like an anti arguing against OC more than he sounds like he is voicing risks that should deter OCing. If millions of people OC, could something happen that would not otherwise? Sure. Is the risk enough to change the decision to OC? Really?
If you buy that, I submit you have to buy that having a gun at all is too risky.
I hope Shawn is not actually like how he comes off in this thread - he sounds a little unrealistic for an instructor.
knockonit
Member
oc
Wow, looks like it being turned into rocket science, its pretty simple, debating it is a non issue for me. carry or don't , ying yang, yes no.
Either you have it in you to open carry or you don't why all the fuss.
It seems some of you are trying to convince yourself of its merits, rather than someone else of its lack of merits. hmmm.
bummer for you.
happy friday
Wow, looks like it being turned into rocket science, its pretty simple, debating it is a non issue for me. carry or don't , ying yang, yes no.
Either you have it in you to open carry or you don't why all the fuss.
It seems some of you are trying to convince yourself of its merits, rather than someone else of its lack of merits. hmmm.
bummer for you.
happy friday
i say again, good post, knockonit.
as the OP, i have to say that i'm pretty proud that my question has delved so deep.
that's not to say that it has stayed on topic, but it has for the most part.
of course there's a couple or few folks who have made it a caucus, for whatever reason. and that's fine i guess. what really impresses me is that the folks who really wish to contribute to this post have done so and pretty much ignored the lambasting amongst the loudmouths who've tried to make this post into more than the original question.
keep it coming...
(he said as he embarked out into public with a pistol on his hip...)
as the OP, i have to say that i'm pretty proud that my question has delved so deep.
that's not to say that it has stayed on topic, but it has for the most part.
of course there's a couple or few folks who have made it a caucus, for whatever reason. and that's fine i guess. what really impresses me is that the folks who really wish to contribute to this post have done so and pretty much ignored the lambasting amongst the loudmouths who've tried to make this post into more than the original question.
keep it coming...
(he said as he embarked out into public with a pistol on his hip...)
- Status
