And conversely, its "just a perception" of those in favor of OC as well. Folks here are just pondering the relative merits. As the OP's original question went, is there a "reasonable" argument ... so the discussion goes. Everyone has an opinion. Some are different.
Even if someone was, saying that people should only carry CC is a heck of a lot different than an anti saying nobody should carry at all, or even own firearms.
you've got it spot on for meSo we have something that we seem to agree:
A) should be legal, regardless of prudence
B) isn't common enough to matter very much, statistically
C) if it was more common, wouldn't be as big a risk.
Is there much more that can be said? I guess I'm wondering what each of you hope to prove by arguing this topic.
I don't know what a tactical "requirement" might be, but there are such things as practices that are more wise or less wise in terms of safety and security, and the acts of state legislatures have nothing to do with that subject.The state legislators make the rules and the only responsible requirement, socially, legally or tactically (whatever that is), is you abide by those rules.
Personally, I do not think it wise to influence others negatively.To what others think I could care less!
Personally, I do not think it wise to influence others negatively.To what others think I could care less!
I don't know what a tactical "requirement" might be, but there are such things as practices that are more wise or less wise in terms of safety and security, and the acts of state legislatures have nothing to do with that subject.
And don't forget that the legislatures make laws under constitutions, and constitutions grant to property owners the right to make their rules. In some instances, persons abiding by legislative rules, but behaving offensively, have caused some property owners to bar patrons who carry concealed.
I don't choose to patronize them now, but I certainly would have preferred less exhibitionistic behavior on the part to those who brought about that result.
Posted by jcwitersonally, I do not think it wise to influence others negatively.
it is tactically foolish to reveal your capability to the enemyAgain, a "more wise" or "less wise" practice is someones opinion or perception. An example; I think it less wise to ride a Harley without a helmet and protective clothing. The state has no opinion about it (no statute) so I do as I wish. An opinion or perception has no real meaning except to you until it becomes law or a court's decision.
The fact that there is a state statute that says a property owner has a right to post no carry signs and prosecute people who do is in fact a requirement that you are subject to by state statute. Otherwise people would just ignore the signs and the police would never show up. If the statute exists it doesn't matter weather the patron is behaving offensively or not, it depends on the property owner and how they feel about weapons on their property.
Granted, some new laws regarding carry have shown up because some folks demonstrated. It happened here. And I know that public opinion and perception can change the law. I just don't like gun owners giving testimony to an idea that OC isn't the way to carry because it isn't "socially responsible" or "tactically responsible". I have a very strong feeling that people who do that are trying to appease a liberal group that would plow us all under if they could just find a way. Any statute to prohibit OC, or CC for that matter is in direct conflict with our RKBA.
colorado is turning dark blue...gun rights there are going to be a thing of the past in not too many election cycles. i'm from florida, we buy/sell guns legally here with a handshake, open carry almost passed last year but was turned into a 'concealed but if it pops out it's ok' bill, which passed.There was a map of OC states and ranking/friendliness in the Texas thread and it got me to thinking about the posters here and noticing that a few "non pro" OCers are from non friendly or soon to be converted OC states.
I'm from what I've always considered an OC friendly state, Colorado, I'm wondering where the rest of you are from since I believe it does affect how ones opinion is formed and may add insight to how this debate is viewed and ultimately concluded.
to think that you must not be reading the posts of people who are arguing for concealed over open carry. the argument is almost purely tactical, no one is 'not exposed' to the carrying of guns, all of us here are exposed to guns all the time or we would not be here on this forum.I'm not trying to turn this into a which is the best state argument, what I'm pointing out is my belief that having not been exposed to the act one is possibly not agreeable with it.
Much the same happens with non NFA, so called assault rifle prohibitions, game baiting, states that allow LE or former more rights than others, you get the drift and if you've been here reading this forum for long you surely have picked up on that vibe from time to time.
"Live and let live" doesn't mean you cannot have a differing opinionI won't reread the whole thread but at least consider this in your appraisal, if I were to say CC was detrimental to the cause, dangerous to the carrier and those around him, should require special training and equipment would you assume that I was just a live and let live kind of guy?
Fixed it for you.Carrying guns for personal protection is both obnoxious and not a very safe choice for those around you.
it is tactically foolish to reveal your capability to the enemy.