Considerations Regarding the Concealed and Open Carry of Firearms

Man oh man, lots of moving parts in this one. Open carry is to gun rights as rapture dogma is to protestant churches. It seems everyone is firmly on one side or the other, and it's bound to ruffle some feathers.

First off, I think it's important to distinguish between open carry as a practical measure vs. open carry as a political statement. Those are two very different debates, and when they get mixed up the fur starts flying.

As a political statement, I think we can all agree that it is important to preserve our right to bear arms (actually bear them, not just keep them in a safe and fondle them occasionally). Guns don't do us much good if we can't carry them, both from a perspective of tyranny prevention, and from one of self defense. It stands to reason that we need to desensitize the public to the idea of civilians carrying guns, as we've got about 100 years of firmly planted status quo to overcome. We also need to retrain law enforcement to see a citizen with a gun as just that, a citizen, whereas for nearly 100 years anyone with a gun was pretty much an automatic bad guy.

Thus, it stands to reason that, seeing as how we've got longstanding psychological barriers to overcome, we should adopt the "boil the frog" strategy. With that in mind, I think most of us can agree that it's not a great idea for a lone nutjob to be wandering around with an AR15. That's akin to turning the stove on high, causing the frog to jump out of the pot. Likewise, if one is going to open carry, it would behoove one to do it in such a way as to cause the least amount of alarm as possible, to be as non threatening as possible, and to choose a time and place that is best.

This is where we diverge from practical considerations. First of all, the weapon and carry rig should be chosen to convey a message rather than be practical. Steel and wood are markedly less threatening to non gun people, as is leather, as opposed to kydex and nylon. In Texas, there's a term called "BBQ gun," which denotes a gun that is reserved as a fashion accessory for Sunday BBQ's. One has a good suit of clothes, and a gun to go with them. That's the look we're going for here. A nice single action with color case hardening, shiny wood grips, and a nice leather carry rig would be ideal. A nice steel and wood 1911 in a dapper leather carry rig looks good if you can't pull off the western look. Let's face it, the general public sees open carriers as one of two things: threatening and eccentric. We're going for eccentric.

Age and gender is also a factor. Someone in their senior years is automatically less threatening than a strapping young twenty-something year old, as is a woman. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a 60 year old female commit a mass shooting? Personality is also a factor. Whenever you're open carrying, you're an ambassador of the Second Amendment. If you're not a people person, you probably shouldn't be doing it. You should also be well versed in the Constitution and the laws regarding your activities, and be ready to answer questions, and ideally have the ordinances printed out. This is especially important when dealing with law enforcement. If they're not already aware of the laws, then "I have the right" probably isn't going to convince them. They'll want to see the actual law in black and white.

Most importantly, be judicious in selecting the time and place. For example, your local small town hardware store is a better place than Home Depot. It's better to avoid chain stores altogether, as the manager is likely to call the police, whereas the owner of a sole proprietorship will likely ask you to leave at the very worst. You should also check corporate policies in advance. For example, Sam's Club in Oklahoma instructs its employees to ignore openly carried handguns.

..................................................

Now on to the practical side of it. There are certainly times and places when it might be practical to open carry. If you're a rancher on the southern border, by all means carry a rifle when you're out on your ATV or horseback. Or if you venture away from your truck to go check the fences on foot, take that long gun with you.

If you're backpacking in Montana or Colorado, I don't see any problem with having a big arse revolver on you. And I wouldn't go anywhere in Alaska without a hand cannon.

As mentioned, it's also difficult to conceal full sized handguns with Summer attire. However, this doesn't mean you have to go full on open carry, unless of course your state requires it by law. In my state, for example, only permit holders can open carry, so there's no requirement that anyone ever openly display a firearm. So just because you can't conceal it 100% doesn't mean you have to give up everything. Even a T shirt does a pretty good job of concealing a full sized pistol worn OWB. Sure, it's gonna print, it may show when you bend over, but the casual observer isn't going to notice it, so you preserve your element of surprise. For those who live in states where it's one or the other, you have my condolences.

The point is, just because you're technically open carrying, doesn't mean you have to rub people's noses in it.

Lastly, I would submit that we should all consider our outward appearance when carrying. It's important to look like a responsible citizen, and conduct yourself that way.

..............................

In conclusion, I don't think the public is ready for people carrying AR15s down main street. Let's get to the point where we can openly carry a Glock in all 50 states without raising alarm before we start doing that.

Some POs might dismiss a statute printout. A better approach, in my opinion is carrying the State Attorney General's office phone number.

We in the RKBA community need less guess work and more evidence.

Click to expand...

Sure, but this is very multi-faceted and hard to pin down. We need to identify a few things:

1) What is our goal? Is it to be able to openly carry any firearm anywhere at any time without any repercussions, legal or social? Some variation of this?
2) What is the path? There appears to be no way to "desensitize" the population at large to average citizens openly carrying arms without actually doing so. No way to "sneak up on it," except perhaps to start gradually introducing less threatening types of carried weapons into the least awkward or objectionable situations and then working up from there.
2a) Or should we jump hot and heavy into it, like tearing off a Band Aid, let society have its tremors and gripes, and be confident that in the end folks will accept the new normal?
3) How to measure the impacts? How do we find out whether we're having a bad effect? Or a bad permanent effect? The initial results probably would be unfavorable, but how much does that matter to the long game? At what point is the negative publicity so heavy that it sinks the whole boat and we lose out in the long term? Or how much negative backlash can we handle while still safely seeing the ship right itself again and come to an even keel?
4) What is the time frame? The open carry debate/debacle has been really going on for what? 5 years? Maybe 10 if you stretch it back and look for the most rarified instances? How long will it take for society to just be perfectly ok with a visible gun in most circumstances?
5) Is the goal and expected success the same everywhere? Can we legitimately expect to ever win this over in NYC? There's certainly places where it is in practice pretty much acceptable today? How much of the in-between ground are we looking to win over?

And 6) How can we obtain useful data on these things? Scientific analysis of the opinions of focus groups and such can be really important, but they're also quite inherently limited in scope. It's kind of hard to imagine a study that could tell us what the long term social impacts and acceptance of a plan of action will be across the whole country -- but that's just exactly what we need to know.


...

EDIT: And perhaps the most important point: 7) If we DO manage to learn something important about how to accomplish the end goal, how in the world do we manage to get a significant population of 30 million + gun owners all pulling the same way at the same rate?

Or does this become, like almost everything else in life, a game of trial and error and hindsight -- watching the effects produced by the swirls and eddies of millions of people in society doing whatever they feel comfortable doing over several decades?

Open carry will continue to be grudgingly accepted in the areas in which it's currently the most common. I strongly doubt the concept will ever gain traction in any other regions of this country in which it's not presently practiced. As I see it, acceptance of the practice of open carry is predominantly a regional issue, and I think if one looks around, we've probably lost more ground than gained over the past ten years or so.

Although I don't necessarily agree with "Creaky Ol Cop," I do note that the liberal mainstream media will always continue to portray the OC faction as a bunch of redneck twits (such as those pictured in his post). What worked for gay rights (the in-your-face, over-the-top extremism where the most flamboyant paraded their lifestyle in front of everyone) is NEVER gonna work for gun rights ... The liberal media adopted wholesale the gay rights platform and will always be virulently opposed to gun rights. We can trot forth only the worst, most laughable, least credible examples when it comes to OC, yet another actor or pro athlete comes out every week. Look what happens to actors, athletes or other celebrities who come out in favor of gun rights.

Barring some sort of apocalyptic event (refer to popular television shows or moves such as The Walking Dead, The Road, The Book of Eli, etc.), we're never gonna see most Americans walking around their cities and villages openly packing firearms ... It's just the wave of our country's present culture, and without a radical wake-up call (if 9/11 and the current wave of terrorist acts, mass shootings and criminal activity had no impact, nothing will), open carry will wither on the vine.

we're never gonna see most Americans walking around their cities and villages openly packing firearms ... It's just the wave of our country's present culture,

Click to expand...

And note that it's actually been fairly rare that the masses of citizens of any city anywhere toted openly carried firearms as part of everyday habit. Even the "wild wild west" images of gunslingers and cowboys walking around with sixguns and carbines during the settlement of our nation seems to be more myth than fact. A shotgun or rifle wouldn't have raised eyebrows, of course, because people lived off the land and did a lot of hunting and farm protection. But going armed the way we're considering wasn't something that the average person bothered to do, and most cowboys were probably too poor to own a 6-gun.

You could perhaps find a corollary in certain medieval and renaissance cities where some members of society did go about wearing swords, but the circumstances were pretty different from "modern" society and such was almost certainly a habit of gentry and others of status, rather than the common man.

Frank Ettin said:

"It stands to reason" is a rhetorical code for, "I have no evidence or facts to base my opinion on, but I hope/guess this is true."

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess, they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need less guess work and more evidence.

Really now? And what makes you think that someone manning telephones in the AG's office is going to intervene on your behalf with a police officer in the field and actually there?

Click to expand...

If referring to State law does not convince someone that it is legal and and lawful I would simply suggest calling the AGs office. If someone claims to be ignorant of the laws of the State, calling the AG's office would be a reasonable and prudent thing to do would it not?

I had a "skirmish" with a local PO several years ago here in Houston. They called their supervisor who gave them erroneous advice, so I asked them why don't you call the Harris County DA? Well, they did, and initially received the same erroneous advice from an Assistant DA. So while they were still on the line I told them politely they did not know what they were talking about, and quoted the statute verbatim which they obviously we're not reading. So after a couple of minutes it got straightened out.

My experiences with the State AG office on legal issues via telephone have been far more efficient and positive.

Frank Ettin said:

"It stands to reason" is a rhetorical code for, "I have no evidence or facts to base my opinion on, but I hope/guess this is true."

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess, they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need less guess work and more evidence.

Click to expand...

You have a knack for taking a tiny part of someone's post and running off in every direction with it. This is what I actually said:

It stands to reason that we need to desensitize the public to the idea of civilians carrying guns, as we've got about 100 years of firmly planted status quo to overcome.

Click to expand...

What part do you take issue with exactly? Do you disagree that the general public is sensitive to the idea of civilians carrying guns? Do you disagree that it's a good idea to first desensitize them before we march around openly carrying scary black guns?

I honestly don't think I'm going out on a limb here, and I sure as hell don't need to conduct a psychological study to know that walking around the city with an AR15 is bound to rile some people up.

All I'm suggesting is that we ease into it to give the public time to adjust to the fact that a person openly carrying does not mean a mass shooting is eminent. Does that not "stand to reason" in your book?

"What is our goal?"....

The goal in carrying a defensive sidearm is to to defend your life and the life of your family. Period. Aside from hunting, or to take care of varmints on the ranch, I have never carried a gun for any other reason than that. I have never carried a gun to "make a statement" or to "change public perception about gun owners" or to "educate" anyone. I carried for one purpose, and that was to act in defense of my life, the lives of my family, or the community I was sworn to protect.

Yes, I have used my gun to do that. Yes, I have used my gun to protect the community at large, and I have used it to protect stock against predators...but never to make a statement.

I have never carried a "BBQ" gun to be fancy or impress anyone. My gun, no matter what it is, or no matter how much I like it is not a fashion piece or accessory. It is a purpose designed tool to accomplish that goal in the most efficient manner possible.

Frank Ettin said:

My book doesn't include things folk think "stand to reason." My book only includes things with more robust support. Once upon a time it stood to reason that the earth was flat.

Click to expand...

It seems to me you just have a pet peeve about that particular phrase, as opposed to an actual problem with my contention that the public, at the present moment, is too sensitive about open carry to walk down main street with an AR15.

Your contention that I need to conduct a psychological study to prove this is, quite frankly, absurd. If you don't believe me, walk down main street with an AR15 and see what happens. It will scare a bunch of people crapless, the police will show up expecting a mass shooting to be eminent, you will end up on youtube and probably the nightly news as well, probably get arrested for disorderly conduct...yea, the verdict is in. The public absolutely needs to be desensitized before open carry can be successfully used as a political demonstration.

Frank Ettin said:

My "peeve" is an expectation that a contention unsupported by anything more robust than "it sounds reasonable" be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Your expectations are unrealistic. I don't even know if you took the time to actually read my entire post, because if you had, I don't see how we could possibly be arguing about this. Judging from your past attitudes on various topics, I would have assumed you held a similar viewpoint to my own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying open carry should be outlawed or anything like that. All I'm suggesting is that people use a little bit of discretion, and think critically, before they haul off and walk around Walmart with a Glock on their hip or an AR15 slung on their back. Can we at least agree that there are better ways to go about it, that are more politically effective, and don't result in the SWAT team being called in?

This must be a regional issue. I know I've seen on Youtube the videos of dweebs walking around filming themselves with obscenely "open carried" guns but was not aware this was an epidemic.

Around here folks that OC don't even get a glance, and I suspect for the most part that it is that way in the rest of the country.

It is really sad that the Pro 2A community can't even come together on this simple topic. We seem to be our own worst enemy in regards to this.

It's past time that we stop analyzing this subject to death an accept it as a RIGHT for those who choose to do so. I personally feel that the few who hurt "the cause" by doing so are minuscule compared to the regular folks carrying.

Frank Ettin said:

No.

A state AG is the senior law enforcement officer of a State and the State's lawyer. It's not the job of an AG to explain state laws to citizens, although most AGs provide various resources to the public for educational purposes. If someone needs advice on a personal legal matter he needs his own lawyer.

The folks who answer the telephones on the general AG numbers aren't lawyers. The AG's office of a large State will have a large staff of lawyers. The Texas AG's office has over 700 lawyers on staff handling diverse matters on behalf of the State, including the regulation of charities, enforcing unfair business practice laws, and representing the State in litigation. One is unlikely to get the attention of a lawyer in an AG's office if calling blind while standing on a street corner arguing with a cop.

Click to expand...

Yes, all of the above.

My experience is contrary to what you suggest. As it happens it was not over a gun issue, but I got straight answers quick.They seem to have no trouble reading off a statute and general info.

The point is, any public servant that claims to be able to operate in a legal fog have ready sources at hand, via phone, to get things straight with a simple phone call.

What's important is that once we've clarified our purpose we shouldn't be doing anything which is not reasonably calculated to achieve that purpose. And we need to be relying on evidence, not "it stands to reason", for deciding whether a certain strategy is well calculated to accomplish the purpose.

Click to expand...

What evidence are we likely to be able to get? It seems we have a fair number of anecdotes on both sides. But nothing like data about what the long-term effects of any policy would be to rely on, and it seems no way to get it.

Further, I would suggest that there is no national cohesive effort on this now and I'm not really very sure how there could be, short of the NRA posting a "rules for open carry" list and begging people to follow their requirements.

(I'm envisioning a state-by-state booklet or even city-by-city, that says, "In 2019 it is okay to open carry a handgun in Milwaukee, but not a rifle. Those of you in East Coast cities north of Virginia Beach need to keep it under wraps until at least 2021. Those of you on the West Coast may carry blued steel guns especially engraved guns but we recommend highly that your holster matches your shoes and belt to present the most professional appearance. A necktie appropriately knotted with an Windsor knot will go a long way toward improving public acceptance. Please remember not to wear white after Labor Day..." Etc,etc.)


I am strongly of the opinion that people are going to do what they want to do and feel comfortable doing and we're just going to have to watch history turn.

Trying to direct the course of history seems to have a pretty spotty track record.

Good Ol' Boy said:

This must be a regional issue. I know I've seen on Youtube the videos of dweebs walking around filming themselves with obscenely "open carried" guns but was not aware this was an epidemic.

Around here folks that OC don't even get a glance, and I suspect for the most part that it is that way in the rest of the country.

It is really sad that the Pro 2A community can't even come together on this simple topic. We seem to be our own worst enemy in regards to this.

It's past time that we stop analyzing this subject to death an accept it as a RIGHT for those who choose to do so. I personally feel that the few who hurt "the cause" by doing so are minuscule compared to the regular folks carrying.

Click to expand...

"This must be a regional issue. I know I've seen on Youtube the videos of dweebs walking around filming themselves with obscenely "open carried" guns but was not aware this was an epidemic" - It doesn't have to be an "epidemic" as you call it to be a giant pain in the ass, not only for LE, but for property and business owners who have to deal with these goobers coming into their businesses and disrupting those businesses. It merely has to be the squeaky wheel to get the attention from local agendized ratings seeking news outlets to become a "community problem" and thus get the negative attention of the politicos. Ask the open carry zealots in California how their open carry demonstrations of a few years ago worked out for them. As I recall, the legislature reacted and banned open carry. This is the most recent kneejerk reaction, not the initial banning of the open carry of loaded guns on the heels of the Black Panther Party's open carry of loaded handguns and long guns in neighborhoods and at the state capitol. They got the negative attention they weren't looking for.

"Around here folks that OC don't even get a glance, and I suspect for the most part that it is that way in the rest of the country" - Spend some time in an actual city, even here in the most gun friendliest of states, like Tucson, Phoenix, or worse, Scottsdale. The "look at me" open carriers are around, looking for their few minutes of internet fame. No, they are not in the majority but they are definitely noticed. If they weren't noticed or looking for attention, my partners in blue would never have to go "adult" for them at the behest of a business owner or other concerned citizen...and then have to listen to a 2A lecture from a goober when the issue was NOT 2A but trespassing. On the other hand, the discreet open carrier is rarely noticed.

From this thread I am seeing "wear a fancy gun in a fancy rig to make the statement, not an evil Glock". This is exactly the "look at me, I got a gun" attitude I was talking about. It's like the New Yorker who just moved here, discovering that he could carry and all of a sudden he made NO bones about the fact that he had a Glock. How did he do it? He wore a Glock jacket, Glock shirts, had a Glock license plate, GLOCK on the back window glass of his Caddy, and he open carried in a THIGH HOLSTER. Refer back to my assertion that the open carry zealot was often a complete, rank, utter, total amateur in self defense, guns, and general usage of firearms. This guy was their poster child.

Contrariwise, the guy who chooses to open carry discreetly, eschewing the fancy "fashion piece" or "look at me" gun and goes low key is rarely noticed by most people. That I submit is half because of the low key methodology practiced by the carrier, but also the general head up the butt attitude of the vast majority of the public.

"It's past time that we stop analyzing this subject to death an accept it as a RIGHT for those who choose to do so (I made it clear that I recognize it as a RIGHT, even in places where it isn't legal because of that whole pesky politicians ignoring the US CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS thing, so we're not debating that). I personally feel that the few who hurt "the cause" by doing so are minuscule compared to the regular folks carrying" - The ratio of regular folks to goobers isn't truly relevant once you agree that the goobers ARE hurting the overall RKBA cause and that it does affect the rest of the gun community.

Let's go a step further. When it comes right down to it...the best friend the armed citizen has is the local cop on the beat. Why? We are the ones with situational authority within the scope and limitations of our duties to either press an issue to the full legal extent we could, versus exercising discretion and trying to give someone a legal escape valve. Example. The "man with a gun" call comes over the MDT, and you respond.

You get to Location X and there is a "man with a gun". His attitude and demeanor is one of a regular guy, going about his regular guy business, buying a gallon of milk and a box of cereal. You make contact, inform him that the owner/manager of the business is uncomfortable with him being armed in their place of business and while you agree that it is his right to carry, it is also the right of the owner/manager to ask him to leave and if he doesn't...he is trespassing.

He says.."Yeah, well, they suck, but okay I will leave" and does so without making a fuss...Happy Meal. He is exercising his right to spend his money elsewhere and allowed ME the ability to exercise discretion and not be forced to charge him with trespassing by refusing to leave and getting on a 2A soapbox and telling me that I am a typical anti-gun cop blah blah blah. Again...Happy Meal.

He is voting with his dollar by going elsewhere, never to return to the place that sucks. and I get to go back to the owner/manager and tell them he left, committed no crime and that MAYBE, just MAYBE they should post a NO GUNS sign if they don't want guns in their store so legal gun carriers will know not to spend their money there. (Yes, I would word it THAT way so they got the message that they are LOSING MONEY by refusing to allow legal carriers in their stores and I would do it with a professional tone, manner, and with a smile on my face). You're welcome.

Then....there's the "That Guy" or "Those Guys" of the open carry world. The ones we're talking about who are doing a helluva lot more damage to the RKBA perception of those who are on the fence, or a "little anti" who might be brought over the fence to the right side. Yeah...those guys.

"Man with a gun" call. You show up, and some schlub decked out in his bargain bin, knockoff tacticoolery, with a hung and slung Maverick 88, or SKS junkwagon, cheap nylon thigh holster, and Smith & Wesson Sigma...oh, don't forget the $19 Wal Mart Winchester Bowie knife taped to his chest rig...is at McDonald's, has ignored their NO GUNS sign, and is screaming SECOND AMENDMENT to the rafters. No, he is not violating the law as it applies to the carrying of a gun per se, but he IS violating the law as it applies to trespassing by ignoring the sign, the management's lawful instructions for him to leave unless they were too scared by his demeanor to confront him and ask him to leave, thereby having me or someone dressed a lot like me, come to tell (not ask) him to leave. I am not there, at this point, to give a **** about him carrying a gun per se, I am there to give a **** about him trespassing (and generally being an asshat). At this point, he is in clear violation of ARS 13-502 which is Criminal Trespass In The Third Degree.

Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree
A.R.S. 13-502 – Criminal Trespassing in the Third Degree states:

A person commits criminal trespassing in the third degree when a person:

1. Enters or remains unlawfully on any real property after the owner or any other person with lawful control over the property has asked you to leave.

Now here is where it gets fun...and by "fun" I mean a genuine pain in the ass for me or the guy or gal that is dressed a lot like me...because this is where he's going to get in my/our face, scream about the Second Amendment, yell about "da gub'ment" or tell me my parents weren't married at the time of my conception and make ALL gun owners look like jackasses in the eyes of the rest of the patrons. Ugh...whatever...and no matter how many times, or how many ways I explain in my best "I am talking to a petulant two year old" voice, he is not getting the message that I don't care about him carrying, and that I recognize and support his right to do it...but I am only there to care about the impending Criminal Trespass charge that he is going to get if he doesn't leave, per the lawful instructions of management, and again delivered by me.

No, I don't want to arrest the goober and thus, in Arizona, make him a PROHIBITED POSSESSOR for the length of time he will be on PROBATION...all I want to do is get him to leave peacefully and not come back. Happy Meal. BUT...as with anything...it is HIS choice at this point how it is going to shake out. Leave and Happy Meal, or stand in front of the guy or gal in the raven suit, be found stupid, er I mean GUILTY, and get a fine, probation, and be a prohibited possessor for six months to a year. His choice, because I gave him the other option of leaving peacefully and NOT getting charged.

Is that guy in the minority? Yeah he is...but in my career...I had to deal with "that guy" more than a few times and it was a giant pain in the ass, and guess what...he wasn't always going to run into someone with my attitude and patience who would try to give him an out by exercising discretion, and who would just say "Screw you Mister That Guy, you're under arrest"...or worse, make the guy like me who WAS patient into one of the guys who wasn't.

So yeah, we, the adults in the gun community SHOULD as you say "come together" and not defend That Guy or claim they don't matter or don't hurt the cause.

Other than being lucky enough to have LEOSA, I am not a special dood. I, as a retired officer, have no special dispensations to carry on private property that disallows it, or would choose to disallow it because of the goobers. So, yes, I have a stake in this argument too. BUT guess what...if I am carrying concealed...no one will notice if I am carrying and it will never be an issue. Happy Meal.

Frank Ettin said:

It doesn't matter what you wrote in your post. As long as the best you've got is "it stands to reason" your opinion is just another empty opinion plucked out of thin air. And there's no reason or basis upon which to choose among them. Each is just someone's opinion based on nothing more than guesses and unvalidated assumptions. According to Bloomberg's minions it stands to reason that universal background checks will make our world safer.

So whenever this "open carry vs. concealed carry" discussion pops up we have all sort of contradictory, it stands to reason, opinions: it creates a political backlash; it desensitizes people to normal folks carrying guns; open carry scares the bad guys away; open carry invites gun grabs; open carry is impolite; etc. All sorts of opinions floating around and very little actual evidence to decide what's true.

There actually is some evidence. Back in 1987 when Florida went "shall issue" the antics of some open carry advocates helped encourage the State to ban open carry (which had been legal up to then). In California in the mid 1960s the Black Panthers legally openly carrying loaded guns in public encouraged the State to ban legal open carry. And the antics of the Katzenjammer Kids open carrying (see the top two photos in post 25) encouraged some businesses to implement gun antagonistic policies.

On the other hand, in some place ordinary open carry is accepted. But whether open carry effectively desensitizes folks to guns is still an open question. We know that in some cases the exercise of certain rights in obnoxious way has prompted regulation, e. g., noise abatement laws and laws prohibiting working on your car on your property in sight of a public road. On the other hand, some communities remain desensitized to cars up on blocks on peoples' front lawns.

But there's still too much we don't really know. Pretending that we know because "it stands to reason" doesn't do us any good.

What's important is that once we've clarified our purpose we shouldn't be doing anything which is not reasonably calculated to achieve that purpose. And we need to be relying on evidence, not "it stands to reason", for deciding whether a certain strategy is well calculated to accomplish the purpose.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you have against that particular phrase, but you seem to have a different definition than most folks. "Reason" is defined as the ability to make judgements based on logical thought, extrapolating from empirical and/or theoretical evidence (note that I said theoretical, not hypothetical here). "It stands to reason" means it is reasonable to believe, or simply that something is logical.

We have a TON of empirical data on open carry, more than enough to extrapolate some working theories. For example, we can say with a high degree of certainty that walking down mainstreet with an AR15 strapped on one's back is going to arouse some healthy suspicion, and probably about two dozen police calls.

So does it not "stand to reason" that it's probably not a good idea to march down mainstreet with an AR15? Is that not a logical conclusion, drawn from a healthy pool of empirical data?

Likewise, I know people who carry what the public deems to be less threatening guns, and in a less threatening manner, and they've openly carried said firearms on a daily basis for many years without anyone getting their panties in a wad or calling the police. Is it not logical to conclude that this is a better option than throwing the entire neighborhood into a panic by wandering around with a scary black gun?

Is it not also logical, assuming that one is going to open carry one way or another, to choose a time and place in which one has a high degree of certainty that their antics will be tolerated? For example, while shopping at a Sam's Club in Oklahoma, where they know the corporate policy is to tolerate it?

Like I said, if you had actually read my post, then we would not be having this debate right now. Go conduct a study if you want, but I have enough common sense to know that some things simply aren't going to work in our favor. It sounds like you have a business degree, so think of it in terms of marketing. On the one hand, we have a friendly gentleman, well dressed, carrying a nice handgun that the public has come to associate with tradition. On the other hand, we have a guy in cargo shorts and an AC/DC T shirt carrying a gun, or guns, that the public has come to associate with mass shootings. Which one of these marketing campaigns do you think is more likely to sell the general public on open carry, and by extension, carry in general?

Frank Ettin said:

To claim the support of logic, you must show the data upon which your conclusions are based and establish the validity of that data.

Click to expand...

We've all seen the youtube videos. We all know what happens when some neckbeard goes on walkabout with a scary black gun. People lose their minds, the police get called, and the body cam footage ends up all over the internet. And gun owners come out looking like jackasses to the general public.

This I know as firmly as I know that the grass is green. What I also know is that it's their constitutional right to do so, and that we cannot prevent them from doing what neckbeards do. But maybe we can convince them to use a little bit of discretion if we simply reason with them. What part of that is so danged complicated?

None of it's complicated. We only make it seem so. This thread is additional proof (not that it was needed) that the topic of open carry is as divisive to the gun community as Donald Trump is to the Republican Party.

Creaky_Old_Cop said:

When it comes right down to it...the best friend the armed citizen has is the local cop on the beat.

Click to expand...

Not to contribute to further thread drift, but I've worked in law enforcement most of my adult life and this statement made me laugh out loud. Sorry, but not true.

Now would be great time to hold hands and sing

Old Dog said:

None of it's complicated. We only make it seem so. This thread is additional proof (not that it was needed) that the topic of open carry is as divisive to the gun community as Donald Trump is to the Republican Party.

Not to contribute to further thread drift, but I've worked in law enforcement most of my adult life and this statement made me laugh out loud. Sorry, but not true.

Click to expand...

"Not to contribute to further thread drift, but I've worked in law enforcement most of my adult life and this statement made me laugh out loud. Sorry, but not true" - Can you clarify "worked in law enforcement"? Because if you read my post and my reasoning, and were a sworn officer, rather than MP (not bagging, but a world away from civ LE) corrections or detention, then you would understand exactly what I am talking about.

If you were a sworn officer and ever exercised discretion when you could have beat the snot out of someone with the statute book...then you were that person's best friend in that moment. But then again...I am in Arizona, not Starbucks land.