An "Open Carry" poster to think about.
- Thread starter Mp7
- Start date
- Status
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Possibly there's something to that, at least in terms of how some people perceive it. Lugging around an AR-15 does tend to look rather extreme. Looking at it strictly from a tactical perspective, what do you need all that firepower for? What situation, as a civilian, do you imagine you are going to get into that will require that? Most civilians who have had to use a firearm to defend themselves have not had to do more than show the gun to cause the threat to flee, and those who have had to fire have almost never had to reload. The reality is that finding cases where a private citizen needed to reload in the midst of an attack is tough to do; in the vast, overwhelming number of incidents people have solved their problems with the ammunition that was in their gun to start. Civilians carrying weapons for personal defense are not going to face the same threat a police S.W.A.T. team would, and don't really need the same kind of firepower. Moreover, you're going to be a lot faster drawing your handgun out of a strong side holster than you would unslinging that rifle from your back if a threat suddenly appears in front of you.
From a strictly social perspective, even in those places where its historically been not uncommon to see people carrying weapons openly, that has almost always meant holstered pistols most of the time. It's never been normal for people to go about their daily business all the time with long guns slung on their backs. Engaging in this sort of behavior is NOT going to make non-gun owners see firearms as normal or everyday and acclimatize them to it, because it's never been normal in our society. It is, however, going to make most non-gun people see the guys doing this as paranoid nuts or mall ninjas, and regard them with the sort of (sometimes amused) contempt people look at such with.
From a strictly social perspective, even in those places where its historically been not uncommon to see people carrying weapons openly, that has almost always meant holstered pistols most of the time. It's never been normal for people to go about their daily business all the time with long guns slung on their backs. Engaging in this sort of behavior is NOT going to make non-gun owners see firearms as normal or everyday and acclimatize them to it, because it's never been normal in our society. It is, however, going to make most non-gun people see the guys doing this as paranoid nuts or mall ninjas, and regard them with the sort of (sometimes amused) contempt people look at such with.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Points to consider.....
A) is where you live/work a open carry or open display of rifles/shotguns/firearms? If so, then your personal opinion doesn't matter.
If you don't like it, leave the business or property. You don't need wag your finger or rail against people who might disagree with your political views. 
I don't like it when motorcycle riders rev the motors or make a lot of noise. Do I run out into the street or parking lot & lose my ___ over it? No.
B) Some of these 2A supporters or gun owners just want press or attention, if you ignore them, they will stop or leave. Just be civil, stay calm & avoid talking or standing near them.
C) If you really get steamed by it & don't like OC, then ask your local elected officials to stop it or pass laws/city ordinances. My state passed a gun law about 5 years ago saying no local government or municipality can make new firearm/weapon laws so look into your local laws first.
D) A private business can set SOPs or policy so you can ask mgmt or the corporate office to not allow open carry or guns.
A) is where you live/work a open carry or open display of rifles/shotguns/firearms? If so, then your personal opinion doesn't matter.
If you don't like it, leave the business or property. You don't need wag your finger or rail against people who might disagree with your political views. I don't like it when motorcycle riders rev the motors or make a lot of noise. Do I run out into the street or parking lot & lose my ___ over it? No.
B) Some of these 2A supporters or gun owners just want press or attention, if you ignore them, they will stop or leave. Just be civil, stay calm & avoid talking or standing near them.
C) If you really get steamed by it & don't like OC, then ask your local elected officials to stop it or pass laws/city ordinances. My state passed a gun law about 5 years ago saying no local government or municipality can make new firearm/weapon laws so look into your local laws first.
D) A private business can set SOPs or policy so you can ask mgmt or the corporate office to not allow open carry or guns.
Moved to Activism Discussion in the hopes a clear point can be revealed since no plan of action that members can use was provided.
Last edited:
E) We do not EDC because we do not trust people in general as if we're paranoid that any and everyone we come in contact with is out to get us like the image you posted is suggesting. We carry to be prepared for situation where people have made it clear to us that they can not be trusted.A) is where you live/work a open carry or open display of rifles/shotguns/firearms? If so, then your personal opinion doesn't matter.
I don't like it when motorcycle riders rev the motors or make a lot of noise. Do I run out into the street or parking lot & lose my ___ over it? No.
B) Some of these 2A supporters or gun owners just want press or attention, if you ignore them, they will stop or leave. Just be civil, stay calm & avoid talking or standing near them.
C) If you really get steamed by it & don't like OC, then ask your local elected officials to stop it or pass laws/city ordinances. My state passed a gun law about 5 years ago saying no local government or municipality can make new firearm/weapon laws so look into your local laws first.
D) A private business can set SOPs or policy so you can ask mgmt or the corporate office to not allow open carry or guns.
F) Yes, we want people who do not like firearms to "distinguish" between us and criminals; however, I do not need or want their approval. Most people who do not like firearms are never going to trust those that choose to carry no matter what size gun they are carrying because they believe that there's no point in owning a gun, only criminals carry guns, and L.E. will always come to the rescue. It's just that some antigun groups are using and exploiting the "scary" imagery of people carrying long guns to drum up support to ban all civilians from owning them, and to push for other restrictive gun laws. They will only trust us when we're completely disarmed...
RX-178
Member
Well, I've never open carried a long gun in my life, and have never seen a compelling reason to, here's my take on it:
The first flaw in that comment is the explicit categorizing of those who carry guns as doing it because they (we) 'don't trust people'.
Speaking for myself, I'm not suspicious or distrusting of people, so trying to characterize this as making me hypocritical doesn't work.
Second flaw is labeling that form of open carry as 'antisocial, deviant behavior'. That is at best, a subjective interpretation. In other words, they use fancy words to make it sound like something factual, when they're actually just stating their opinion, and expecting everyone else to agree with it. As well as carrying the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with that opinion is some kind of 'weirdo'.
The first flaw in that comment is the explicit categorizing of those who carry guns as doing it because they (we) 'don't trust people'.
Speaking for myself, I'm not suspicious or distrusting of people, so trying to characterize this as making me hypocritical doesn't work.
Second flaw is labeling that form of open carry as 'antisocial, deviant behavior'. That is at best, a subjective interpretation. In other words, they use fancy words to make it sound like something factual, when they're actually just stating their opinion, and expecting everyone else to agree with it. As well as carrying the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with that opinion is some kind of 'weirdo'.
The carrying of rifles in public places came about because of the lack of open carry provisions in state carry laws and OC discussions haven't traditionally included carrying rifles until very recently because of it. As such, carrying rifles in public isn't "carry" in and of itself, but a form of protest against the lack of OC provisions in state law.
An honest discussion of carrying rifles in public has to consider openly carrying rifles in unusual places as a form of activism, however much you agree or disagree with the approach.
An honest discussion of carrying rifles in public has to consider openly carrying rifles in unusual places as a form of activism, however much you agree or disagree with the approach.
Last edited:
I can imagine an Occupy Wall Street person saying the same about a police officer. Leaving out the anti social and deviant parts, the comment does apply to many police who are allowed to carry even when off duty, and do.
If someone is being deviant it will be obvious by a factual description of their actions. If you have to say so, you are trying to bolster a weak point.
I wish I knew how to post the photo of the Israeli teacher and her class on an outing, slung M16 included. Or the group of young Israeli ladies in in a shop OC.
If the photo in the poster bothers you, then the idea that those same people have even more firearms and more ammo in the houses next door, next to the playground, next to the school and hospital....EEEK!!! They might be everywhere!!! Need to have the Police check them out!
If someone is being deviant it will be obvious by a factual description of their actions. If you have to say so, you are trying to bolster a weak point.
I wish I knew how to post the photo of the Israeli teacher and her class on an outing, slung M16 included. Or the group of young Israeli ladies in in a shop OC.
If the photo in the poster bothers you, then the idea that those same people have even more firearms and more ammo in the houses next door, next to the playground, next to the school and hospital....EEEK!!! They might be everywhere!!! Need to have the Police check them out!
bigfatdave
Member
Marmel is the worst kind of scum
His little poster is idiotic collectivist nonsense
For the 3489635967th time, OPEN CARRY OF A HANDGUN IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS.
The only options for OC in Texas (which is 1A protected free speech, 1A protected free assembly, and 2A protected bearing arms) are long guns and antiques.
Stop buying into the media hype and gun-control garbage on this subject, folks.
His little poster is idiotic collectivist nonsense
For the 3489635967th time, OPEN CARRY OF A HANDGUN IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS.
The only options for OC in Texas (which is 1A protected free speech, 1A protected free assembly, and 2A protected bearing arms) are long guns and antiques.
Stop buying into the media hype and gun-control garbage on this subject, folks.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Chasing the social fiction of "consensus?" Well, imagining for a second that there's some use in chasing that chimera, how can there be consensus when society includes folks who think that carrying a firearm is "anti-social" and "deviant?"
Keeping, and bearing arms is part of the fabric of American life. It in some ways defines a piece of what and American is, or has the personal freedom and RIGHT to be.
Fortunately, far more Americans seem to innately understand this than do not, and the effect of voices like these appear to be dwindling to historically low levels of irrelevancy.
Nom de Forum
Member
In my opinion the concealed carry or open carry of a handgun in a public space is something that can be explained to and understood by the majority of people as a rational and reasonable decision to be prepared for a very unlikely event that because of the catastrophic consequences should the event occur it is prudent to be prepared.
In my opinion the open carry of a rifle or shotgun in a public space is something that can only be explained as a rational and reasonable decision when it is very likely you will be subjected to the threat of deadly force if you attempt to access water, food, and medical care because civil and military authorities are incapable of providing safe access during a natural or man-made disaster.
In my opinion when you see someone openly carrying a rifle or shotgun in a public space during other than the situation described in the preceding paragraph it is rational and reasonable to assume any of the following possibilities: the person may be preparing to commit a violent act, the person has a dangerous misperception of the threat level of his surroundings and may overreact with inappropriate deadly force, or the person is making a political statement by displaying a deadly weapon. Because the first two of these possibilities require rational and reasonable people to become alarmed, prepare for imminent need to flee or defend oneself from deadly assault, and results in a disturbance of the peace; it makes the third possibility a unlawful disturbance of the peace and unlawful disorderly conduct. It is also damn rude public behavior and detrimental to the political defense of Second Amendment rights.
In my opinion the open carry of a rifle or shotgun in a public space is something that can only be explained as a rational and reasonable decision when it is very likely you will be subjected to the threat of deadly force if you attempt to access water, food, and medical care because civil and military authorities are incapable of providing safe access during a natural or man-made disaster.
In my opinion when you see someone openly carrying a rifle or shotgun in a public space during other than the situation described in the preceding paragraph it is rational and reasonable to assume any of the following possibilities: the person may be preparing to commit a violent act, the person has a dangerous misperception of the threat level of his surroundings and may overreact with inappropriate deadly force, or the person is making a political statement by displaying a deadly weapon. Because the first two of these possibilities require rational and reasonable people to become alarmed, prepare for imminent need to flee or defend oneself from deadly assault, and results in a disturbance of the peace; it makes the third possibility a unlawful disturbance of the peace and unlawful disorderly conduct. It is also damn rude public behavior and detrimental to the political defense of Second Amendment rights.
Nom de Forum
Member
It is deviant behavior because it deviates from the behavior of the vast majority of people in our society. It is perceived as anti-social because the vast majority of people in our society do not believe their daily routine is conducted in a environment where danger requiring the use of rifles for defense is imminent and do believe that someone carrying a rifle is more likely to preparing to engage in criminal activity or believes they need to intimidate others to ensure their personal safety.
jr_watkins
Member
What if, in the photo above, the two men are uniformed police officers? Does that change the general opinion at all? If so, there should be room for quite a bit of discussion there. That is, why would it be more reasonable for police to be more armed than the law abiding citizen. Especially when the police are not engaged in an active crime situation warranting. The weapons slung, not deployed.
Cump
Member
I'm repeating others less clearly: but the problem with the poster and quote is that it conflates general open carry -- which does not imply distrust of everyone, antisociability or deviance -- with the open carry of rifles in consumer places, which would seem unnecessary and and thus would seem to reflect antisocial distrust or deviance (*if it were not a politicized choice or one influenced by restrictions*).
The general connection to carry is inappropriate since we carry because of an unlikely threat (rather than distrust of everyone), and neither does the evaluative argument apply to rifle carry since it is often a political statement, not really a representation of one's self-defense calculations.
An aside: In my home states, where open carry of handguns is legal, after recent gun control proposals, someone will occasionally open-carry an AR. Most have claimed the purpose was to make them seem more normal to the public. But they did not in fact have the motivation to protest the restriction of open handgun carry ...
The general connection to carry is inappropriate since we carry because of an unlikely threat (rather than distrust of everyone), and neither does the evaluative argument apply to rifle carry since it is often a political statement, not really a representation of one's self-defense calculations.
An aside: In my home states, where open carry of handguns is legal, after recent gun control proposals, someone will occasionally open-carry an AR. Most have claimed the purpose was to make them seem more normal to the public. But they did not in fact have the motivation to protest the restriction of open handgun carry ...
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
You wouldn't see that. I say this as a currently serving police officer. We don't go into restaurants to eat, or in Starbuck's to order coffee, or in citizens' homes to answer calls, with shotguns and rifles, slung or not. Unless there is a serious threat, the shotguns and patrol rifles stay secured in the car. So flip your question around, if we don't do it, why would it look normal for a citizen?
Carrying rifles in public places like this is not normal and that's part of the point of OC protesters doing it. Originally intended to make a political/social statement about OC not being legal for handguns in TX the protesters were doing something out of the ordinary to get OC for handguns promoted. It didn't work out the way they intended because the message was lost on the public and, apparently, on most of the people carrying out this demonstration.
It was a risky approach in the activism sense because it took advantage of the TX law that allowed carrying rifles in the open (due to the extensive rural/ranch/range land issues in TX) while risking a backlash that might have made it illegal to carry rifles in the open for anyone. It went from being an extreme idea to draw attention to OC for rifles not being a threat to public safety extending to OC for handguns to an odd one when the the OC for handguns message got lost.
When you lose your message, in your face political "speech" just becomes whatever your opponents and the folks muddying the message want to turn it into.
It was a risky approach in the activism sense because it took advantage of the TX law that allowed carrying rifles in the open (due to the extensive rural/ranch/range land issues in TX) while risking a backlash that might have made it illegal to carry rifles in the open for anyone. It went from being an extreme idea to draw attention to OC for rifles not being a threat to public safety extending to OC for handguns to an odd one when the the OC for handguns message got lost.
When you lose your message, in your face political "speech" just becomes whatever your opponents and the folks muddying the message want to turn it into.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
What is "normal"?.....
I think the bigger question is what is normal?
Is it normal to walk into a business or go around in public with a AK47 or M4 in a tactical sling?
No, not really.
But, but If citizens have a legal right to do it or they feel they need the gun(s) for protection/defense then so be it.
As I stated before, open carry of shotguns/rifles/ARs only becomes a issue if you let it.
I don't give 2 hoots what some anti-gun wag or lib says.
If you see a OCer, don't engage them. If they are tricked out in full Mall Ninja outfits & carry tactical kit guns, ignore them.
When these gun owners see no one wants to play their sad game, they'll peter out.
I've seen online clips of citizens going up & arguing or screaming at the 2Aers. That's what they want. So they can run home & post online rants/jeers.
I'd add that if open carry(or "full" open carry) was legal in my location, Id pack my Glock 21 .45acp sometimes or wear my Shield/J frame openly just for comfort/convenience not to "play cop" or protest 2A issues.
I think the bigger question is what is normal?
Is it normal to walk into a business or go around in public with a AK47 or M4 in a tactical sling?
No, not really.
But, but If citizens have a legal right to do it or they feel they need the gun(s) for protection/defense then so be it.
As I stated before, open carry of shotguns/rifles/ARs only becomes a issue if you let it.
I don't give 2 hoots what some anti-gun wag or lib says.
If you see a OCer, don't engage them. If they are tricked out in full Mall Ninja outfits & carry tactical kit guns, ignore them.
When these gun owners see no one wants to play their sad game, they'll peter out.
I've seen online clips of citizens going up & arguing or screaming at the 2Aers. That's what they want. So they can run home & post online rants/jeers.
I'd add that if open carry(or "full" open carry) was legal in my location, Id pack my Glock 21 .45acp sometimes or wear my Shield/J frame openly just for comfort/convenience not to "play cop" or protest 2A issues.
Welding Rod
Member
This poster would be a great classroom training aid for a discussion on critical thinking skills.... potentially a false premise stated as fact, leading to a potentially false conclusion which was predicated on opinion, and which was also stated as fact.
Johannes_Paulsen
Member
A handgun is, by its nature, a defensive weapon.
A rifle is an offensive one.
I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind. If I see someone carrying a pistol in a holster walking down the street, my first reaction is that they're simply prepared. If I see someone walking down the street carrying a rifle, my first instinct is to get out of there, because someone is expecting and/or seeking a fight.
{The above assumes that we're in a city. If it's the country, and it's hunting season, then the situation changes. But, even then, the carrier is still seeking a fight...just not with another person.}
A rifle is an offensive one.
I think that's an important distinction to keep in mind. If I see someone carrying a pistol in a holster walking down the street, my first reaction is that they're simply prepared. If I see someone walking down the street carrying a rifle, my first instinct is to get out of there, because someone is expecting and/or seeking a fight.
{The above assumes that we're in a city. If it's the country, and it's hunting season, then the situation changes. But, even then, the carrier is still seeking a fight...just not with another person.}
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That's a reasonable opinion, but not a fact-based distinction. I understand why you might feel that way, but it really is no more universally TRUE than the statement that small guns are for women and big guns are for men.
Some might say so, and have reasons why they feel that way, but it's all a matter of opinion-based generalization, with plenty of EASY examples to negate that opinion.
The majority of people didn't have handguns until suburbanization took place. The rifle over the door was the rural standard and that rifle was commonly used to protect livestock, feed the family, or protect the family. The rifle was the defensive firearm.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked