Open carry is setting us back. IMO

[NavyLCDR]

48 states now have CCW laws on the books and I'm thrilled about it.

So am I, except for one thing. All but three of those states cause concealed carry to be a privilege that an elite group of people must pay the state for permission to engage in.

There is no way that open carry will ever be separated from the Wild West, its just not going to happen.

Not until Americans start doing it normal everyday life doing things that people do in normal everyday life.

Why continue to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?

I literally carry my gun in a holster on my belt. I have never pushed it into anyone's face. If I ever do push it in someone's face, there will be a very specific reason to do so.

And for the record..
Do I think we should have the right to open carry? Yes.
Do I think we should actually do it? No.

So, why have a right to do something, "socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish?" AND, if the government wants to legislate that right, then why do those "pro-gun" people that feel that way even care? Let them continue to pay the government for their licenses to carry concealed. Let them ask "the man's" permission to carry their guns. Who cares? According to those that feel that way would not society be a better place without all of us walking around, "continuing to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?"

I prefer to live in an America where a person is free to walk down the street with a gun on his/her belt without having to ask and pay for the government's permission to do so, and I am proud and thankful that I have the courage to stand up for that right and to exercise that right freely when/where legal to do so. George Washington and his men did not win independence from a British government tyranny by hiding their guns away and paying taxes and asking permission, and neither are we.

 

[Gungnir]

There is no way that open carry will ever be separated from the Wild West, its just not going to happen. Worse yet, to some degree it is part of our factual history - cant change that.

You are aware that the Wild West had per capita 20 times fewer robberies, 40 times fewer burglaries and thefts, and 5 times fewer homicides per year than current. That's also part of our factual history, can't change that either, but it is successfully ignored. Of course most everyone had a firearm, and carried it openly Mark Twain wound up getting a Colt 1851 Navy when he got to Nevada because he felt out of place not having a weapon. I think that given the crime rates in 1900 and 2010 going back to the Wild West may not be such a bad thing.

As far as the vast majority of the population is concerned 2 types of people (will) open carry:
1)Outlaw wannabe's, Wild West Sheriff wannabe's, and far Right gun nuts who think its cool.
2)Police with appropriate uniform.

How do you know? Is this personal experience or media hype. Or have you taken a study of people and heard their opinions? Chances are probably high it's media hype, which is not necessarily representative of the average US citizen (if there is such a beast).

Why continue to push guns (literally) into the face of people who simply do not want to see them, or know that they are around guns?
It will only serve to irritate the currently quiet anti's who have been keeping a "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" mentality about guns.
Waking them into activism would be downright stupid.

Firstly pushing a gun literally into someone's face would be a firearms offense that no gun owner would do voluntarily without great risk of losing their firearms ownership rights (privileges...?). If it's on your hip then unless it's a 4 year old child, or you're taller than any NBA star then it's not in anyone's face it might be possible to buy a face holster for storage of your firearm although I can't see it as being very practical.

Secondly it's irritated the quiet anti's so much that Starbucks just posted a 769% increase in quarterly profits, are these "quiet anti's" living under rocks with no friends, no tv, no internet? Or are gun rights supporters more ubiquitous than we think and spend a lot of their disposable income on boutique coffee? That can't be right though, because surely they'd be spending their disposable income on firearms and ammunition if you believe the ABCNNBC media channels.

If legal firearm ownership is ever "out of mind" of the voting public then the 2nd amendment will be dead. However at the moment we do have a reasonably strong knowledge that gun ownership is legal, and you can go to a store and buy a gun.

However many people do not think that it is legal to carry a firearm. As proven many times by neighbors phoning the cops when someone's out mowing their lawn with their gun. Without public support we'll lose the right to carry firearms, if no one knows you can carry them we lose support; it's hard to support something you don't know about, if some people who don't believe that we should own and carry firearms gets upset, how upset can they get, so upset they vote for a strong gun control candidate, well they'll do that anyway so there's nothing lost.

Believe it or not, like it or not, open carry is not even acceptable to all gun-loving folk.

That is a REAL problem, carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig. You are carrying a tool, there is no more risk to you or anyone in carrying it IWB, thigh rig or any other way. The issue is those gun owners have been convinced that it is not socially acceptable to have a visibly carried gun, because people have become accustomed to others not having visibly carried guns (except the police). The only way to socialize that firearms may be carried, is for people to see the firearm. You can't sidle up to someone and furtively say "hey... buddy... wanna see my concealed carry piece?" well you can, if you're George Michael and you're in an LA restroom, but that does not help to further the cause and leads to charges that may prevent legal firearm ownership.

When the 2nd was written only criminals concealed their weapons. Today it seems that we believe that only criminals show their weapons. That's an interesting dichotomy I think.

Among the people I have spoken with about it, several view it it as socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish.

Yes the tactically foolish is trotted out frequently on these kinds of discussion, because you lose the element of surprise, which is interesting since if someone attempts to commit a crime against you they have the drop on you anyway otherwise you wouldn't need the firearm in the first place. There's a phrase that's very pertinent, "Surprise is an offensive tactic". However in the main from my personal experience I can draw from a belt or thigh holster faster than my IWB since there's less to get tangled up in. So what I lose in 0.5s surprise I make up for in 0.5s deployment time for a zero loss of overall "tactical response time".

And for the record..
Do I think we should have the right to open carry? Yes.
Do I think we should actually do it? No.

Then what is the point of having the right to open carry? If you can do it, but don't think you should, then it's about as much use as a concealed carry badge.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I am for open Carry because the 2nd says this ..."SHALL NOT be infringed!"

 

[Dashunde]

I'm not going to argue it all much further - I made very valid points about stirring up the anti's that have been quiet so far and not involved in the issue one way or the other.
Keep pushing and the trends may head back the other way.

Right now, we're nearing a balance - no more Brady, no purchase permits (in MO), no waiting (in MO), CCW is almost everywhere with loads of reciprocity.
Things are MUCH better now than they were 10 years ago.

Let the status quo stick solidly with proof that it wasnt the wrong thing to do, meanwhile focusing on the last hold-outs and true Nazi states (IL CA).
Maintaining our current (huge) progress and turning those states is more important as a whole than chasing open carry - something that is likey to aggrivate many so that a few can do it.

Oh..
While admittedly my word selection was not perfect, your semantical chattering about my "in your face" is silly - you both know what I meant, even with the word "literally" thrown in.

 

[inSight-NEO]

Among the people I have spoken with about it, several view it it as socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish.

Socially impolite: Not much to say about this one except that I can think of at least 20 things off of the top of my head that, socially speaking, would be just as "impolite."

Aggressive: This depends entirely on ones point of view. However, the attitude/demeanor (good or bad) of the individual, choosing to carry a weapon in this manner, could have more of an impact on such a viewpoint than merely the sight of a weapon itself.

Silly: Only if one is harboring a cowboy fantasy or enjoys playing police officer. Outside of that, there is nothing silly about having quicker access to a weapon that could, one day, save a life.

Unnecessary: By whose standard? -see "tactically foolish"-

Brash: -see "aggressive"-

Tactically foolish: Well...this one really gets me. I guess all of those lawmen who OC everyday (PD, ATF, DEA, etc., etc.) are inadvertently being "tactically foolish." Shame on them.

Yes...the element of surprise is always paramount; a CCW is great for this. But, should it be needed, being able to acquire a gun as quickly as possible is also quite important. In addition, the mere sight of a weapon could indeed become a crime deterrent itself (depending on the mindset of a potential aggressor).

There will always be a place for a CCW. For OC, maybe not as much. Having said this, I do strongly believe that it should be a legal option...to be used when one sees fit. Of course, there is always the option of doing both.

I do not see the OC crowd as a bunch of cowboys wanting to become the next Wyatt Earp. Of course, this is because I understand the mentality behind those who are proponents of OC. Those who do not see this, well...they will arrive at the various conclusions you have (or those whom you "spoke" with).

As I have mentioned before. All of this anti-OC or "on the fence" business is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. This problem being that, in most areas, guns are still simply viewed as "evil." Yet, interestingly enough, when these same individuals see such an "evil" item strapped to the hip of an LEO, it all of a sudden becomes nothing more than a peace making/defensive accessory. But, strap this same weapon on a law abiding citizen....wow...it becomes the focus on all sorts of talk, ranging from mere conjecture to fear and unease.


Unfortunately, this public (and all too often, political) misconception needs to change before OC can truly become acceptable in the "mainstream".

 

[basicblur]

On a related note?

Ain't gonna repost the entire thing, but check out this post for info on PBS news show tonight with a segment on open carry.

 

[RatDrall]

This thread is unbelievable, and shows what gun owners are up against. Too many people are too concerned with what others are doing, refuse to mind their own business.

Maybe we should work on CA or IL first?

That's for the citizens of those states to decide, and they have.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Oh..
While admittedly my word selection was not perfect, your semantical chattering about my "in your face" is silly - you both know what I meant, even with the word "literally" thrown in.

We aren't mind readers. Especially over the internet. And if you did not mean literally, then why did you feel the need to emphasize it by adding the word in.

 

[Evenflo76]

We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!

 

[NavyLCDR]

We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!

Especially if they are supposedly pro-RKBA!

 

[wilkersk]

I've seen plenty of Bubbas out there who I wish could be a little less "in-your-face" about their 2A rights. But, I'll tell you what bothers me just as much is the folks out there who are so certain of their own importance, that they presume to know who should and shouldn't get to enjoy the freedoms granted to all of us under the consitution and its subsequent amendments.

I don't carry a gun, except to go back and forth from matches, practice, and occasionally to the gun shop. But, I'll support the right of all law abiding US citizens to do so. And, I will defend that right along with all others that we, as American citizens, enjoy.

You can't legislate common sense. But violators are subject to the law of natural selection.

 

[JohnKSa]

Not much to say about this one except that I can think of at least 20 things off of the top of my head that, socially speaking, would be just as "impolite."

I'm sure we could make a long list. I have no idea what that would prove. If it is "socially impolite" then the fact that there are many other things that are similarly "socially impolite" wouldn't make it any better or worse.

So, why have a right to do something, "socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash, and tactically foolish?"

There are many rights that can be exercised in an unwise, socially impolite, aggressive, silly, unnecessary, brash manner. The fact that some people do doesn't mean the right should be abolished although the more people who do the more the possibility there is of the right being restricted. It does mean that people should be smart about how they exercise their rights.

We should not have to hide our preferences from the overly sensitive and closed minded!

This is a false dichotomy. You are making it sound like there are only two options, open carry or "hiding our preferences". I can't legally open carry here, but that doesn't mean I have to "hide my preferences" about open carry. It simply means I have to make my preferences known in other ways besides open carry.

Second, this statement carries the automatic assumption that only the "overly sensitive and closed minded" could possibly ever have any issues with open carry. Sweeping assumptions like this are often "sneaked" into discussions like this because they are otherwise unsupportable.

However, the attitude/demeanor (good or bad) of the individual...

That is part of the key.

I guess all of those lawmen who OC everyday (PD, ATF, DEA, etc., etc.) are inadvertently being "tactically foolish." Shame on them.

Uniformed LE are known to be armed in this country. Therefore concealing would have no effect on whether people perceived them to be armed or not and would merely make it more difficult for them to rapidly access their weapons.

The bottom line is that LEOs that open carry aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know and therefore open carry has no negative effect on their tactical situation.

"Surprise is an offensive tactic".

This is a logical fallacy that plays on different meanings of the word "surprise". Surprise, in the strictest definition and in the exclusive context of military tactics (i.e. ambush) may be an offensive tactic, but that doesn't preclude the fact that having a useful capability in hidden reserve (a surprise) may be a huge advantage to a defender. Surprise (in the general sense of the word) can be either an offensive or defensive tactic.

However in the main from my personal experience I can draw from a belt or thigh holster faster than my IWB since there's less to get tangled up in. So what I lose in 0.5s surprise I make up for in 0.5s deployment time for a zero loss of overall "tactical response time".

This ignores the fact that concealment offers a defender the option of choosing a time to respond and also choosing whether or not to respond.

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

In short, if you carry openly you'd better be able to draw very rapidly because that may very well be the only option available to you other than surrendering and being disarmed.

carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig.

This is pure nonsense. Of course it's different. It's different if for no other reason than that one conceals and one doesn't.

If there's no difference between concealment and open carry then why does this thread even exist? How could anyone possibly have any disagreement or discussion about the differences between two things that aren't different?

As always, this is pro-open-carry John signing out by saying that as with any other firearm activity or any other right, open carry needs to be done prudently.

 

[Gungnir]

carrying a gun in a IWB holster behind your shirt or jacket is no different than carrying a gun in a belt or thigh rig. You are carrying a tool, there is no more risk to you or anyone in carrying it IWB, thigh rig or any other way.

This is pure nonsense. Of course it's different. It's different if for no other reason than that one conceals and one doesn't.

If there's no difference between concealment and open carry then why does this thread even exist? How could anyone possibly have any disagreement or discussion about the differences between two things that aren't different?

As always, this is pro-open-carry John signing out by saying that as with any other firearm activity or any other right, open carry needs to be done prudently.

If you would like to quote me, at least have the decency to put the complete quote in, which is corrected above.

What's the difference between a soda bottle carried openly vs. concealed?

A difference that has no difference is no different.

The only thing that is different in the situations discussed, is that both actors and observers may have perceptual differences in the scenario depending on preconceived notions of behaviors. However physically they are identical situations, you are carrying a firearm in a holster on your person whether that firearm is openly visible or stuck in your waistband.

OK so here's another question, if there is any random person in front of you standing in line at your local store what would be their reaction if :-

• They saw you were open carrying?
• Concealed carrying and you inadvertently uncover for just a moment and they see your handgun?

Would their reaction be any different?

Not everyone who wants to carry a firearm wants or can afford to get a concealed firearm permit. Should we just say "tough titty said the kitty" to these people, they should submit to fingerprinting, mandatory training at their cost, and so on then paying a fee for the privilege? Assuming of course that their state issues concealed licenses. What about their right to keep and bear arms? Or does that only apply if you can afford it, and are prepared to grovel to the issuing body.

Now sure if they want to carry all the time, then it would make sense to get the permit (except in AK, AZ or VT where no permit is needed), but if for instance it's for a confidence booster if they go to the local 7-11 late at night which might happen once a month, then when it's legal in that state to open carry what's the problem?

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere. However if the scenario is as you described and the hostage taker been more intelligent then he would have checked for weaponry, forcing the concealed carrier to act preemptively at a sub-optimal time, or be disarmed. These are alternatives that have equal weight as your conclusion, the situation played out as it did, and we are purely speculating as to what might have happened had the situation been different.

 

[JohnKSa]

What's the difference between a soda bottle carried openly vs. concealed?

One is concealed and the other isn't.

A difference that has no difference is no different.

This is what is called circular reasoning. Because you declare there is no difference you find it easy to conclude that there is no difference.

Stating a thing doesn't make it so. The difference between concealed guns and openly carried guns is that you can see openly carried guns but you can't see concealed guns. One can argue how BIG a difference that is, but it's pure foolishness to claim that there is no difference.

For what it's worth, you're not going to gain a lot of credibility by coming in 8 pages into a discussion of a controversial topic claiming that there is no difference in the opposing premises of the discussion. It's clear that you feel there is no difference, but you can rest assured that very few people share that opinion and fewer still would undertake the fruitless endeaver of attempting to support such a ridiculous assertion with logic.

Not everyone who wants to carry a firearm wants or can afford to get a concealed firearm permit.

First of all, in case you missed the closing line of my last post, let me reiterate that I'm not against open carry nor am I arguing against open carry. At this point I'm simply pointing out that a lot of the "reasoning" on this thread is logically bankrupt.

Second what people can afford has got nothing to do with any of my arguments nor with the general acceptability, tactical wisdom, etc. of open carry. It IS an important practical argument for why open carry should be legal, but I'm not arguing that open carry should be illegal or even restricted. I'm only saying the right should be exercised prudently. As any right should.

This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere.

No, my friend, THAT is speculation, and what's more it's speculation on the basis of virtually no information. What I related is not speculation it is what actually happened. The attacker was suicidal, self-preservation was not a concern and he took these people hostage at a gun range where there was obviously a serious risk of having to deal with armed persons.

However if the scenario is as you described and the hostage taker been more intelligent then he would have checked for weaponry, forcing the concealed carrier to act preemptively at a sub-optimal time, or be disarmed.

Ok, assuming we play along, the difference between having to search a number of people and simply looking at the group to see the openly carried gun is still significant. Having to take the time to undergo a search, however simple or cursory would still offer the armed defender more options for choosing a time to respond than an openly carried gun would have.

Basically, you can make the difference smaller by trying to twist the scenario but you can't make the difference disappear entirely.

These are alternatives that have equal weight as your conclusion,

No, that is not correct. Saying a thing is not sufficient to make it true.

Your alternatives are speculative, inconsistent with the facts of the situation and your conclusions do not follow logically. They absolutely do not have equal weight.

Why doesn't anyone get it? If we want to convince THINKING people we are going to have to employ arguments that are logically sound. That means we are going to have to actually THINK about this topic in an objective, logical manner. Making ridiculous assertions, using flawed logic, repeating meaningless/inaccurate slogans, etc. will NOT help this cause.

 

[Mp7]

Apparently this topic stirs some strong emotions ...

I believe you do not have to excersize any right u got,
just for the heck of it - if it makes no strategic sense in the long run.

I dont stand in front of churches on Sunday, either,
to proclaim my strong belief that there is no god.
I feel the urge to do so and i have every right
to make fun of those people.

But i don´t, as strategically it will not lead
to any positive result for either party

Society is about communication not about
ignorance. And other than with gun-loving
people meeting .. where OC would be a conversation piece
with the rest of the crowd it will be the opposite.

And the complete "Mind-ya-own-biz" mentality
doesnt get anything anywhere. IMHO.

Basically:
What "Dashunde" said. +1

 

[Clipper]

Pretty much the only time I CC is when it's cool enough to need another shirt or a jacket. I'm not afraid to say what I think about OC:

It's much more comfortable.
I personally am a believer in the deterrent effect, and think those who disagree are wrong (gotta type nice, so I don't insult anyone).
In my state, I can go places OCing (with a CPL) I can't legally go CCing.
Since the courts have decided here that my right to OC is guaranteed by Michigan's constitution, rather than by statute, There's nothing the anti's can do about it, so screw 'em.
And since Michigan has a preemption law, if the LEO don't like it, screw them, too.


BTW, in two years, I've been hassled once...

 

[NavyLCDR]

Society is about communication not about
ignorance. And other than with gun-loving
people meeting .. where OC would be a conversation piece
with the rest of the crowd it will be the opposite.

A moderator has asked me to replace the B.S. flag with this:

"Bull****!"

My experience, in real life, open carrying, has been just the opposite. Sounds like there are a lot of people here talking about something they have no real life experience doing.

 

[rdrancher]

Thumbs up to ya NavyLT

rd

 

[inSight-NEO]

I'm sure we could make a long list. I have no idea what that would prove. If it is "socially impolite" then the fact that there are many other things that are similarly "socially impolite" wouldn't make it any better or worse.

Agreed. I was simply making a general statement here. I did not intend for this to be of any real value beyond the personal, off-handed comment it was meant to be. The original argument that OC could be construed as "socially impolite" was a weak one at best. Therefore, I did not feel the need to come up with a mind-bending argument against it.

Uniformed LE are known to be armed in this country. Therefore concealing would have no effect on whether people perceived them to be armed or not and would merely make it more difficult for them to rapidly access their weapons.

The bottom line is that LEOs that open carry aren't telling anyone anything they don't already know and therefore open carry has no negative effect on their tactical situation.

Once again, I agree.

I mentioned LEO (among others) simply as an example (mixed in with a bit of sarcasm) reiterating the point I was trying to make in that OC is not something that should simply be dismissed as "tactically foolish."

Yes. For the uniformed officer, OC is expected and no real "tactical advantage" exists by them resorting to CC only, etc., etc. But, that was not my point. The main idea here was that, whether an individual is in law enforcement or simply a law abiding citizen, the tactical advantage regarding OC is essentially the same.

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

Well...(focusing on the statement I italicized) this is an assumption on your part. Had there been several individuals around who were openly carrying [unless this "post" alluded to the fact that there were indeed many individuals already doing so], perhaps this person would have not risked such a move in the first place. The scenario you listed may be a good example of CC saving the day, but this is only one type of situation out of many. Regardless...too many variables here.

In short, if you carry openly you'd better be able to draw very rapidly because that may very well be the only option available to you other than surrendering and being disarmed.

Then again, who is to say that simply because one chooses to OC he/she has no CCW for backup? Regardless, I see your point. Either way, I think it really boils down to whether or not one is willing to respond, regardless of where the weapon is strapped. One cannot assume that, simply because one is concealing a weapon, he/she would actually risk making the move in the first place. At least OC gives you the option of quick acquisition, given the proper mindset. It would be a helluva lot easier to "bring to bear" a hip strapped weapon vs a concealed one, if in very close proximity to a BG...when only seconds are available.




Now, I will readily admit that, for the civilian, CC may be the more optimal choice at times. Having the ability to OC is great, but simply because one can, does not mean one should. Like many things in life, OC and CC both come with their fair share of advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the individual to [carefully] consider these, based on his/her own particular needs, abilities and situation. Of course, there is always the option of doing both. In either case, there are just too many variables here for one to concretely say what is right or wrong. This is not something that can be neatly contained within a pristine box.

But, as I have mentioned too many times before, regarding OC or whatever, all of this means squat. Essentially, until [general] public (and political) misgivings about handguns takes a much more positive turn, however the means, the pro-handgun/pro-CCW/pro-OC crowd will always have to deal with crap like this.

All of the arguing amongst ourselves (as interesting as it is), pointing out this and that or whatever, will never change that fact.

 

[Dashunde]

This is rediculous... I'm sick of all of this romanticised OC nonsense.
The last place I recall seeing mass open carry is in Somalia and various other government vacumes.

As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

As much as I love guns (just ask my wife, look in my safe and drawers, etc) I do not want to "see" open carry everywhere.

 

[Gungnir]

This is speculation, had the concealed carrier been openly carrying then the hostage taker may equally have chosen to go elsewhere.

No, my friend, THAT is speculation, and what's more it's speculation on the basis of virtually no information. What I related is not speculation it is what actually happened. The attacker was suicidal, self-preservation was not a concern and he took these people hostage at a gun range where there was obviously a serious risk of having to deal with armed persons.

OK then please explain this...

There was a case posted on THR some years ago where a deranged man took the staff of a gun range hostage using one of the range weapons. One of the employees was carrying concealed and was able to choose an optimal time to respond with the result that all the employees were unharmed. Had he been openly armed he would have had to respond immediately regardless of whether the time was optimal or not or he would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized at the beginning of the situation.

As Insight-NEO pointed out this statement is pure speculation, add in to that mix the disingenuous addition of the omitted data point that the attacker was suicidal (deranged != suicidal), and even your logic is greatly flawed. By definition an irrational person does not act rationally, and neutralizing or disarming threats during the commission of a crime is a relatively rational and self-preserving behavior; since the perpetrator was suicidal (and deranged) there is no logical reason to assert with any confidence that he would have acted in this way.

In any event I was not saying that the scenario was speculation but that your conclusion about how open carry may have affected the situation was speculation. At least I had the intellectual integrity to state quite clearly that my speculations are just that.

We could argue the consistency and logic of the speculations all day however as I mentioned (emphasis added)

the situation played out as it did, and we are purely speculating as to what might have happened had the situation been different.

At the end of the day John I don't think that we disagree in principle, I think we disagree in viewpoint. My viewpoint is whether a firearm is concealed or openly carried the person carrying it is still armed and there is no material difference, it is only perception (either the person carrying or the people observing that person) that introduces a difference.

Socially that perception is an issue, however how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?

We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense. We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people. Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Socially that perception is an issue, however how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?

We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense. We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people. Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership.

Absolutely +1 Gungnir! And note: the anti-gun crowd is the MINORITY! Just look at any recent poll and the current legislation that is passing in numerous states. The problem is, the anti-gun crowd is at most 1/2 the size of the pro-gun crowd, but they are screaming twice as loud as the pro-gun crowd. It's time the pro-gun crowd starting screaming back and being heard. And we aren't going to do that by hiding our guns away after we pay the state a tax for permission to do so!

The fact is, if we don't start standing up and be heard, the general public is not going to hear or see anything other than the anti-gun minority!

 

[inSight-NEO]

This is rediculous... I'm sick of all of this romanticised OC nonsense.
The last place I recall seeing mass open carry is in Somalia and various other government vacumes.

As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

As much as I love guns (just ask my wife, look in my safe and drawers, etc) I do not want to "see" open carry everywhere.

I am curious, who here is "romanticizing" open carry? Simply listing the value of and/or being a proponent of such a method is certainly within reason. In addition, I am curious...why do you harbor such negativity towards an openly visible weapon; particularly if you "love" guns? If, by law, an individual is able to carry this way, why do you care?

By the way...Somalia? C'mon.....bad example.

 

[JoeSlomo]

As much as some of you hate me for saying it, its not ever going to be accepted in the mainstream, and for good reasons.

I guess that depends on how you define the "mainstream".

If you view the "mainstream" as the citizens in your particular area, than OC IS accepted in MANY mainstream communities. OC may very well become accepted in communities that don't normally practice it, IF citizens START practicing to OC.

If you view the "mainstream" as the "America" portrayed by the news/propaganda/entertainment industry, and the liberal socialists that reside in most of our urban areas, than no, you are correct. These industries, and urban areas, like to lay claim to being the "mainstream", however, their views are generally completely opposite of what my friends, family and I hold to be true.

 

[JohnKSa]

Had there been several individuals around who were openly carrying [unless this "post" alluded to the fact that there were indeed many individuals already doing so], perhaps this person would have not risked such a move in the first place.

I agree. Any deterrent effect that OC has is much magnified when there are multiple OC'ers present. However in that case there were not any present and the CC'er was the only one armed at all.

One cannot assume that, simply because one is concealing a weapon, he/she would actually risk making the move in the first place.

The point is, of course, that the choice of whether or not to make a move or when to make a move is available when CC'ing where it is likely not available when OC'ing.

Like many things in life, OC and CC both come with their fair share of advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, I've said that many times, probably one or two times on this thread. Recognizing that BOTH approaches have both advantages and disadvantages is the first step in looking at OC and CC in an objective and logical manner.

As Insight-NEO pointed out this statement is pure speculation...

This sort of assertion is not helping your credibility.

Are you really saying that you're not sure whether or not an armed attacker would neutralize an openly armed defender before taking others on the scene hostage? If you truly believe that then there's nothing more I can say. All I can do is argue from a position based on logic and reality.

My viewpoint is whether a firearm is concealed or openly carried the person carrying it is still armed and there is no material difference...

I understand your viewpoint and I'm saying that it is not possible to defend that viewpoint using logic and reality as a starting point.

There is a material difference between carrying openly and carrying concealed. The material difference is that in one case people can see you're carrying and in the other they can not.

For example, you made a statement indicating that you believe that open carry is a deterrent--that is an effect of people seeing the firearm. Something they couldn't do if it were concealed. That is an effect of the material difference. If you want to try to construct an argument attempting to prove that a material difference that doesn't exist can have concrete effects that would be entertaining though not convincing.

...how can we correct that issue unless people are prepared to be ambassadors that openly carry, yet do not cause excessive public disturbance while doing so?

It's really scary that you're asking this question and at the same time advocating open carry. If you believe that an unavoidable consequence of open carry is "excessive public disturbance" I don't understand how you can advocate it.

For the record I don't believe that "excessive public disturbance" is a necessary consequence of open carry nor do I believe that the only way to advance open carry rights is to open carry. I believe that the prudent exercise of the right to open carry can avoid causing "excessive public disturbance" and that even when open carry is not legal or prudent that it is still possible to successfully campaign for the right or for the expansion of the right.

We have lost the social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for defense, and gained a social trigger that someone visibly armed is armed for offense.

In some areas that is true, in others it is absolutely not true.

We cannot reset this social trigger by hiding our firearms away from people.

This is a false dichotomy as explained below. Ignoring that issue for the moment, it is clearly not true that firearm rights must be openly exercised in order to expand those rights. The CC movement is clear evidence that one can dramatically expand firearm rights without openly exercising those rights.

Indeed if we continue to hide firearm ownership to prevent upsetting a minority then ultimately we will lose any right to own any firearm, since that minority is not hiding their belief that firearms are dangerous in the hands of anyone, other than the security services, and that should be eliminated from public ownership.

False dichotomy. To "hide firearm ownership" is not the only alternative to open carry. I do not hide my firearm ownership and I work to expand firearm rights and firearm awareness. And I do that even though I can not legally open carry here.

Besides, if it were true that were true that open carrying is the only way to maintain and expand open carry rights then open carry could never be legalized anywhere that it has ever been illegal.