Open carry is over

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't really get upset if stores ban open carry.

It doesn't bother me one way or the other, but it makes a lot of the general public very nervous, and retailers know this. It's only getting worse with the media pounding the "mass shootings are up" nonsense into their living rooms every night.

Be smart gun owners.
 
You must live in ada county (ie Idafornia) as OC happens where I’m at in Idaho and no gets weirded out.
I live in SE Idaho, almost within throwing distance of WY and only time I have seen people open carry is when they are out hiking, walking the dog, or running into one of the small town stores nearby where I live. I myself only open carry when out walking the dogs early AM, hiking or camping and that is primarily for those four legged animals and those who are four legged and sometimes on two.

If I go into the big city; I have three (kinda big) within a few hour drive; Jackson WY being the closest but too darn busy most of the year; ID Falls, but I hate that place, and the other is Pocatello (also good for me cause I can have lunch with some of my friends). And hardly ever seen anyone open carrying. Can only think of one time in the past few months and that was at Fred Meyer.

As for Walmart, yesterday when visiting Poky I was in Walmart and asked someone I know what would they do if they saw me open carrying. First thing is, they would just simply ask to cover my weapon with my shirt (easy to do especially if your shirt just accidentally road up over the gun while reaching for something); if that was not logical, they would ask you to place your gun "safely" in your vehicle at which time if that was not possible, ask you to leave, or if you refuse ask you to leave.

If you don't leave, then they will most likely call the police to escort you out. However, they do not want to do that, they want to keep you as a customer.

Might be totally different in other states.
 
People that seek confrontation for the sake of confrontation come across as confrontational disrespectful individuals, and someone confrontational with a gun is someone people do not want around.

However in many other pushes for rights the confrontational loud people get what they want, and public policy changes in their favor. So we reward making people uncomfortable in many other things, but then don't let it accomplish anything with firearms.
Unfortunately this means the tactics most effective in causing legislative gains on other issues are not increasing firearm rights.
 
Being a psychologist, well versed in learning theory - the postulate that continued exposure will reduce the fear of firearms is an interesting one. The idea that sheer exposure will do this might find some support from desensitization and extinction therapies used for disorders such as phobia.

However, the OC extinction folks miss a crucial point. In the therapeutic use, the noxious stimulus is presented in a manner that is controlled and clearly will produce no harm to the client.

That is not the case with OC (and especially with Modern Sporting Arm (ahem) folks who wander around). There is no guarantee that this OC user is safe. Thus, there is no reason to extinguish the fear. Also, the drumbeat of media portrayals of rampages and other gun crime, through observation and vicarious learning will continue to make the gun a noxious stimulus.

Simple extinction models sound nice don't have sophisticated take on the principles involved.

All in all, OC has been a net negative in the social context of gun usage. Being a theoretical right is correct but pragmatic application can be deleterious. That one can open carry in rural areas doesn't mean that it will be seen as positive in more populated areas without a strong gun culture.
 
One of the reasons people get anxious/become nervous/freak out when there is a weapon seen in public is the fact that the non-shooting, unaware Joe/Jane Q. Public is the only time they ever hear about guns is when there is a shooter mowing down innocents. They don't hear about the CC person who stopped a shooter or the homeowner who stopped a home invader. The only time they hear about guns in the hands of citizens is in a negative situation. I have offered to take some of my gun-wary friends to the range and acquaint them with things that go bang, but they have mostly declined.
If they ever take me up on my offer I'd just pray that Tommy Tacticool isn't in the next port mentally playing Doom while he shoots his scary looking rifle.
 
I'd take folks to a controlled match environment as compared to the 'range'. The range can be scary. My daughter and I go out and we went to a new range and looked up at the ceiling full of holes. The owner told me it was like that a month after opening. At another new range, there were again holes in the ceiling. The SO was showing me the new target controlling gadgets and I mentioned the hole. He said: That's nothing. Look down the line.

There were bullet proof glass partitions between each lane. Two lanes down there was a star shaped impact as some genius fire an ND horizontally down the line.
 
Open carry is over ... Looks like the vast majority of general-public retailers are adopting no-OC in their stores/on their property. OC will still be legal in many places.
Not so fast.

Let's look at the silver lining ... The media has focused our attention on certain retailers that changed their open carry policy (while quietly allowing conceal carry). This could boost sales of retailers/businesses/restaurants that remain friendly to guns/open carry. Every year, everyone spends "X" amount of dollars and these dollars going to pro gun/OC businesses is a GOOD THING. ;):thumbup:

Pro OC/anti OC businesses - https://friendorfoe.us/

Anti gun businesses - https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/businesses-that-prohibit-guns-or-have-no-gun-policies/
 
Looks like the vast majority of general-public retailers are adopting no-OC in their stores/on their property. OC will still be legal in many places - you just won't be able to go anywhere or do anything while OC'ing!

The whole urban/suburban/retail OC phenomenon was an interesting little episode, but this result seems to have been inevitable.

I was all for the right, though I thought it a bad idea. Good for incidental and unintentional “flashing” from bending over or elemental factors exposure of the firearm causing one to commit a crime though. I still think that is a good idea.

I actually figured the push back would have been from the video game idiots that would go into a restaurant with AK’s and such, just because they could. We did have a good run going on pro gun rights and likely still would if anything were reported truthfully.

How about statistics citing “mass shootings” and locations that allow carry or where simply having one even with licensed/background checked carry would be illegal?
 
Last edited:
Being a psychologist, well versed in learning theory - the postulate that continued exposure will reduce the fear of firearms is an interesting one. The idea that sheer exposure will do this might find some support from desensitization and extinction therapies used for disorders such as phobia.

However, the OC extinction folks miss a crucial point. In the therapeutic use, the noxious stimulus is presented in a manner that is controlled and clearly will produce no harm to the client.

That is not the case with OC (and especially with Modern Sporting Arm (ahem) folks who wander around). There is no guarantee that this OC user is safe. Thus, there is no reason to extinguish the fear. Also, the drumbeat of media portrayals of rampages and other gun crime, through observation and vicarious learning will continue to make the gun a noxious stimulus.

Simple extinction models sound nice don't have sophisticated take on the principles involved.

All in all, OC has been a net negative in the social context of gun usage. Being a theoretical right is correct but pragmatic application can be deleterious. That one can open carry in rural areas doesn't mean that it will be seen as positive in more populated areas without a strong gun culture.


I can't related from a human psychology standpoint, but the concepts of Behaviorism and Skinner are popular in dog training also. Desensitization and counter-conditioning are used frequently. When a dog is stimulated in a way that causes fear or nervousness, desensitization can be used to repeatedly stimulate the dog that way, without harm until their fear response is diminished and then extinct. The requirement for desensitization to occur is not that the dog "feels" a guarantee of safety or even that they are guaranteed safety. They may very well feel nervous, fearful, and freaked-out. The requirement is that no harm come to them. The idea of desensitization is that the dog will learn that that stimulus is not associated or paired with harm, and their fear will diminish.

Accordingly, in applying the idea of desensitization to OC, people do not need a guarantee that open carriers are safe in order to diminish or extinguish their fears of them. They simply need repeated exposure to OC without harm coming to them. Reports of mass shootings almost certainly reinforce people's fear of guns and open carry. There is no question these events do social harm beyond the immediate victims. But stories of mass shootings do not invalidate the desensitizing effect of repeated exposure to harmless OC.

I am not arguing that OC is desensitizing. It almost certainly isn't when it's ass-hats live-streaming foolish stunts. But the concept of OC resulting in desensitization is not invalidated simply because there is no guarantee the witnesses will be safe.
 
People that seek confrontation for the sake of confrontation come across as confrontational disrespectful individuals...

Only to some.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/antifa-attacks-a-journalist-11562021361

... and someone confrontational with a gun is someone people do not want around.

And there we have it, if you are at their “peaceful protest” they will beat you up and law enforcement won’t even get involved in some places, not the places I would go, unarmed, though. Doesn’t matter who you are though, your Grandmother was always right, “don’t go looking for trouble, because you’ll always find it.”
 
Last edited:
What's more, stores could potentially assume liability for harm caused to visitors by other visitors that are armed if they do nothing to ensure their disarmament.

OR for failing to provide adequate security. Forcing storefronts to hire visible armed security would be an added cost. Why not have your customers do it for free? Since most stores cannot provide adequate protection, and everyone knows police are not required to provide personal protection, who better to do it than those who actually take that responsibility upon themselves?

Of course, this is exactly what the agenda is-to stamp out any vestiges of personal responsibility.
 
We drive to the city to go out to eat a few times a month, one big restaurant we go to, I see guys in there open carry, and I've never seen anyone even give them a second look.

It's just no big deal...

DM
 
OC may be over where you folks live but not around my parts.

From Ashland down through Richmond on down to Petersburg, and east to Tappahanock I see MANY folks OC and no one batts an eye.

I've even seen OC in WM since the incident and I was probably the only one that noticed.


So all of you gun enthusiasts that are uncomfortable with seeing OC you might want to avoid the Richmond Tri-Cities area.
 
Last edited:
Re reading my post I felt I should clarify, I am not uncomfortable with open carry I just know it puts everyone that does it in a tactical disadvantage to someone that doesn’t.

I just look like an old guy vs a primary target. That’s OK too though, if folks are willing to “take one for the team” it could give me a few more tenths.
 
I can’t recall seeing anybody OC’ing with an appropriate holster. Its always been an uncle mikes type nylon.

In VA I saw a woman carrying a SCCY clipped to her yoga pants in a 7/11.

If the people doing it were more responsible/forward thinking, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
 
Open carry should be reserved for people running, hunting, or tools who want to be the first target if someone actually does something.
 
I went to a wedding reception in Idaho a couple of weeks ago. The groom and all of his groomsmen were open carrying. It was fun to see!

Nobody batted an eye except, perhaps, approvingly.
 
Simple behaviorism is inadequate for people as I pointed out. Social cognitive learning theory will be more powerful especially because of the repeated exposure to guns as noxious. That is more prevalent than a few OC exposures. OC has true believers that refuse to acknowledge the downside.

Also saying you will carry anywhere and how you want, better be saying legally or you admitting to a potential crime in a public manner.
 
I routinely Open Carry. Based on what I have read about Wal-Mart and Koegers new policy I will continue to Open Carry when I am shopping there.

My wife and I had a discussion about this this past weekend when she was deciding whether to go to Wal-Mart or Dillons (Koeger) due to their new policy. Since in Kansas signage must to posted by the entrances to be legal I told her that until they post the signs I will continue to carry as weather conditions dictate. If a employee “respectfully asks” me not Open Carry I will equally respectfully decline to do so.

I am not going to be shamed into hiding my right to carry as is allowed by law. They don’t want guns in their store then post it by the entrances.

Calling the cops is a empty threat to me. I may print off a copy of the K.S.A. to carry on me so I can educate the store employee(s) should they choose to confront me.
 
Re reading my post I felt I should clarify, I am not uncomfortable with open carry I just know it puts everyone that does it in a tactical disadvantage to someone that doesn’t.

I just look like an old guy vs a primary target. That’s OK too though, if folks are willing to “take one for the team” it could give me a few more tenths.



Man I hope you're right.

What an embarrassment it would be for one of those "tactically disadvantaged" OC'ers to possibly save your hide some day.
 
Man I hope you're right.

What an embarrassment it would be for one of those "tactically disadvantaged" OC'ers to possibly save your hide some day.
Or even worse to watch one of them shot when they walk around obliviously. You're putting a lot of faith in people you don't know, and know nothing about.
 
I don't know if this is about people who can't see what is obvious or people who won't admit what is obvious. Either way, it's very disappointing and very discouraging. But that's neither here nor there. We're going round and round the same old circles and it only ends one way.

This way. Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top