Why is concealed carry so frowned upon?
- Thread starter 230RN
- Start date
- Status
Miami_JBT
Member
A ton of people carried guns back then. The majority of guns they carried were the ancestors of today's J-Frames. S&W Top-Breaks in .32 S&W and .38 S&W, plus all of its clones.
Less than 300,000 Colt SAA were made during their original run from 1873 to WWII. Millions of Top-Breaks were made in the same period.
People back then, like today, shoved 'em in their pockets and went about their day.
Hollywood made the image of the Frontier Cowboy carrying a Colt on their hip. Reality was just about everyone, across the nation carried a small five or six shot Top-Break in their pocket.
Miami_JBT
Member
Feelings don't override rights.
You can live in a free society with certain risks, or you can live in a closed society with the same risks and no way to defend yourself. All the gun control in the world doesn't stop criminals from being criminals. They're criminals because THEY BREAK THE LAW.
Last edited:
TomJ
Member
Having been born and raised in the Chicago area I saw a steady stream of lies regarding guns and gun owners. People who don't know better believe those lies as facts disputing them are censored. There's a constant drum beat of the term gun violence as opposed to holding violent people responsible for their actions, and that if we just got the guns off the street (code for doing away with the 2A) the violence would end. It is simply ignorance on the part of too many people.
Edited to add: Chicago has been largely successful squashing a gun ownership culture. It was illegal to own a handgun there for the longest time and to this day I'm not aware of a single gun shop or range within the city limits. One of my cousins moved to our area of Wisconsin over the weekend, and he told me it took Illinois a year to renew his FOID from the date he sent the renewal paperwork. It's a game the state plays to make gun ownership and concealed carry as difficult as possible. People often frown upon things they don't understand and which they're told are bad, and I know many people from the Chicago area who fall into that category.
Edited to add: Chicago has been largely successful squashing a gun ownership culture. It was illegal to own a handgun there for the longest time and to this day I'm not aware of a single gun shop or range within the city limits. One of my cousins moved to our area of Wisconsin over the weekend, and he told me it took Illinois a year to renew his FOID from the date he sent the renewal paperwork. It's a game the state plays to make gun ownership and concealed carry as difficult as possible. People often frown upon things they don't understand and which they're told are bad, and I know many people from the Chicago area who fall into that category.
Last edited:
Charlie98
Member
I checked that not 3 months ago... just prior to my last trip out there for 4JUL!!! That's fantastic news!!!
Old Dog
Member
So you are saying that some people -- of age and law-abiding -- should NOT be allowed "within a mile of a firearm" because they are "nightmare people" and "we've all seen them and we all know who they are?"
Okay, so how would you have the government regulate this? Just like our governments regulate what drivers are allowed on our public roadways? Or how we regulate which alcohol drinkers are allowed to purchase and consume alcohol? Oh, wait -- never mind.
Who determines that someone, even if they're over 21 and have led a perfectly law-abiding life thus far, is a "nightmare person" -- not safe or smart or responsible enough to own or carry a firearm?
How would one determine that one should not be allowed to possess or carry firearms because they potentially (in another human being's subjective view) will do something unsafe, irresponsible, stupid, illegal or downright dangerous to others?
Attempting to legislate or regulate common sense always, and with predictably poor results resulting in myriad unintended consequences, has never worked in a society that values freedom and liberty.
So, speaking of nonsense... the hypocrisy of some alleged "avid firearms owners" knows no bounds. Apparently, some want the freedom to be "avid gun owners" yet would still restrict the rights of others -- who are not otherwise prohibited persons -- to own or carry firearms.
Last edited:
My understanding is that the bias against concealed weapons goes waaaaaay back - even across the pond - to our British founders. Gentlemen (nobles) were expected to be armed and skilled in order to defend the "good" people. Conversely, criminals and assassins would carry concealed weapons in order to circumvent the righteous superiority of the "good guys"
bangswitch
Member
Who says it is? The only mouths I hear that from are the ones that have nothing worth saying (or listening to) anyway.
Jim Watson
Member
It goes back a long way, the gunfight at the OK Corral arose from Virgil Earp attempting to enforce the Tombstone ordnance banning carry of guns in town.
Resist Evil
Member
Weapons in public used to be perfectly acceptable. As certain people are wont to do, they started defining how weapons were to be borne by worthy persons. They felt dastards were the ones who carried weapons concealed because, well....well darn it, that's what scheming blackhearted dastards do (harrumph).
Those same kind of certain people, still convinced of their unerring, yet still completely undeserved, sense of entitlement over their inferiors have now got it into the hearts of the weak-minded that it is the new social norm that weapons of any kind they don't approve of should be not be in citizens' hands whatsoever. These same people are still aghast at the notion of concealed carry.
Those same kind of certain people, still convinced of their unerring, yet still completely undeserved, sense of entitlement over their inferiors have now got it into the hearts of the weak-minded that it is the new social norm that weapons of any kind they don't approve of should be not be in citizens' hands whatsoever. These same people are still aghast at the notion of concealed carry.
Howland937
Member
Because even in the mid-late 19th century, fear was the single biggest motivator when it came to passing laws. Not much has changed.
150+ years later, some lawmakers have finally figured out the weapons (or how they're carried) have never been the problem.
150+ years later, some lawmakers have finally figured out the weapons (or how they're carried) have never been the problem.
OP
OP
230RN
...but they're SUPPOSED to be "military-style."
Note the quote marks.
Would you be happier if I had said, "WHY IS CONCEALED CARRY SUCH "BAD JUJU"?
Frowned upon? Three factors at work when that happens. Ignorance, fear, and the desire to control other people and places.
Ignorance is the belief that criminals will obey laws, especially if we have more. Fear is the fear of the unknown, usually by those who are not familiar with the concept of responsible gun ownership. Their perceptions are formed and manipulated by Hollywood, gang violence and unscrupulous politicians, which promote the idea that guns are carried only for criminal activities. And we all are familiar with that control business which has made wars common for thousands of years.
I agree with others that concealed carry is common now as it was a hundred years ago. Grandpa had a small top-break 32 in his tackle box and glove box. The "frowned upon" aspect is a new twist related to control. It's tougher to control what can't be seen. In this respect, we have a paradox in public policy, because rifles got a pass on the NFA. They were not seen as a threat, because they were not concealable unless cut down. Now the cry is that they are weapons of war. They were in 1934 as well, and their popularity these days is largely due to the hand-wringing of the banners.
Ignorance is the belief that criminals will obey laws, especially if we have more. Fear is the fear of the unknown, usually by those who are not familiar with the concept of responsible gun ownership. Their perceptions are formed and manipulated by Hollywood, gang violence and unscrupulous politicians, which promote the idea that guns are carried only for criminal activities. And we all are familiar with that control business which has made wars common for thousands of years.
I agree with others that concealed carry is common now as it was a hundred years ago. Grandpa had a small top-break 32 in his tackle box and glove box. The "frowned upon" aspect is a new twist related to control. It's tougher to control what can't be seen. In this respect, we have a paradox in public policy, because rifles got a pass on the NFA. They were not seen as a threat, because they were not concealable unless cut down. Now the cry is that they are weapons of war. They were in 1934 as well, and their popularity these days is largely due to the hand-wringing of the banners.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Back in the day open carry was common.
People who concealed a weapon (gun, knife, cudgel, etc) were assumed to be seeking to surprise an unwary victim.
Open carry is not common today especially in urban settings so open carry raises suspicion unlike open carry did to older generations.
People who concealed a weapon (gun, knife, cudgel, etc) were assumed to be seeking to surprise an unwary victim.
Open carry is not common today especially in urban settings so open carry raises suspicion unlike open carry did to older generations.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,776
When I was a child, from a family that owned —a gun—- (a .25 kept in dad’s toolbox) so, not exactly raised around or exposed to them in any way, the few times I saw a handgun on a civilian’s hip I was very intimidated. “That guy has a GUN. Why does he have a gun?? Does he expect to need it? Who is he planning to shoot?” These were all the thoughts that suggested themselves to my 8-12 year old mind on the couple of occasions I saw anyone open carrying. I suspect the reactions of most adults today are not dissimilar.
I suspect it was just the opposite 100+ years ago. Back then a gun was a tool and it was logical to keep your tools secured in your belt.
OP
OP
230RN
...but they're SUPPOSED to be "military-style."
^
"That guy has a GUN. Why does he have a gun?? Does he expect to need it? Who is he planning to shoot?” makes me think of New York City, but you say you also occasionally saw open carry. Not in New York City unless the circus (with cowboys in western costume) was in town.
So it's my regular question to posters when they don't refer to their location with any referent.
Where is "here?"
Terry
"That guy has a GUN. Why does he have a gun?? Does he expect to need it? Who is he planning to shoot?” makes me think of New York City, but you say you also occasionally saw open carry. Not in New York City unless the circus (with cowboys in western costume) was in town.
So it's my regular question to posters when they don't refer to their location with any referent.
Where is "here?"
Terry
Last edited:
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,262
My home state (Indiana) was like that. In my county, everybody wanted to be buddies with the sheriff. The sheriff deputized his buddies and that entitled them to CC. There was always some drunk "deputy" (they weren't required to be uniformed) arbitrarily pulling over some car for whatever reason.
Then the state passed a law that all deputies had to have completed the LEO program at the police academy.
Miami_JBT
Member
A few California Counties and New York City prior to Bruen was a pay-to-play scheme. If you weren't rich, you weren't carrying.
The LA Sheriff's Office under Alex Villaneuva would only issue a carry permit to someone after the applicant donated a large sum of money to Sheriff Villaneuva's campaign coffers. Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith had the same deal going on as Sheriff Villaneuva. The applicant wouldn't get approved for a carry permit unless that donated some big bucks to Sheriff Smith's campaign.
New York City was just flat-out bribery. Some of the officers assigned to NYPD's 1 Police Plaza who handles applications for a NYC carry permit would take bribes to have people skipped to the head of the line, be fast-tracked, and approved.
Meanwhile, hardworking Americans had their rights violated daily and were left defenseless because they couldn't pay-to-play.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,776
In my case that was rural Kansas, a town of less than 1000 souls. I had classmates whose fathers hunted but my best friends’ families (whose farms I was at all the time etc) did not happen to be hunters and I never saw guns there. Which, in hindsight, strikes me as odd. I saw a few deer rifles and shotguns in kitchen gun racks but the only handguns I ever saw were on the belts of cops, and even that was intimidating because they were really only there for speeding enforcement and there was no crime to speak of.
Statistical point, at that time (1990s) most of the rural folks in my area tended to vote Democrat because there was a perception they were friendlier to farmers. At the time I suspect gun control would largely have been accepted by most/not perceived as that big of a deal. “After all even if I hunt I only need 5 rounds a year to get my deer.”
Riomouse911
Contributing Member
Those schemes have been going on long before those two were in office. In just the past 30- odd years I recall the same complaints levied against Sheriffs Block and Baca in LA county, and the worst was the self-anointed “Americas Sheriff” Mike Corona in Orange County.
In Ca, to get a ccw a resident of an incorporated city first goes to their police chief to request a ccw. If that is denied, which they most often were, the residents went to the sheriff of the county. (Cities would rather the county sheriffs deal with the CCW permit issues.)
Rural/unincorporated town residents went straight to the sheriff’s office for CCW requests.
Most of California’s 53 counties are rather rural, but the major urban areas up and down the state are hugely populated and rule the electorate. The sheriffs with large, coastal urban areas like LA, San Diego, the six urban bay area counties, add in Sacramento, etc. are most often aligned with left leaning populations in order to win elections. So their law abiding citizens wanting a CCW get hosed. Rural sheriffs are, usually, much more open to supporting 2A and the CCW rights of their populations.
The “may issue” system Ca enacted is perfectly set up to corrupt the process. Hopefully this all gets tossed and a “shall issue” system (and mentality amongst sheriffs statewide) prevails.
Stay safe.
Last edited:
OP
OP
230RN
...but they're SUPPOSED to be "military-style."
Off my own OP topic, but that's one of the sneaky tactics the "anti gunners" use. It's obvious long-term if you catch onto it:
Keep introducing minor "infringements" or "abridgements" where only a small part of the whole affected community is impacted.
The "Eternal vigilance" quote comes to mind.
I caught on to this when I wanted to get a Utah nonresident carry permit in case my Colorado permit got destroyed or lost or whatever.
I was just about to act on that when our lawmakers decided to no longer allow permits from Utah (and a bunch of other States) to be honored..
So did they get any objections to that? Probably a few, but a darned few since there were only a small number of permit holders affected. I complained, but the "voice in the wilderness" quote came to mind.
Nibble, nibble, nibble. Like Pirhanas. Sooner or later there's nothing left.
Terry, 230RN
Miami_JBT
Member
Oh, I'm aware. But they're more recent examples of what's been happening for a very long while.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
