jcwit
member
At my age I care little about "others", and what they have done to me most likely already has been done.
Open Carry
- Thread starter ROAshooter
- Start date
- Status
At my age I care little about "others", and what they have done to me most likely already has been done.
Old Dog
Member
Well, some of us do care. And it's precisely because of attitudes such as yours that we don't do a very good job of coming together and educating our own.
At my age, I'm not an activist for myself and my own rights -- I want to look after the rights of my children and their children ...
Lord Teapot
Member
yawn, again you're completely missing the point. no one here is suggesting that open carry be illegal.
Old Dog
Member
Methinks some of OC crowd are a little sensitive these days.
jcwit
member
Because I have the license to carry however I wish effect's your children's right's?
I guess if you say so?
You have no idea of my position or my health, let me just say at this point every day is a Blessing. My shooting is now restricted to shooting in my garage with a pellet pistol or rifle. Even walking the 15/20 feet to change targets is a chore.
Thank God, WalMart has the electric scooters, without them I could no longer shop at all. And yes I carry, open, concealed, however.
Sorry if that offends you or your children.
I should add, I now carry a cane at all times, that also is carried in the "open".
Last edited:
Travis_Griffith
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 19
I carry open or concealed about equally and without apology. I don't OC for intimidation or any other reason.
Posted by CoalTrain49:
But all of those have been done. And there is pressure to undo the progress that we have made.
Part of responsible gun ownership, in my opinion, is to avoid behavior that can reawaken the sleeping giant of anti-gun sentiment that exists among many people in many parts of this country.
Nor, at least in my opinion, is there a good reason to make concealed carry illegal, or the possession of handguns, or the possession of certain rifles and shotguns. Or to make it a crime to let someone else handle your firearm.
But all of those have been done. And there is pressure to undo the progress that we have made.
Part of responsible gun ownership, in my opinion, is to avoid behavior that can reawaken the sleeping giant of anti-gun sentiment that exists among many people in many parts of this country.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Nor, at least in my opinion, is there a good reason to make concealed carry illegal"
Yet that was the exact solution chosen for hundreds (thousands?) of years upon first invention of concealable weapons in much of Europe and the world at large. Concealed carry was the way of the highwayman, and visible carry that of the nobleman (or extraordinarily privileged serf). If the risks posed by being a "target" outweighed the utility in notifying those adjacent of your violent potential, I doubt it would have been the standard operating practice from Britain to Japan for millennia.
At the risk of sounding like some sort of progressive, I would argue we have evolved beyond the need for such restrictions on concealed carry, simply because the primary reason for visible weapons in the ye olde days was to indicate authoritarian status of the bearer amidst a largely disarmed populace (though it's not like the various spades, picks, and hammers they used as tools weren't effective in a pinch, themselves). We enjoy a nicer standard of life these days, where personal choice and freedom are to be preserved whenever possible, and the means of defense is available to just about anyone. There is no need for a ruling class to assert its monopoly on force openly in a bid to coerce unarmed subjects by threat in a free society (not that you'd be able to tell in some parts of the US)
There is one aspect of this discussion/debate/fracas or whatever we want to call it that open carry opponents need to understand; almost always the criticism of OC is tinged with condemnation. More importantly, it is pretty much always one-way condemnation, since the utility and convenience of concealed carry in a sometimes gun-adverse society cannot be denied. This makes these 'tactical' discussions --if that's really what they are-- inherently confrontational. It's not enough that OC is not as effective as CC, that it also has to be intrinsically irresponsible is often a core argument of OC opponents, and we all know how law-abiding gun owners get when you call them irresponsible (let alone when you conflate them with the absolute worst individuals of some group with passing similarities)
The chief argument of the OC proponents on the other hand is essentially an affirmation of peace through threat of mutually-assured destruction. At the nation level it has certainly worked, since no one has had the stones to light their candle off in warfare since the second nation on Earth armed itself thusly. Even in a situation where the conflict is between a superpower and an absolute pissant of a nation, whose asymmetry would otherwise strongly favor a decisive beat-down with few consequences for the former (for better or worse, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), conflict is reserved due to potential consequences for all involved.
If we subscribe to the idea that most all people are rationale at the individual level the way nations generally are, and that most criminals are as well (that is certainly how the legal system governing our use of force sees it) but ruinously short-sighted, then the idea of a deterrent by way of ultimate/instant violent demise looks very promising. Yes, your means of defense could be stolen by a savvy attacker, but doing this greatly complicates the operation and endangers the criminal. Pulling your gun off your by force entails a lot of very close, careful motion since the attacker will be unlikely to trust you to disarm yourself, and neither party's adrenaline will help the matter. On the contrary, threatening with an edged, blunt, or ranged weapon at speaking distance is far less complicated for the aggressor.
As a corollary to the above mutually assured destruction, it is vitally important that all parties capable of the same clearly understand the other side's capacity for defense. This is why we were so helpful in notifying the Soviets of bomb development, deployment, and test activities. Miscalculation --channeling Kissinger-- is the true danger when there is a conflict with very high stakes. The goal above all is to not get into a shootout in the first place, so informing a would be attacker of your capacity to match him goes a long way towards preventing his pea-brain from making a very dangerous mistake that could end one or both of you. If keeping the gun hidden truly kept the baddie from escalating the situation, it would be safer to go unarmed. Now, if you are the type of person who escalates things or "just happens" to get into altercations frequently, I would agree that having a visible Trump Card is not productive. This is the 'polite, armed society' we always hear about.
And before you say it, Collateral was just a movie. I don't care if "Cirillo blah-blah-blah", concealed carry is slower than a pistol out and already pointed at you as depicted in the famous scene. The choreography was very good, but it was still a classic "super-spy vs. duo of mooks" depicting a god among men cutting down chaff. No different than Bruce Lee taking out a room full of baddies with very effective but also very staged martial arts.
TCB
Yet that was the exact solution chosen for hundreds (thousands?) of years upon first invention of concealable weapons in much of Europe and the world at large. Concealed carry was the way of the highwayman, and visible carry that of the nobleman (or extraordinarily privileged serf). If the risks posed by being a "target" outweighed the utility in notifying those adjacent of your violent potential, I doubt it would have been the standard operating practice from Britain to Japan for millennia.
At the risk of sounding like some sort of progressive, I would argue we have evolved beyond the need for such restrictions on concealed carry, simply because the primary reason for visible weapons in the ye olde days was to indicate authoritarian status of the bearer amidst a largely disarmed populace (though it's not like the various spades, picks, and hammers they used as tools weren't effective in a pinch, themselves). We enjoy a nicer standard of life these days, where personal choice and freedom are to be preserved whenever possible, and the means of defense is available to just about anyone. There is no need for a ruling class to assert its monopoly on force openly in a bid to coerce unarmed subjects by threat in a free society (not that you'd be able to tell in some parts of the US)
There is one aspect of this discussion/debate/fracas or whatever we want to call it that open carry opponents need to understand; almost always the criticism of OC is tinged with condemnation. More importantly, it is pretty much always one-way condemnation, since the utility and convenience of concealed carry in a sometimes gun-adverse society cannot be denied. This makes these 'tactical' discussions --if that's really what they are-- inherently confrontational. It's not enough that OC is not as effective as CC, that it also has to be intrinsically irresponsible is often a core argument of OC opponents, and we all know how law-abiding gun owners get when you call them irresponsible (let alone when you conflate them with the absolute worst individuals of some group with passing similarities)
The chief argument of the OC proponents on the other hand is essentially an affirmation of peace through threat of mutually-assured destruction. At the nation level it has certainly worked, since no one has had the stones to light their candle off in warfare since the second nation on Earth armed itself thusly. Even in a situation where the conflict is between a superpower and an absolute pissant of a nation, whose asymmetry would otherwise strongly favor a decisive beat-down with few consequences for the former (for better or worse, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), conflict is reserved due to potential consequences for all involved.
If we subscribe to the idea that most all people are rationale at the individual level the way nations generally are, and that most criminals are as well (that is certainly how the legal system governing our use of force sees it) but ruinously short-sighted, then the idea of a deterrent by way of ultimate/instant violent demise looks very promising. Yes, your means of defense could be stolen by a savvy attacker, but doing this greatly complicates the operation and endangers the criminal. Pulling your gun off your by force entails a lot of very close, careful motion since the attacker will be unlikely to trust you to disarm yourself, and neither party's adrenaline will help the matter. On the contrary, threatening with an edged, blunt, or ranged weapon at speaking distance is far less complicated for the aggressor.
As a corollary to the above mutually assured destruction, it is vitally important that all parties capable of the same clearly understand the other side's capacity for defense. This is why we were so helpful in notifying the Soviets of bomb development, deployment, and test activities. Miscalculation --channeling Kissinger-- is the true danger when there is a conflict with very high stakes. The goal above all is to not get into a shootout in the first place, so informing a would be attacker of your capacity to match him goes a long way towards preventing his pea-brain from making a very dangerous mistake that could end one or both of you. If keeping the gun hidden truly kept the baddie from escalating the situation, it would be safer to go unarmed. Now, if you are the type of person who escalates things or "just happens" to get into altercations frequently, I would agree that having a visible Trump Card is not productive. This is the 'polite, armed society' we always hear about.
And before you say it, Collateral was just a movie. I don't care if "Cirillo blah-blah-blah", concealed carry is slower than a pistol out and already pointed at you as depicted in the famous scene. The choreography was very good, but it was still a classic "super-spy vs. duo of mooks" depicting a god among men cutting down chaff. No different than Bruce Lee taking out a room full of baddies with very effective but also very staged martial arts.
TCB
Last edited:
ApacheCoTodd
member
Admittedly not reading 182 responses...
Having been "that guy" on many, many occasions I've noted only one aspect of public reaction - that of my daily commute to/from our shop being decidedly more polite when I have a 1911 high on my hip on a motorcycle.
No cutting off from behind.
No tailgating.
Kinda reminds me of my couple of surplus cop car ownerships.
As far as freaking out or commenting - not a bit these many years, including in my bank making deposits.
And yup, I respect "no guns" signs unreservedly as an expression of private property rights.
Todd.
Having been "that guy" on many, many occasions I've noted only one aspect of public reaction - that of my daily commute to/from our shop being decidedly more polite when I have a 1911 high on my hip on a motorcycle.
No cutting off from behind.
No tailgating.
Kinda reminds me of my couple of surplus cop car ownerships.
As far as freaking out or commenting - not a bit these many years, including in my bank making deposits.
And yup, I respect "no guns" signs unreservedly as an expression of private property rights.
Todd.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"And yup, I respect "no guns" signs unreservedly as an expression of private property rights"
I absolutely agree; like all things, there is no need for governmental involvement and the market will sort itself out through one or more of a handful of ways:
1) The carrier violating the owner's request will eventually give up and go elsewhere, having actual business to attend to
2) Type of person who loves being shown the door, and will always be an irritant for the entertainment in his boring life
3) Belligerent who will not retain his gun rights or store for very long at all
4) Store will stop enforcement to avoid mild/annoying confrontation
5) Store will allow carry after education and encouragement
6) Store will allow carry after suffering loss of business from cutting off a portion of the public's access
7) Store will go out of business for not sufficiently meeting their customer's needs (namely, access)
8) Store's owners will be financially ruined by lawsuits stemming from the assumed liability brought about by disarming their patrons (coming soon to everywhere, one hopes)
TCB
I absolutely agree; like all things, there is no need for governmental involvement and the market will sort itself out through one or more of a handful of ways:
1) The carrier violating the owner's request will eventually give up and go elsewhere, having actual business to attend to
2) Type of person who loves being shown the door, and will always be an irritant for the entertainment in his boring life
3) Belligerent who will not retain his gun rights or store for very long at all
4) Store will stop enforcement to avoid mild/annoying confrontation
5) Store will allow carry after education and encouragement
6) Store will allow carry after suffering loss of business from cutting off a portion of the public's access
7) Store will go out of business for not sufficiently meeting their customer's needs (namely, access)
8) Store's owners will be financially ruined by lawsuits stemming from the assumed liability brought about by disarming their patrons (coming soon to everywhere, one hopes)
TCB
CoalTrain49
Member
Quite true. But plenty here don't see any point in it, including you.
You did say
I see that you are in one of the 5 states where open carry is illegal. Now I'm starting to understand why you are a little blue on OC. You have no idea what it's about. You think it's about tactics.
Posted by barnbwt:
There is also the little matter of disabling the victim with gunshots. Whether that would occur for the purpose of stealing the weapon or for preventing the bearer from using it is unknowable.
I rather think it had a lot more with the much greater effectiveness of a longer blade.
I do not understand that at all. I cannot imagine anyone carrying a firearm while believing that the need to use it would lead to the defender's destruction.
That would seem self contradictory.
There is also the little matter of disabling the victim with gunshots. Whether that would occur for the purpose of stealing the weapon or for preventing the bearer from using it is unknowable.
Fast Frank
Member
Mutually Assured Destruction.
It means if you attack me, you will surely die because I will kill you.
And if I attack you, I will surely die because you will kill me.
The destruction is certain for both parties, so nobody attacks.
Not a complicated idea. The United States and Russia played that game for 50 years and we all survived because of it.
Posted by Fast Frank:
Yes, the US and the USSR "played that game" while facing each other with suborbital and airborne delivery systems.
But people on the streets and in parking lots do not often face each other, screen fiction not withstanding.
Why would someone carrying a gun count on mutually assured destruction?
I know perfectly well what it means.
Yes, the US and the USSR "played that game" while facing each other with suborbital and airborne delivery systems.
But people on the streets and in parking lots do not often face each other, screen fiction not withstanding.
Why would someone carrying a gun count on mutually assured destruction?
Deltaboy1984
Member
Open carry coming to Texas 1-1-2016. When it comes I will when I see fit. Plus it is a positive defense against accidental exposure while CCW.
:
:Liquidring
Member
The wife and I went to a family reunion last weekend and I, as where a few others, open carrying, I did have one "family member" ask me why I open carried. I had already heard "the talk" going around among a few, so I turned and told him " Well, I tried carrying a cop, but he weighed too much, made my back hurt, so I stopped that and only let him ride in the truck with me, but then i had to stop at every doughnut shop and the back seats where filling up with coffee cups, so I just carry this, it's cheaper". (No offense to Po Po intended, I actually give some around here REAL coffee from Brazil when I have it)
But then told him, after getting a real stupid look, that it's my god given right, that the cops can't protect us, they, most times, arrive in time to take notes and oversee the cleaning up of the mess, thru no fault of thier own, it's just the way it is, but I choose to do everything I can to preserve my life and that of the ones I love, be it, I MAY fail at any given time, but I will die trying, and that is MY choice.
But then told him, after getting a real stupid look, that it's my god given right, that the cops can't protect us, they, most times, arrive in time to take notes and oversee the cleaning up of the mess, thru no fault of thier own, it's just the way it is, but I choose to do everything I can to preserve my life and that of the ones I love, be it, I MAY fail at any given time, but I will die trying, and that is MY choice.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"The United States and Russia played that game for 50 years and we all survived because of it."
Who says we aren't still? Why don't we dump a bunch of peace keepers in Ukraine like we did in Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. back in the '90's when Russia was on its back (or rather, when Yeltsin was)? Because there's that little tinge of doubt that if we actually get serious with the Ruskies we'll all die. The same tinge that a mugger no doubt feels when comparing visibly armed/unarmed prey; <better hope you can get that guy's gun off line quick, because if you don't, he'll end you>. Higher stakes for all involved, less chance of buying in.
"Yes, the US and the USSR "played that game" while facing each other with suborbital and airborne delivery systems.
But people on the streets and in parking lots do not often face each other, screen fiction not withstanding."
Please go on and describe how they are different, apart from scale. No, civvies don't decide 'at high noon' to do their shootout, and instead it is often through sneak attack or escalated accidental confrontation; how would the way a war breaks out be any different? All wars stem from miscalculations (often from individual humans, no less), same as all defensive gun uses. In any other century, NATO and the USSR would have slaughtered each other; the number of flashpoint boundaries, military resources, and geo-power stakes were simply too high to resist conflagration. Instead we got, for the first time in history, these weirdo indirect proxy wars and skirmishes, with much lower stakes than threats to the mother land. The presence of infinite consequences created great incentive to deescalate the situation and achieve either peace or détente (or something in between). The result was essentially world peace in all but a few hotspots at any given time, instead of periodic world wars like the preceding century(centuries).
It may not be a direct correlation but it is a very similar, simple concept. If neither party can afford to lose, the odds are exceedingly high that neither will play the game. Those few who cannot function along these lines already have no fear of police or repercussions, and inevitably lose the game at some point; these are your rabid animals, and good luck anticipating how they 'choose' to do anything.
I think it all comes down to whether you subscribe to the notion that criminals are extremely short-sighted but otherwise intelligent (opportunistic) people, or rabid animals spoiling for any excuse at confrontation that will chomp at anything that draws their attention.
TCB
Who says we aren't still? Why don't we dump a bunch of peace keepers in Ukraine like we did in Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. back in the '90's when Russia was on its back (or rather, when Yeltsin was)? Because there's that little tinge of doubt that if we actually get serious with the Ruskies we'll all die. The same tinge that a mugger no doubt feels when comparing visibly armed/unarmed prey; <better hope you can get that guy's gun off line quick, because if you don't, he'll end you>. Higher stakes for all involved, less chance of buying in.
"Yes, the US and the USSR "played that game" while facing each other with suborbital and airborne delivery systems.
But people on the streets and in parking lots do not often face each other, screen fiction not withstanding."
Please go on and describe how they are different, apart from scale. No, civvies don't decide 'at high noon' to do their shootout, and instead it is often through sneak attack or escalated accidental confrontation; how would the way a war breaks out be any different? All wars stem from miscalculations (often from individual humans, no less), same as all defensive gun uses. In any other century, NATO and the USSR would have slaughtered each other; the number of flashpoint boundaries, military resources, and geo-power stakes were simply too high to resist conflagration. Instead we got, for the first time in history, these weirdo indirect proxy wars and skirmishes, with much lower stakes than threats to the mother land. The presence of infinite consequences created great incentive to deescalate the situation and achieve either peace or détente (or something in between). The result was essentially world peace in all but a few hotspots at any given time, instead of periodic world wars like the preceding century(centuries).
It may not be a direct correlation but it is a very similar, simple concept. If neither party can afford to lose, the odds are exceedingly high that neither will play the game. Those few who cannot function along these lines already have no fear of police or repercussions, and inevitably lose the game at some point; these are your rabid animals, and good luck anticipating how they 'choose' to do anything.
I think it all comes down to whether you subscribe to the notion that criminals are extremely short-sighted but otherwise intelligent (opportunistic) people, or rabid animals spoiling for any excuse at confrontation that will chomp at anything that draws their attention.
TCB
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
OK, I'm convinced by this MAD discussion. I was going to upgrade from 9mm to .45, but starting tomorrow I'll OC a milsurp W79 Mod 1, 1.1 kt warhead. It's going to be a bit heavier than my Colt - what thickness belt should I use to OC 200 lbs? Does Milt Sparks make a good holster for the W79 - I think that's the smallest warhead practical for OC ...
Seriously though, the correlation with MAD is too big a stretch (and is waay off topic from the OP's question). And several posts are conflating MAD with broader decision theory. I wouldn't mind seeing a separate thread on game theory, decision theory or anything related to multiplayer games that speak to about self-defence (I delivered a paper something related to this topic many years ago).
Seriously though, the correlation with MAD is too big a stretch (and is waay off topic from the OP's question). And several posts are conflating MAD with broader decision theory. I wouldn't mind seeing a separate thread on game theory, decision theory or anything related to multiplayer games that speak to about self-defence (I delivered a paper something related to this topic many years ago).
Old Dog
Member
Back @ jcwit in post #180 -- you seem to have missed the point of my earlier comment.
[grammar Nazi note: "affects" vice "effect's"]
No, because you say you don't care that the actions of others cause us to lose rights.
[grammar Nazi note: "affects" vice "effect's"]
jcwit
member
Old Dog, time for you & yours to fight for your rights.
I did for years, your turn.
I carry as I wish, others don't like it? I still don't care, simple as that, for those that don't like that I don't care, your problem, not mine.
I did for years, your turn.
I carry as I wish, others don't like it? I still don't care, simple as that, for those that don't like that I don't care, your problem, not mine.
Posted by barnbwt:
Nuclear delivery systems, sub-orbital and airborne, are detectable in time to start shooting at an attacking enemy, perhaps from undamaged launchers beneath the waves.
Criminals on the streets can sneak up from behind and shoot without detection, preventing their quarry from harming them.
Do you really believe that open carrier defenders expect to destroy and to be destroyed?
Do you really believe that violent criminal attackers who "cannot afford to lose" think that they will lose, should they commit a crime?
It is very simple indeed.
Nuclear delivery systems, sub-orbital and airborne, are detectable in time to start shooting at an attacking enemy, perhaps from undamaged launchers beneath the waves.
Criminals on the streets can sneak up from behind and shoot without detection, preventing their quarry from harming them.
Do you really believe that open carrier defenders expect to destroy and to be destroyed?
Do you really believe that violent criminal attackers who "cannot afford to lose" think that they will lose, should they commit a crime?
Too much snark and talking iin circles or past each other to leave this open.
- Status
