Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Why I'm not on board for open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

    2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

    3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.

  2. #2
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

    2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

    3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.
    Darwin,

    First, let me welcome you to OpenCarry.org. You do not have to agree with open carry to be a member here. As a concealed carry holder and a pro-gun person, you will certainly find a wealth of information about topics that may be of interest to you and you might even find your opinion being swayed a little by our members.

    As for your points above, I addressed some of them in an article I did for the VCDL Defender newsletter several years ago and if you have the time, you might find the read interesting. It is copied below.

    Again ... welcome aboard!

    From an article I wrote for the VCDL Defender newsletter:
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Over the last several issues, the Defender has been the forum for a heated debate between those who advocate open carry and those who consider it dangerous and irresponsible. In my opinion, the origin of the debate lies in a basic misunderstanding of the true benefits of open carry, and I plan on joining the debate in the finest tradition of politicians everywhere: I will share my opinion and then declare it gospel.

    "Right Answer ... Wrong Question"
    The argument thus far has largely revolved around the tactical aspects of open carry vs. concealed carry. If this were the actual argument, then those of us who are proponents of open carry would lose quite handily. However, this is not the actual argument. The reason that it has appeared to be so is that Mr.'s Mulvena and O'Connor both made passing remarks in their articles about tactical issues and opened the door to Mr. Kelly's well-written and thorough rebuttal.

    Now would be a good time for me to go on record as saying that there is very little to disagree with in Mr. Kelly's article. His level of training and dedication to concealed carry issues give him an enviable and unique insight and he has the ability to present what he knows concisely and convincingly. Having said that, the question he was answering was not the question we should be asking. He was answering the question "Is open carry more or less tactically defensible than concealed carry?" I will join with Mr. Kelly in answering that question by saying "less". Suffice it to say that if your primary concern is tactical superiority, then you should carry concealed.

    "The Right Question"
    The question that we, as VCDL members and pro-gun activists, should be asking is "What are the benefits to the gun-rights movement of my carrying openly?" Mr. Kelly stated the problem quite eloquently in his article; "I know bankers, attorneys, businessmen, reporters, and clergymen who consider a sidearm as much a part of their daily apparel as their wallet. But to non-gun-owners, it seems a somehow unwholesome practice, associated with criminals and paranoiacs. To them, a man who carries a gun for no immediate reason is strange. They regard such a person as they would one who talked to himself."

    The reason for this is readily apparent. We are bombarded, almost daily, by a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle antigun media messages. It is amazing how effective this bombardment is, even for those of us with deeply held pro-gun beliefs. It is a dangerous mistake to assume that societal influences do not make an impact. They do! Mr. Kelly is a prime example of the fact that even we can be influenced to treat firearms as something "somehow unwholesome."

    At the risk of sounding like a sociology professor, what we are dealing with is a general populace that has had their perceptions about firearms turned into prejudices by societal pressures. Most people are not anti-gun in the traditional sense of the word, but they can be counted upon to swallow whatever drivel is presented by the true anti-gun movement. Make no mistake about it; if we do nothing to counter these negative stereotypes about gun owners, then our rights will be slowly taken away. Open carry is a very easy way to begin to counter these stereotypes. To put it simply, open carry forces those you meet, be they friends, relatives or neighbors, to reconcile their preconceived notions and prejudices regarding firearms with the fact that you are exercising this right in a safe and responsible manner.

    Prejudice thrives on ignorance. By openly carrying, we are showing the public what gun owners are really like. More importantly, we are showing them who we are. I cannot tell you the number of times that I have heard people say that they do not know any gun owners. They do, of course, but they are not aware that they do. This allows them to buy into the idea that gun owners are different; and people fear and distrust that which is different. Seeing you or I openly carrying a firearm forces them to confront the object of their prejudice.

    "Conclusion"
    We are not just a collection of people who are interested solely in self-defense and personal protection tactics. We are also political activists! The anti's understand this and factor it into all of their public contact, but often we do not.

    You and I are the spokesmen for responsible gun ownership and use in our communities. Charleton Heston and Sarah Brady are, at best, distant figures to John and Jane Citizen, but you and I are their relatives, friends, neighbors and fellow travelers.

    Open carry is our chance to show our friends and neighbors that we are normal people. We have families, homes, children and bills just like they do. We have simply chosen to exercise our right of self-defense and I, for one, find this very wholesome.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

    2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

    3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.
    1) Valid point, but it's also possible they might change their mind.. Last year in Virginia a small group robbed a restaurant at closing time, not realizing patrons where still inside (ie: robbed the restaurant & patrons) -- Now imagine if these thugs had entered the restaurant and seen 4 police officers enjoying a meal..

    A common trait of most criminals is they fail to correlate "cause & effect".. Even still, until you are carrying a cannon, most folks really don't notice the holster.

    2) See #1 -- Most robbers want the money and want to be gone, they're not going to willingly engage in a firefight (there are exceptions of course)

    3a) Some form of retension holster might make you more comfortable. If I were to walk up to a Henrico sheriff and grab his holster, I would expectthe "asswhippingof a lifetime"... -- You should remainalert &aware of your surroundings.

    3b)Try applyingthis to your otherAmendments.. 1st, 4th, 5th tofor example: "I shouldn't callcongressman to complain about "x", they mind take away my 1stAmendment rights.. I should let thepolice search my house without a warrant, otherwise they might take away by4th Amendment right.. I should always talk to the police "on demand" otherwise they mind take away my 5th Amendment right.

    We are notsubjects of the King,nor dowe have to act accordingly.

    This all being said, I only OC on weekends and on occasion during the work week. It's a personal choice.. The more valid reason to "not OC" is.. "I don't want to" instead of a list of reasons why youcan't because "the government will take itaway"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.
    I OC regularly, but I do think this is a valid argument. The result of the argument, however, isn't that we should avoid OC, it's that we should think about how and where we OC.

    The political goals of OC'ing are best served by OC'ing in places and manners that are inoffensive. Inevitably, people who are afraid of guns will be nervous the first few times, but if they're carried by people who look responsible and upstanding the response will be less severe, and eventually they will become desensitized. That's the goal, to gradually build the population's comfort.

    Of course, there are OC'ers who will reply "I shouldn't have to dress in any certain way to exercise my God-given, constitutionally-protected rights," and will proceed to OC covered in piercings and tattoos, wearing spiked leather and chains. I agree that they SHOULDN'T have to dress in any particular way to exercise their rights, but they're really doing us a disservice by associating OC with thuggishness. IMO, they should work on desensitizing the public to either OC or their style of dress, because both at once is too much and is likely to send people running to their legislators to ban OC.

    This is less of a problem in some states than others, because some states have language in their state constitutions that strongly protects OC. Even in those states, though, it's worth keeping in mind that constitutions can be amended -- or ignored.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    I do not fear being a target because I believe 99% of criminals are cowards, and only target crimes of opportunity. A man open carrying a gun is not an opportune target. For the other 1%, they do not pull a gun on you and hold you up. These are the ones that will shoot you first and rob you second, even if you are not carrying a gun. It doesn’t matter if you are carrying open or concealed, you are dead before you can react.

    So I open carry to help prevent the 99% of criminals from targeting me, and do not irrationally fear the 1%.

    Yes, I am increasing my risk with that 1% of criminals. But I'd still estimate that I'm about 100X less likely to ever use my gun than a CC'er.

    So it's your choice. You can prevent the 99%, or irrationally fear the 1%.

    But then this goes straight back to why most people carry. Fear. If you carry in fear, then your probably going to CC in fear of the 1%. I carry with pride, and won't live my life hiding in a closet.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

    That's why I carry as well. The "element of surprise" you are losing the ability to surprise a BG after you have already been attacked. I'd just as soon let everyone know that I am not a soft target, then I don't have to try and surprise anyone.

    2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

    Possibly. But the fact is, it just doesn't happen. I'd be more worried about my gun firing if I drop it as that is a much more likely situation. I would challenge you to find any evidence that what you described has ever happened.

    3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

    That's what situational awareness and decent retention is for. Has anyone ever been able to sneak up behind you and take anything else (eg. cellphone clipped to your pocket)?

    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

    If you are not willing to exercise your rights because you think they will be taken away if you do, why even have the right?

    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.
    Go ahead and carry however you wish, the point is you are carrying. All I am trying to do here is point out the specific issues you have brought up here are pretty unfounded and easily addressed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.
    Question for you: Until you found this website, did you know that Oc was legal in Indiana with a permit?

    My father, who has been a police officer in Cook County for over 20 years, recently moved to Indiana, and when I told him OC was legal, he looked at me like I was nuts. A friend of his who has a carry permit said I was wrong. I told him to look at his carry permit. Nowhere on the permit does it say "concealed" or tell you how you have to carry.

    It's scary how most people have become accustomed to being told what they can do, instead of being told what they can't.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    You all make good points. I've been carrying off and on for over 30 years (all the time for the last several years).And yes, I've known since day one that there is no requirement to carry concealed.

    I may try it out. I'll need to buy a good holster for it first. One thing about Kydex holsters. I saw a video showing how easy it is to break these loose from the belt- just by a sharp downward pull of the grip. I'll look for a good leather holster. The one thing I might not like about it is if I go somewhere I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying openly, I would REALLY not feel right leaving my pistol in my car.

    Truth be told, I have a good IWB holster I carry a full size 1911 behind my left hip (actually in the hollow between my hip and spine) and can barely tell I'm carrying at all most of the time.

    My son in law has been carrying open for a while now - I don't think he's had a problem at all doing so.

    The only time I've had an OC experience was probably 25 years ago. I was at a hamfest (that alone dates me - it was a swap meet for ham radio operators). I was bending over looking at something and my tee shirt rode up enough to show my gun. A police officer, who was doing security said I should cover it up, I was making the "citizens" nervous.

    I'll let you all know how it goes if and when I try it.

    Hey, does Fobus stand for anything or is it just a brand name? I always imagined it stood for F (?) Over Belt Under Shirt.:?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Unless you're from Alaska or Vermont, your state has defined CC to be a privilege, not a right. So when you conceal carry, you are not exercising your right to keep and bear arms.

    Open carry is the only way to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. That's why I like it.


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Ohio Patriot wrote:
    Unless you're from Alaska or Vermont, your state has defined CC to be a privilege, not a right. So when you conceal carry, you are not exercising your right to keep and bear arms.

    Open carry is the only way to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. That's why I like it.
    +1000! My sentiments exactly! A permit means you are "permitted" i.e. permission.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Couple quick rebuttals.
    When a BG enters a convienence store, liquor store, gas station, etc, IF he's looking for anybody, it'll be the cops. He's going to scan for uniforms, not pistols. Be assured that he's already scanned the parking lot and any adjacent areas for police cruisers as well. Once he's "cleared" the area and determined that there are no cops on site, he's going to focus on one thing: getting the loot. Plain and simple. Granted, there are going to be the 1-5% that will have the bloodlust to pop everyone in the store, but this is rare.

    Uniformed Police carry openly. So what makes them so special? I have yet to hear of some random ******* come up to a cop without provocation and go for the gun. This action usually occurs when there's a traffic stop or some kind of struggle. Even the stupidest of criminals know better than to just go for a cops gun.

    That stupid video...I wish someone would destroy that worthless piece of crap once and for all. That video does to OC what Beavis and Butthead did to Winger.
    Yeah, if someone came up behind me unnoticed (try it, I dares ya) and attempt to break off my Fobus or Serpa, I wouldn't just STAND THERE!!!! I would whup their ass into next week!!!
    Heres the video link for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDeKtgkZKmQ
    It took 3.5 seconds to pull the holster away. The "victim" put his hand on the offenders hand, thereby giving him some extra help. The split second that I would feel that tug, I'm swinging away and administering an elbow smash or palm smash to the offender, not standing there like a retard.
    But we've debunked this video countless times already, nuff said.

    Welcome to the forum!!!!

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    snip
    I may try it out. I'll need to buy a good holster for it first. One thing about Kydex holsters. I saw a video showing how easy it is to break these loose from the belt- just by a sharp downward pull of the grip. I'll look for a good leather holster. The one thing I might not like about it is if I go somewhere I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying openly, I would REALLY not feel right leaving my pistol in my car.

    snip

    Hey, does Fobus stand for anything or is it just a brand name? I always imagined it stood for F (?) Over Belt Under Shirt.:?
    The kydex holster in the video was, according to numerous reports around the net, an older, riveted design. Many people, including LE carry in kydex holsters. Many here carry in Blackhawk CQC SERPA holsters (I have one for each of my primary carry sidearms) and other much prefer the Safariland ALS holsters. Both are kydex, available in belt and/or paddle attachments and are available in Level II or, if you are more concerned about a gun grab, Level III or IV models.

    When you try it, instead of worrying about leaving it in your car, why not carry a jacket or shirt you can put on to conceal it if necessary or carry a fanny pack so you can put it in there in a pinch. Just until you get use to it and make a decision on the matter.

    Fobus to the best of my knowledge is just a brand name.

    As to some of your other concerns, I'll try to be brief. I, and many others here, maintain that there is not, in general, a "best" way to carry. Both conceal and open carry have their place and preference. From polls on this site, nearly 3/4 of us have a CC license and we carry both ways as is appropriate. Certainly there are times that one method or the other gives some type of advantage or disadvantage. Certainly sometimes OC may deter a crime while CC may not. Certainly sometimes OC could put you at greater risk of being targeted.

    There are some here who OC because of age (under 21 in many places cannot CC an in MO it is 23), some who OC for activism, many who OC for comfort. In 90°+ weather with 90+% humidity, there is really no comfortable CC for me. The fact is that we OC for many reasons. There are threads on here discussing this topic.

    Welcome to OCDO!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    That stupid video...I wish someone would destroy that worthless piece of crap once and for all. That video does to OC what Beavis and Butthead did to Winger.
    After seeing that video, I bought an extra Blackhawk CQC (not a Serpa; it was a few bucks cheaper that way) and let my brother-in-law try to duplicate the feat. He twisted and pushed for about 30 seconds before I stopped him because the paddle was hurting my hip. I still have the holster, maybe I should videotape the test one of these days and put it up on youtube.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Please! By all means post it! Then for fun you can throw him a beatin, just to show what really happens!!! LOL

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    I bought a Fobus for my SIG C3 and really like it. You can adjust the hold by means of a screw. I actually put a washer in (it has a rubber washer) to push it out enough for the Commander slide to fit snugly. To draw, you need a sharp, straight up pull. If someone tries to take it out at an angle, it is really difficult, if not impossible. So, you carry it at an angle you're comfortable with in making the straight out draw and you get good to excellent retention ability. For $28, how can you go wrong?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    I've had equal success with my Fobus' for the Hi Points. I have keep working the C9, cuz I can barely get it out. Fobus does make a good holster.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Excellent point mentioned about CC not necessarily being the excercise of a RIGHT. Another issue besides AGE restrictions for CCWpermit - the "convicted felon" barrier (as in Colorado), and other subjective criteria that may tilt the Sheriff away from approving the application for the PRIVILEDGE of CC permit. Colorado does not prohibit acitizen with a felony conviction from possessing or carrying a firearm after 10 years from final adjudication- but does not allow for a CHP - EVER.Just because you don't have a "felony" conviction on your record -doesn't mean it can't happen. A felony conviction means you made a mistake in judgement, and may not have been represented by the best legal counsel, and although you have led an exemplary life - you are still "marked". Getting CC permitlaws passed was difficult in most states - and the felony proscription was pretty much the price for successful passage. Hopefully that can be changed - or successfully challenged under the 14th Amendment some day(equal protection under the law). For me - OC is a political statement, a demonstration of my excercise of the 2A, a method to hopefully incourage others to carry in some form, and an opportunity to show the GOOD "face" of the RKBA, andfirearms in general. How we "present" ourselves is everyone's individual decision.We don't all come in the same "package" - so our "profiles" may vary greatly. We can all present ourselves like successful "sales persons" who really want to sell our "product". We are ambassadors for our cause.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I know that the reason for CC is the element of surprise and I won't argue that it is better in some situations but I don't see the "tactical" advantage of it. I know that most police officers and army soldiers are trained in tactics and everytime I see a picture of a soldier in Iraq he's openly carrying his weaponry. All the police I see carry openly too. How is the element of surprise worth anything once you're already at a disadvantage? The bad guy is the one with the element of surprise, he is the one who acts first, not you. His concealed carry is an advantage not yours.

    Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now? Now say you were carrying openly, he sees a gun on your hip and decides he doesn't want to run the risk of getting into a shootout and waits for another victim who is easier pickings.

    If you want to carry concealed go for it, it's your choice. However, do not claim it affords a tactical advantage when there is nothing tactical about it. The only time I could see it affording you the element of surprise is in a situation where the bad guy has either ignored you or isn't paying attention to you. For example, you are eating a burger in McDonald's, you're in a booth out of sight of the counter. You hear some shouting and see someone with a gun demanding money from the cashier. Now you have an advantage because his attention isn't on you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?
    Ummm, well... you could fake a heart attack like this guy did:

    http://www.wlky.com/video/16509601/index.html

    Your point is a very good one.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?
    Good point.

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?
    Good point.
    It's a great point and he's absolutely correct. While there are a few who could draw and fire under these circumstances, most would lose.

    The thing with OC'ing is, you will most likely never know how many times your "little friend" may have spoken silently for you and turned a BG away.



    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    Say baddie sees you and sees no gun because you're carrying concealed, he decides to rob you because you look like an easy target. He pulls a pistol from under his coat, points it at you and demands your money. You're going to reach for your pistol now?
    Good point.
    This is the reason why I love pocket revolvers/pistols as a BUG to your CC or OC. That would be the only way I might would draw in this situation

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    darwin-t wrote:
    1. I carry solely for self defense. Allowing bad guys to see my gun eliminates the element of surprise.

    2. Bad guys seeing my pistol may actually make me a target - say during a holdup. They could very well just shoot anybody that is armed immediately to eliminate the threat to them.

    3. Someone could walk up behind me and take my gun. That would be something I'd have to continually worry about if I carried openly.

    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.

    I like things the way they are. Indiana is one of the best states in the country for gun owners.
    I right unexercised is a right lost.

    If more people OCd then it wouldnt be so out of place and people would get used to it. Yes, that would take a lot of people and a long time, but the idea still remains. Wouldnt you rather know if some one was armed rather than having to watch everbody? I have never understood the reasoning behind requiring concealed carry. Its like out of sight out of mind. You have done nothing but push your fears to the side, instead of facing them. I pray evertime I walk into a store some one will come talk to me about me OCing. Just so I can get the chance to educate them on their right to protect themselves and their loved ones. I also pray it isnt an ignorant LEO.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    darwin-t wrote:
    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.
    I OC regularly, but I do think this is a valid argument. The result of the argument, however, isn't that we should avoid OC, it's that we should think about how and where we OC.

    The political goals of OC'ing are best served by OC'ing in places and manners that are inoffensive. Inevitably, people who are afraid of guns will be nervous the first few times, but if they're carried by people who look responsible and upstanding the response will be less severe, and eventually they will become desensitized. That's the goal, to gradually build the population's comfort.

    Of course, there are OC'ers who will reply "I shouldn't have to dress in any certain way to exercise my God-given, constitutionally-protected rights," and will proceed to OC covered in piercings and tattoos, wearing spiked leather and chains. I agree that they SHOULDN'T have to dress in any particular way to exercise their rights, but they're really doing us a disservice by associating OC with thuggishness. IMO, they should work on desensitizing the public to either OC or their style of dress, because both at once is too much and is likely to send people running to their legislators to ban OC.

    This is less of a problem in some states than others, because some states have language in their state constitutions that strongly protects OC. Even in those states, though, it's worth keeping in mind that constitutions can be amended -- or ignored.
    Not everyone who carries, whether openly or concealed, is out to educate the public or to promote acceptance of OC. I am a 6'6" Black male covered with tattoos and wear my hear in cornrows. My style of dress is the "hip hop" style, mostly loose fitting jeans and oversized t-shirts. Even though OC is not my preferred mode of carry, if for some reason it did become my preferred mode of carry, as long as I'm going about my business and not harming anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights to do it no matter what I'm wearing. If anyone is frightened by me, that's their problem; my primary reason for carrying is first to protect myself; promoting OC acceptance is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, you see anyone who dresses this way as associating OC with thuggishness; I see it as showing that people from all walks of life can peaceably exercise RKBA.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    darwin-t wrote:
    3. Here's the one I'll get arguments over. If legislators start getting phone calls from people complaining about open carry (most likely from people that witnessed people carrying openly but did not let their fears known to the person carrying), the legislators might react by passing a "concealed only" law. I've read that in some states, if someone sees your gun, even if it is revealed accidently, you can go to prison.
    I OC regularly, but I do think this is a valid argument. The result of the argument, however, isn't that we should avoid OC, it's that we should think about how and where we OC.

    The political goals of OC'ing are best served by OC'ing in places and manners that are inoffensive. Inevitably, people who are afraid of guns will be nervous the first few times, but if they're carried by people who look responsible and upstanding the response will be less severe, and eventually they will become desensitized. That's the goal, to gradually build the population's comfort.

    Of course, there are OC'ers who will reply "I shouldn't have to dress in any certain way to exercise my God-given, constitutionally-protected rights," and will proceed to OC covered in piercings and tattoos, wearing spiked leather and chains. I agree that they SHOULDN'T have to dress in any particular way to exercise their rights, but they're really doing us a disservice by associating OC with thuggishness. IMO, they should work on desensitizing the public to either OC or their style of dress, because both at once is too much and is likely to send people running to their legislators to ban OC.

    This is less of a problem in some states than others, because some states have language in their state constitutions that strongly protects OC. Even in those states, though, it's worth keeping in mind that constitutions can be amended -- or ignored.
    Not everyone who carries, whether openly or concealed, is out to educate the public or to promote acceptance of OC. I am a 6'6" Black male covered with tattoos and wear my hear in cornrows. My style of dress is the "hip hop" style, mostly loose fitting jeans and oversized t-shirts. Even though OC is not my preferred mode of carry, if for some reason it did become my preferred mode of carry, as long as I'm going about my business and not harming anyone, I would be perfectly within my rights to do it no matter what I'm wearing. If anyone is frightened by me, that's their problem; my primary reason for carrying is first to protect myself; promoting OC acceptance is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Furthermore, you see anyone who dresses this way as associating OC with thuggishness; I see it as showing that people from all walks of life can peaceably exercise RKBA.
    You make a few good points, but theassociation with "thuggishness" is valid considering that style of dress was adopted primarly for the illegal undetected concealment of firearms. Why adopt a styledirectly relatedthe very nature of what good citizens are trying to protect themselves from?"Because I can", or "it's their problem" are the very same attitudes that cause the stereotype and culture perpetuation.

    Please by all means protect yourself, carry how you please, and dress how you please. I simply suggest that you question the message your "steez" issending out to the world.. and if you don't care about that, think about how the message you send out dictates how the world treats you.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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