Bill45 wrote:Bill, welcome to opencarry.org. These are really good questions, and a lot of good things to think about.Ok I caught your attention.
First let me state that I am glad perhaps proud that this state allows open carry and I have no problem if a person wants to do so. In fact I would like things to be as they, perhaps, once were and open carry is the normal expected thing.
90 % of my friends carry guns, all concealed and all think it is unwise if not foolish to open carry in an urban area. I agree with this entirely for the reason that it broadcasts your defensive abilities to the bad guys. Who then, if so inclined can plan their approch to you differently than if they assumed you were unarmed. In other words bushwack you. Perhapes if for no other reason than that you have a $600 gun on.
As I have no one in my circle of aquaintence than thinks differently than me, I ask you folks to tell me what is wrong with this argument against open carry.
I will enjoy reading your comments.
Speaking as the one who started the educational campaign of the police departments on this subject, I think all of us realize the risks.
Open carriers must excercise responsibility to have better retention holsters than your typical CCW belt carry rig.
I've open carried in many urban environments, including downtown Seattle in Pike Place Market, at Seattle Pridefest in Seattle Center in a very crowded environment. Both of which are very crowded environments.
When I open carry I'm generally in a constant state of condition yellow and orange, and I don't know of any other open carrier who is not the same way.
As for criminals getting a new 600 dollar "piece" from an open carrier, unlikely.
First, the holster and the awareness makes the most difference.
Second, retention training matters somewhat but the retention training that's geared toward law enforcement is made with a different purpose in mind: Making sure that the LEO doesn't go "too far" in securing their weapon. Civilians are not under such a restriction.
Third, criminals don't seek hard targets.
Personally I'm looking forward to a potential civilian retention class that may be offered in the future.
The open carrier movement in the Northwest (and especially Washington) are aware of the risks of urban open carry.
We still take those risks now because if we had waited until the mid 2010's to "do it completely right", we would have eventually lost in a war of attrition. This state is not like California where they are too far gone save federal court intervention. We have a state constitution which protects RKBA, too.
Will it ever be "accepted?". I don't know, and to be perfectly honest, I don't care. As a gay man, I realize what it means to seek "acceptance", which means fundamentally changing who I am as a person (now, I'm not talking about changing the orientation itself, I'm talking more playing the pronoun game). Down south, and even up here, I'd say "That ain't gunna happen".
I do things generally would be considered "unwise". I hold hands with my boyfriend in public when it isn't the smartest idea in certain areas of the state, but do you think that stops me?
I'm sure some people won't like what I said above. Oh well. Tough. The first and second amendments, the 14th amendment, and the state constitution protects me doing what I do.
The gun is there for private actors who decide that they are going to play "sadist" decide to "curbstomp some ******". They usually attack in packs and though many here attests to my height and build, I cannot take on a half a dozen men for myself, much less for two people.