Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: My feelings on the Pro-2A ,Anti OC perspective.

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    I discovered recently that OC makes for a highly contentious subject for debate. In attempting to learn more about California law, I thought I would ask on another forum that is not dedicated exclusively to open carry. The question I asked was intended to be a serious inquiry of what the law stated, but it quickly degenerated into a free for all flame throwing.

    The question I asked was "Is there any statutory duty for a CCW licensee to conceal their weapon?" This and a brief PM to the Administrator led to another thread being spawned about the legality of open carry in California. This thread has been subsequently closed, due to the lack of self-moderation.

    Arguments against open carry from pro-gunnersseem to fall into afew categories

    It's all about attention/ego/phallus.

    Maybe it is. As Americans we boast to the world of our freedoms even without realizing it. The world that opposes us despises our culture, government, status, the equality of women, equality of races, equality of religions, equality of sexual orientation,and the freedoms that we exercise without even thinking about them. If someone wants to bring attention to themselves or to a cause such as the freedom to arm themselves, what business is it of anyones to disparage them for their personal choice? Fighting for your rights is going to be something of a chest beating ego trip- in part because very few will stand up for themselves, let alone stand and fight on behalf of someone else's rights.

    It's illegal (Even when it's not.)

    The most contentious anti-OC arguments come from those who defend concealed carry and assert that OC is illegal even if there isn't a statutory prohibition. They will call it brandishing or disturbing the peace- both of which have some well-defined criteria that must be met in order to constitute a violation.

    What I believe the motivation is here isn't any serious discussion of legality, but that of the power perceived when authorities hand overa piece of paper that grants them a special privilege that few have. Imagine that you've been authorized by law enforcement to carry a weapon concealed, and you run into someone who is open carrying, and what's more, they haven't been issued a special permit, or had to subject themselves to a background check, or been required to attend a mandated firearms course-- and they aren't required to. I suppose I'd be agitated too, after spending money on the training, the license, the specialized gear to hide your pistol, and all the inconvenience or discomfort associated with having to shove your concealed weapon out of view.

    For me, it was this little piece of paper that has made me mad, not the free exercise of my inherent rights. I believe that if anyone should be angry at anything, that it should be about the process of relinquishing your rights to obtain a privilege that is revocable upon demand. By obtaining this little card I was denied my 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights.

    It's tactically inferior (stupid).

    I love this argument. So if it's so tactically stupid, why don't the policemen of the world conceal their duty piece? If open carry of a firearm makes them a bigger, more vulnerable target, why then isn't it reported nightlyon every localnews station that another cop was targeted for his visible firearm, was disarmed, and had his own weapon used against him? Well, it's because disarming someone with a pistol 1) isn't something most people including criminals want to try, and 2) it isn't nearly as easy to do as most would lead you to believe.

    The other situation that the anti-OC will postulate is the robbery/stick up. You're standing in line at a store or bank and OC'ing. The criminal sees this and takes you out first. Yeah, that's exactly how it would go in the movies. In reality, a criminal who is robbing a bank has one objective in mind and that's the valuables.They want to get in there and out of there asap with no hangups no interference. The last thing they want to do is tangle with an armed citizen, an armed off-duty cop, an armed security guard, or an undercover cop. This is the reason most robbery cctvvideo is from quiet convenience stores after darkand not busy banks during business hours.

    The criminals assess risks because they don't want to get caught- an openly armedperson is a serious obstacle to overcome, because they don't know if this armed person is a trained cop or simply an armed citizen. If all you are there for is the valuables, how are you going to leap from robbery to murder? The payoff would have to be pretty high to justify the added risk of putting your life on the line to take the armed person out of the picture.

    The reasons I enjoy open carry?

    1) I'm free.
    2) I enjoy the same tactical access to my firearm as police do.
    3) It's more comfortable.
    4) It's a visual deterrent to would-be criminals.
    5) It's a political statement that shows OC is acceptable, reasonable, and practical.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Princeton, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    +1

    Why open carry? "Because this is F***ING AMERICA AND I CAN DO WHATEVER THE F*** I WANT!":what:

    Ok that's a little extreme lol but seriously good points, someone needs to get this across to the people over at GT and a few other forums. (Well most of em anyway)

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Good categorization.

    Having said that, there is nothing wrong with choosing to carry concealed - it just has little positive political externality atytached to it (concealed carry) except in the rare and unfortunate circumstance when someone has to draw or fire in self-defense.

    Shhhhh...I sometimes carry concealed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    Well, since you've alreadyset upthe straw man argument and framed your answer's expectations as it relates to police officers, here's a differentperspective in two parts:

    1. Police officers are a member of a connected group, and if you assault one you assault them all if one gets off a radio transmission. This deters a disarming attempt for many semi-reasonable people.

    2. In the USA there are not many unarmed police officers. Whether you see the weapon or not, it a very good bet that they are armed.

    So believe what you want,champion whatever cause you wish, that's why the USA is different than many other countries- but I think you fool yourself if you think you have a tactical advantage as a citizen by advertising your strength to potential adversaries.

    You just tell them what to do to beat you before you know the game is in play.

  6. #6
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    Zena Blase wrote:

    You just tell them what to do to beat you before you know the game is in play.
    Has this ever resuted in a bad guy taking out a good guy who was open carrying?I say no. Bad guys are always looking for the easy target. They see a gun, they look elswhere. Show me the cases that debunk my theory. My theory is supported by the fact that bad guys are not attacking open carriers.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Port Allen, LA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    I do not carry concealed because I don't want it to be public knowledge.

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Zena Blase wrote:
    Well, since you've alreadyset upthe straw man argument and framed your answer's expectations as it relates to police officers, here's a differentperspective in two parts:

    1. Police officers are a member of a connected group, and if you assault one you assault them all if one gets off a radio transmission. This deters a disarming attempt for many semi-reasonable people.

    2. In the USA there are not many unarmed police officers. Whether you see the weapon or not, it a very good bet that they are armed.

    So believe what you want,champion whatever cause you wish, that's why the USA is different than many other countries- but I think you fool yourself if you think you have a tactical advantage as a citizen by advertising your strength to potential adversaries.

    You just tell them what to do to beat you before you know the game is in play.
    Case in point;

    I was recently at a local burger joint. While I was eating, one of the employees recieved a heated phone call. Shortly later the caller, a femaleand her motherwere on site shouting obscenities and making verbal threats. One of the female employees went out to obtain vechicle identificationand I followed her out. I was carrying concealed and I didnt speak a word. Both the women retreated to their car after they saw me watching the employee's back. This show of strength- the appearance of a man in a conflict between two women, diffused a situation where an assault was very likely.

    My feelings are that it is more beneficial to show strength as a means of preemption, rather than be reactive-- displaying weakness and springing a surprise on an assailant when attacked. Diffusing a situation can only occur before something bad happens. Id rather prevent it, than to react and then have to shoot someone who thought I was an easy target.

    Additionally, how could an assailant determine definitively that the armed person was not asworn officer? In many stories here, there is often the veil of assumption- that some onlookers assume the openly armed person is a plain clothes police officer. In my view, the odds that an assailant would attempt to disarm an armed policeman and an armed citizen are going to be nearly the same.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Yup. I follow your 5 points and add one more – 6) Uncle Sam put a gun in my hands and taught me to handle it properly when I was 17 (13 if you count 4 years of High School ROTC), and I still carry a card which shows I agree to take up arms again when he decides to call me anytime, so I damn well had better be good enough for my fellow citizens to have me armed in their midst.

    Any other citizen who cares to join me and help to promulgate this right would be highly appreciated.

    And I don’t buy the “lets the criminals know what they have to beat” line. If a criminal is going to take me on when he knows I am armed I can’t see why he would be less inclined to do so if he thought I was un-armed. If you are dealing with a criminal who would attack you even knowing you are armed then this is a hard-core felon who would probably attack you the same way – armed or not. Regardless of how I am armed I rely more on my ability to see the threat coming and react swiftly than on some magic ju-ju safety shield bestowed on me by the fact that I am armed.


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    The surprise advantage of concealed carry is very limited. If a criminal has the drop on you, says your money or you life, you have already lost that fight. Trying to draw on a drawn gun or knife is a losing proposition. Only if you think you are going to die would it make sense to draw and you probably are going to be injured or killed in trying to do so.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    Check out this thread that longwatch started on Anti-OC Pro-CC gun forums that are out there:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/1043.html

    Reading what some of the Anti-OC flamers write on glocktalk really makes my head hurt >>>>>

    We need everyone's help to counter these arguments.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Cape Girardeau, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    128

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree

    I agree with EVERYTHING you have put forth. The level of arrogance/ignorance in the CCW community is amazing.

    I have been working with my state senator here in Missouri to pass complete firearms preemption.

    It seems to me that even the NRA is reluctant to take up the OC issue. Not sure what their reasoning is behind their stance, but it sure is frustrating.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •