Quantcast

The Open Carry Argument

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Mainsail, Jun 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CAPTAIN MIKE

    CAPTAIN MIKE Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    749
    Location:
    Home of the Brave
    MainSail Makes Sense

    IMHO MainSail makes good sense. His piece is well thought out and very well crafted. Thanks MainSail for a thought-provoking piece that honestly looks at both sides of the Open Carry issue.

    As for me, I do both. I believe that we should be aware and respectful of other people's concerns but at the same time, the more Open Carry people see the less alarming it will be. I open carry on occasion and concealed carry on most othersl. If I know I'm going into an environment that will likely draw a negative reaction, I conceal. On the other hand, Open Carry has a certain freedom to it - and I have yet to have one negative opinion voiced to me while carrying openly.

    We are - whethe we accept it or not - Goodwill Ambassadors for the Second Amendment. We should carry, dress and conduct ourselves in a way that lowers the fear of those unfamiliar with firearms and increases the level of condience they have that they are actually much safer in our presence.

    Thanks again MainSail for a very well-written piece.
     
  2. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    Due to my work dress and such, if I open carry I am sure people would think that I am a detective. Then again I am in a rurual area, and it is moot since I work in a courthouse and no guns are allowed.

    A ideal thing would be IMO would be to OC something and CC something as well. For example OC a SAO autoloader and CC a Snubnosed .38 special.
     
  3. Eleven Mike

    Eleven Mike Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Location:
    Right behind you!!
    This debate was more fun when it was 9mm vs. .45. And it made more sense, too.

    Each mode of carry has its pros and cons. Get over it.
     
  4. ajmckeon

    ajmckeon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Amen

    Amen!! I loved reading the whole thing. We should start a country that the 2nd amendment states that every person able to carry a gun has to. Out in the open.
     
  5. D-Day

    D-Day Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    Northwest Ohio
    Open carry is legal here in Ohio, but I dare say I haven't had the guts to try it yet, despite having my CCW.
     
  6. PAOLO721

    PAOLO721 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    199
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    A Rebuttal

    Let me begin by saying that was well written. You make some good points. I do not OC as I prefer CC. I do however respect and support your right to OC. My remarks are in red.

    The Open Carry Argument

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My primary goal when I’m out and about (besides whatever I went out and about to do) is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas Would you still OC if you lived in one? and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize. Are you implying that a person who is carrying concealed and is for example confronted by a BG with a knife who asks for his wallet, prompting the concealed carrier to instead produce his pistol, to which the BG lunges forward, instead of retreating and is then shot dead by the concealed carrier has somehow contributed to the demise of the BG by virtue of his choosing to carry concealed? The only person responsible for the BG's death in that example was the BG. The concealed carrier was neither legally nor morally responsible.

    Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. An armed carjacker will not know that you are carrying OC or CC until you exit your vehicle. In that case I would much prefer to be the CC victim. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the potential pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause, and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.

    Deterrent Value:
    When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. The lions teeth and claws are hidden too, until it is time to use them. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, Understand this, whether you are armed or not is of no relevance to a BG who is intent upon taking from you whatever he wants, be it your wallet, your gun or your life. Men who open carry are robbed all the time, e.g. armored car couriers. Do not think that because you OC you are somehow immune. I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teaming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

    Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. Criminals do not always employ rational thought processes, which is one reason why many of them end up behind bars. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy. If as you say, he had "the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you." he would not be out there "playing the odds."

    First One To Be Shot:
    There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry. Were an armed robbery to take place and I had the misfortune of being there, regardless of if it was in a bank or a 7Eleven, I would prefer the anonymity of concealed carry over the hey look at me of open carry. Back in the 7-11, if he sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn't’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. That is a dangerous and potentially lethal assumption. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn't’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed behind him in the parking lot, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make any sense that they would be. You are ascribing far too much intelligence, rational thought and sound judgment to a person who after deciding to commit an armed robbery, has chosen a 7Eleven as the target.

    Surprise:
    Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while like in some Charles Bronson movie is not realistic; Replace the word "taunt" with attack and trust me somewhere in the world it is happening to someone, somewhere, as you read this. the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you may forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

    It Will Get Stolen:
    Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting as criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. Are you implying that no civilian or LEO has ever had their weapon taken away from them? It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only two reasons; to get something you have that they want, Like for instance, your gun. or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. There are no Robins in the hood trying to help the poor by stealing from the rich. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to your self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing.

    It Scares People:
    One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. That my friend is a ludicrous statement. The same person who is disturbed by someone who is open carrying, is going to look at the concealed carry person and see just another person, not an armed person. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. That is true, but for those people their perception is their reality. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. We give much more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

    I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
    This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. No it is not the only reason. IMO concealed carry is tactically superior and if you are intellectually honest about it you should admit that a good number of OC people do so for the express purpose of having people object to it. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry. The combination of the two makes the criminal’s job that much more risky, that much more dangerous, and that much more uncertain.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2008
  7. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,992
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    OC is a moot issue for me. I spend most of my day at work, firearms are not allowed on work premises.
     
  8. Happiness Is A Warm Gun

    Happiness Is A Warm Gun Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    So you illegally carry concealed? Most places that prohibit weapons; prohibit weapons both concealed and open. Does your workplace prohibit OC while specifically allowing CC?
     
  9. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,992
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    No, I don't carry at work at all.

    I think you may have missed my point; many of us work in places that do not allow firearms at all. So for the majority of the day for the majority of THR members, OC or CC is a moot issue. We simply can't carry.
     
  10. Water-Man

    Water-Man Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,508
    Location:
    South Florida
    3rdpig... I agree!
     
  11. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,150
    Location:
    Washington
    I am implying nothing, I said what I meant and it means what I said. I don’t want to ever have to shoot anyone. I don’t understand what you are inferring from such a simple statement, but it means what it means. I don’t want to shoot anyone. Right or wrong, justified fully or partially, I don’t want to shoot anyone. I will if I have to, without hesitation, shoot to stop anyone who threatens my life or the life of anyone who doesn’t have the means to resist. I consider life precious. I cannot undo death, I cannot recreate what the Creator has created. I’m not trying to assign blame, I’m saying what I believe most people would say if they were honest with themselves. Everything I’ve read about defensive shootings has the shooter wishing they could go back in time and somehow avoid the encounter. I’ve never read of anyone who was happy to have shot another, regardless of the justification.

    You’re making the same mistake many others do. It’s not an ‘all or nothing' issue and it’s not a ‘this vs that’ issue. It’s a personal preference. I am not against CC and do so myself at times. I prefer OC to CC for the reasons cited. Further, I made no such assertion that a CCier is any more responsible for the death or injury to a robber.

    You are making the false assumption that all carjackings happen in situations where the victim is already in the car as opposed to getting into or out of their car; say in a parking lot or their own driveway. You cannot apply an absolute to a variable situation. In a carjacking where someone is already in their car, there are many other options they have to work with, like locking their doors as a habit, driving away, or fighting. The carry of a hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. All other things being equal, OC has a slight advantage of faster draw.

    Again, as above you are applying absolute reasoning to a variable situation. No matter what either one of us argues or how eloquently we argue it, someone can (and always will) come along with some isolated incident that they will claim disproves whatever your point was. I’m not an armored car driver. I’m not a bank guard. I’m a regular guy going out my regular business. For regular guys going about their regular business, it simply doesn’t happen. This has been argued for years and nobody has yet come up with even one authoritative citation that it has. Using the word ‘immune’ implies an absolute, which I do and have freely admitted is not my line of thinking. I acknowledge that it certainly is possible that someone may target me to steal the firearm I’m carrying, but that I don’t consider it likely enough, in light of more immediate threats, to warrant changing.

    For things like crimes of passion, no. However, the mere fact that many criminals are criminaling for years before being caught would seem to belie that logic.

    He plays the odds the same as you do; his odds are just different odds. Every time you get into your car you’re ‘playing the odds’ that you will arrive intact at your destination. Your ‘odds’ are far worse than his too, and yet you do it without hesitation. The robber values his life every bit as much as you do. He’s going to weigh his odds with more certainty than you do because his is a dangerous occupation. He will, the same as you, attempt to mitigate any risk present to ensure the desirable outcome. If that means moving on to an easier victim, he will do so. Likewise, you may get into your car to drive a mile to the store on a sunny summer day to buy a dozen eggs so you can bake a cake. You may decide it’s not so important in the middle of a snowstorm.

    Yes it is, but you’ve completely missed the point. I’m talking about surprise as a defensive tactic, which seems to exist only in the realm of concealed handgun carry. I’m discussing time, or more specifically, the lack thereof. In the Bronson type scenarios, the street toughs surround the victim, taunt him or her, then move in for the kill; giving the victim plenty of time to react and draw a concealed firearm. It doesn’t happen that way very much anymore and that’s not the type of robbery I consider likely where I live. Despite the many positive effects, concealed carry has had one negative impact since it became common; the robber now has to consider that you might be armed. This means he’s going to get very close to you and will be on a hair trigger. If he suspects you’re going for a gun instead of a wallet, he’ll carve you up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey before you have the chance to draw. Even if you are complying. If I replace the word ‘taunt’ with the word ‘attack’, it’s too late for a concealed carry draw. If you’re being attacked, say with a knife, you can draw and shoot the attacker, but you’re still all cut up. Yay, you win (if you live). As I stated in the essay, I don’t want to ‘win’, I want to avoid the entire encounter.

    Emphasis added. Here again you’re trying to inappropriately apply an absolute. Your argument gets dishonest when you add “or LEO” to it. I’m not a LEO; that’s a entirely different risk set than for me going about my business (apples and oranges). Anything is possible, but none of us can prepare for or be prepared for everything. Of course it’s possible that someone could take my gun from me, I would never try to use such an absolute argument because it would be inane to do so. However, like every other tactic you might wish to employ, you prioritize for the most likely first, not the least likely.

    You missed the point again. Someone who has an emotionally based fear of firearms doesn’t differentiate between open carry and concealed carry. They’re disturbed by guns. They believe that somehow the gun determines the actions of the possessor, not the other way around. That misguided fear isn’t resolved by hiding your gun from them. Concealed firearms become unconcealed all the time. Which would cause more alarm in someone who is afraid of guns, me peaceably carrying my pistol openly, or you nervously re-concealing your inadvertently unconcealed pistol?

    You make this assertion, now back it up. Write an essay, write even a paragraph, how concealed carry is ‘tactically superior’ to open carry using reasoned and logical argument. It’s one thing to make a claim, and another thing entirely to be able to argue your claim is valid. That was my whole purpose for writing the essay. I can, like so many internet commandos, post something in a forum and then walk away, leaving the reader to wonder what my rational or thought process was the led me to make the statement in the first place. I wrote the essay to give my argument whey I prefer open carry, not to claim it is ‘superior’ for everyone in every situation, but why I do it and why I believe it is better for me.

    This falls on its face of its own volition. None of us can infer motive from someone else’s actions, more so for people we’ve never even met. It also strikes me as duplicitous to use the anti-gunner’s favorite approach in a pro-gunner’s forum. The Brady folks use this argument often and every bit as foolishly. They make the assertion that people who carry concealed will settle minor traffic disputes through gunplay. They try to paint gun owners as Neanderthals who will shoot first and ask questions later. Obama made the same mistake in saying that people cling to guns, inferring their motive for owning them was a response to something else. I am intellectually honest. I know why, and stated in a dreadfully verbose essay, why I carry openly. I will not sit in judgment of someone else’s motives or attempt to use pejorative statements to bolster my case.
     
  12. jrfoxx

    jrfoxx Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,167
    Location:
    Evanston,WY
    Virginia law may be different, but in many places, carrying in a place with a policy against it is in NO way illegal at all. If found out you may get fired, but there is nothing illegal about it at all.

    My last employer had a "no weapons" policy too. And I carried there a few times. There is nothing anyone could do about it except fire me and/or ask me to leave. Thats it. There was nothing illegal about it at all. YMMV in VA, or other places, as I said.
     
  13. siglite

    siglite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Charleston, WV
    You know... an incident happened to me this weekend that may have some bearing on this conversation/argument. In a round-about way at least.

    I was stopped at the local go-mart. Pulling in, I'd noticed a couple of thuggish looking fellows hanging at the corner of the building. I parked away from them, but due to the layout of the lot, and the volume and location of other cars, if I wanted to stop there, I had to walk past them, albeit widely, with a good bit of distance.

    As I walked towards the entrance, both come heading my way. They're mid thirties or so, medium build, strong-ish looking dudes. They're covered in cheap tats. Prison tats. As one approaches, he says "you got a light?" I think, "this is a common ruse, but maybe he's not planning to smash my skull in the moment I look to my pocket." But when I got really alarmed, is when his buddy moves to my right, flanking me. All of this is occuring at a distance of about ten feet, and happening very quickly. In seconds, even. I respond to the light query/ruse. "no."

    His buddy is still flanking, and I step back, and to my left, keeping them both in front of me at the exact same time the buddy is asking me for 40 cents. I'm about 85% convinced this was another ruse. An attempt to get me to put a hand in a pocket fishing for change, look down, whatever. Now moving backwards and at an oblique, I turn my strong side away (didn't reach for my pistol, didn't lift my shirt, just turned my strong side away as I moved at an oblique to avoid being flanked.) I responded to the buddy with a stern voice, "I don't have sh##."

    Thug #1 and his buddy exchange a glance. One says "ok," and they turn and return to their ambush point at the corner of the building.

    I went in, got what I needed, and informed the cashier that they were out there and what they were doing, and requested that she call the police. Which she did.

    On the way out, I circled through the pumps and around to my car, avoiding them both by 35 feet or more. I got in my car, and left without incident.

    But. Here's where this maybe becomes relevant. I didn't think about this until afterwards. But I doubt anything says "I have a gun" like turning the strong side away like I did. My arm may have even been poised to duck under my shirt at my hip. But regardless, I think that exchange of glances between them silently said "gun."

    So here's the question. If I'd gotten out of the car with the weapon exposed on my hip. Would they have approached me at all?
     
  14. dougwg

    dougwg Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Westland, MI
    There is only one way to find out, open carry.
     
  15. siglite

    siglite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,234
    Location:
    Charleston, WV
    I do sometimes. But not often. Maybe 15% of the time.
     
  16. Drgong

    Drgong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,259
    Location:
    Ashe Co, NC and Gastonia NC
    No, it is a no firearms at all, and as for legalities, I could be arrested for carrying at work, as my work is a courthouse. I can have a gun in the car in the parking lot however.
     
  17. Bobo

    Bobo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    Central, VA
    The main thing I have against open carry (for me) is...

    I want to be armed at all times. There are many home and business owners that would not be happy with my open carry - particularly homes.

    I would not want to cause them discomfort with my presence, want to be denied access to these places purely because they see a gun, or have to get into a "gun" dialog with them.

    Therefore, it's concealed for me!

    Bobo
     
  18. langenc

    langenc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Why call this an "ARGUMENT"???

    It is all about IGNORANCE.
     
  19. JesseL

    JesseL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,497
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    I feel the same way but I'm not committed to any particular mode of carry. I open carry as often as I can but if discretion demands concealment I can do that too. Switching between concealed and open carry is as simple as tucking my shirt in.
     
  20. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,150
    Location:
    Washington
    What is? Do you agree or disagree? It's hard to tell.
     
  21. wyosasquatch

    wyosasquatch Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    It is my opinion (for what that's worth) that many people are afraid of guns because of what they have seen of them in the media (news, tv, movies etc). This leads to many misconceptions about guns.

    It is legal to open carry where I am at. I choose not to open carry to avoid the hassle. I know I could take the time to educate people about the local laws as well as expose them to the safety of a responsible gun owner. The local police take a rather dim view of open carry.

    They get frustrated because someone is undertaking a perfectly legal activity (open carry) and the uneducated public has no idea that this individual is legal. The police get a call of a man with a gun in the local grocery store (which they simply cannot ignore) and they have to converge only to find that it is someone simply buying groceries.

    In a perfect world, this wouldn't be a problem. I choose not to carry openly to avoid these hassles. Call me what you want but this sort of response can carve large chunks of time out of your life on a regular basis. Personally, I don't have the time to go through this with a seven month old son.

    Furthermore, as I read the Strategies & Tactics forum, I see situational awareness (software) as being of utmost importance. Many people suggest (correctly I might say) that one of the best methods for dealing with a confrontation is to avoid it. This makes me want to avoid confrontation with LE (or worse). I find that it is easier to educate about firearms in a non-confrontational manner, time & place than the grocery store with LE breathing down my neck.

    I try to educate with conversations. These conversations can occur from informal discussions with friends to actual range time. The best thing I have found is to be courteous, helpful, non judgmental & non confrontational.
     
  22. Happiness Is A Warm Gun

    Happiness Is A Warm Gun Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Not true. Police only need to respond if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Even then police have no duty to protect individuals. The duty of police is to investigate crime, apprehend suspects, and build a sustainable case for the DA.

    The LEO simply needs to (or wants to) be better informed of the law:
    911 CALLER: There is a man with gun
    911 DISPATCHER: [Gets information on location]
    C: Get someone over here there is a gun w/ a gun at Bobs Grocery.
    D: Is the man pointing the gun at you?
    C: No it is in a holster on his belt
    D: Is the man acting in an irrational manner, yelling at anyone, fighting?
    C: No he is in the checkout line BUT HE HAS A GUN.
    D: Per [insert state] law open carry of a firearm is legal. I will transfer you to the non-emergency state police line for more information.

    If it is NOT AGAINST THE LAW the Police should not respond.

    What you suggest is a catch-22
    We have a right to OC but since most people don't OC the public is uninformed.
    Since the public is uninformed we shouldn't open carry.
    If we don't open carry the public will never be informed. :banghead:
     
  23. Happiness Is A Warm Gun

    Happiness Is A Warm Gun Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Not true. Police only need to respond if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Even then police have no duty to protect individuals. The duty of police is to investigate crime, apprehend suspects, and build a sustainable case for the DA.

    The LEO simply needs to (or wants to) be better informed of the law:
    911 CALLER: There is a man with gun
    911 DISPATCHER: [Gets information on location]
    C: Get someone over here there is a gun w/ a gun at Bobs Grocery.
    D: Is the man pointing the gun at you?
    C: No it is in a holster on his belt
    D: Is the man acting in an irrational manner, yelling at anyone, fighting?
    C: No he is in the checkout line BUT HE HAS A GUN.
    D: Per [insert state] law open carry of a firearm is legal. I will transfer you to the non-emergency state police line for more information.

    If it is NOT AGAINST THE LAW the Police should not respond.

    What you suggest is a catch-22
    We have a right to OC but since most people don't OC the public is uninformed.
    Since the public is uninformed we shouldn't open carry.
    If we don't open carry the public will never be informed. :banghead:

    Now if you personally don't want to OC (or carry at all) that is fine. To say the Police must respond to a non-crime is not true. Not only do they not need to respond they shouldn't respond.
     
  24. Zip7

    Zip7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    The South
    It's technically legal to OC in my state, but I don't mainly because I don't see the point in it.

    I don't, really. I don't carry concealed either. I have a gun close at hand at home and in my vehicle, and that's it. Does that mean I am at risk? Sure, I guess, but the places I spend most of my time are pretty safe though.

    There's a lot of fuff on THR about being prepared at all times, and so on and so forth, but risk is part of life. For me personally, it's a relative thing. In my younger years I lived a much riskier life than I do now. If my only worry is that someone may mug me in the grocery store parking lot, then I have no worries in my view.

    I've been lucky in that most of my life I've lived in places where MOST people, if they saw an actual parking lot mugger, would feel obligated to give the fellow a sound beating on principle. As would I - even at risk to my person.

    Risk is unavoidable. I've seen whole threads about 'what if' you witnessed a robbery, would you do anything, etc... The general consensus here seems to be that you aren't obligated to and if it doesn't involve you, stay out of it. But, at the same time I see this quoted in sig lines here too: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing..." Where I was raised, part of being a "good man" was being willing to take on risk to yourself if it was the right thing to do.

    In my younger days, I've gone unarmed into places where lots of you would fear to go armed. From across a bar parking lot, I saw a guy pull a gun on one of my good friends at point blank range, and before we could get there, the guy was disarmed with a swift kick to the nads, and then thoroughly beaten by a very pretty 28 year old bar waitress who weighed 110 pounds soaking wet. She not only took the gun from him, but then used it to beat him upside the head till he was out cold.

    So personally, in retrospect, I don't really feel that I need to be armed (openly or otherwise) to safely get in and out of Walgreens.
     
  25. Intune

    Intune Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,304
    Location:
    On Old Hickory Lake near Nashville TN
    That's your prerogative. I see it differently.
    #
    ReviewJournal.com - News - Man shot, killed in incident in ...
    Mar 2, 2008 ... CORRECTION -- 03/05/08 -- Sunday and Tuesday Review-Journal stories about a Walgreens parking lot shooting on Saturday morning incorrectly ...
    www.lvrj.com/news/16160472.html - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
    #
    Woman Killed In Walgreens Parking Lot - Central Florida News 13
    ... after a woman is gunned down in the parking lot of an Orlando Walgreens. ... The shooting happened at a Walgreens on Colonial Drive near Bumby Ave. ...

    Man Gunned Down In Walgreens Parking Lot - News Story - KTVU San ...
    ... man was shot and killed near the Walgreens drug store parking lot in Fremont and ... a
    www.ktvu.com/news/14406922/detail.html - 53k - Cached - Similar pages
    #
    Shooting in Walgreens parking lot Mission Folks~ this is the ...
    Shooting in Walgreens parking lot. topic posted Mon February 19 2007 201 AM by ellen ... Re Shooting in Walgreens parking lot. Tue February 20 2007 103 AM ...

    I don't know when I'll need my firearm so I carry it with me in case I do find a need for it..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice