OC makes me nervous

imported post

Open carry without a permit or license is already the law in the majority of states and has always been that way. From what I have learned from this forum only a tiny minority of people that are legally able to open carry do such. Of those that do they almost all are gun enthusiasts like you who are well trained and informed. In the states that require a license to carry concealed most open carriers have a CC license. Also, there are states like Indiana that require a license to carry open or concealed and don't require any training.

In all these states negligent carry incidents with open carriers are extremely rare.

Would this be any different in a state that newly adopted unlicensed OC? Because this has not happened in modern history except for a very short period of time in Florida, it is hard to predict for sure. With the publicity of a new law versus the laws in other states that are so old that few people know about it. It is likely that a larger number of people would step outside their house with a gun to experience the novelty of it. However these people will probably not have the commitment to keep it up for long. It would likely end up just being a committed minority like the aforementioned other states with the same kind of people doing it.

I believe the fear that a lot of wannabe vigilante types who do not already carry would go out on the streets looking for a shootout is the same kind of fear mongering that was used when the novel idea of concealed carry was introduced in states like Texas that had long outlawed it. These fears turned out to be unfounded, and I believe it would be the same with new open carry.

Finally, statistics show that the great majority of America's millions of gun owners do not carry them outside the home loaded, nor are they likely to think they would ever need to. Hurricane Katrina showed that the unexpected can happen and anybody might need to deter looters and other criminals with a display of arms. Should these people be prosecuted for stepping off of their property line if they did not have the foresight to get a permit to exercise their constitutional right beforehand? The second amendment doessay keep and bear is a right. It does not say keeping is a right, but bearing is aprivilege that needs proof of training todo.

imported post

Ruark wrote:

HOWEVER: the idea of allowing ANY legal firearm owner to open carry makes me VERY nervous. There are just too many people out there who are careless and/or naive, and a carelessly carried weapon is a danger to everyone. I'm sorry, but I've spent too many hours at shooting ranges and in the fields, and seen too many idiots who have no business even owning a gun, much less carrying one in public. The idea of some of these people walking around with an exposed, loaded firearm sends cold shivers down my spine.

There would be people carrying guns cocked, bullet in the chamber, and the safety off. There would be people pulling out their guns and showing them to people. Fumblebums pulling out their guns and dropping them, or guns falling out of misfit holsters. Guns that are dirty or jammed with cheap ammo, or the wrong ammo, or crooked sights. People who would stand too close to a little kid who might reach up and grab the gun. People who would put on their guns after Happy Hour. People who would use it in self-defense and miss, sending bullets through innocent bystanders or nearby houses. The possible scenarios are endless. Let's face it. You know how people are. This is reality.

Can you imagine allowing some yahoo to walk around with a .45 ACP on his belt without having even TOUCHED a gun before, much less a gun safety course? Under the proposed OC law, he could. Like I said, it makes me very nervous.

Don't get me wrong: I fully, FULLY support allowing open carry. But something like the CCW course should be required in order to do it. In my opinion, we should keep the current CCW permit system, and just expand it to include open as well as concealed carry. Just my opinion.

Ruark

Click to expand...

Ruark,

Are you nervous while driving down a busy highway? I only ask because there are a number of cars on the road every day being driven by new drivers with NO experience. They can make the car move and they can turn the steering wheel, but they really have no clue about how to properly handle the car in a situation which requires finely honed driving skills, collision avoidance, quick responses, quick decisions after assesment of the situation and a comprehensive understanding of the laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle. By your logic, we should refuse to allow new drivers to use public roads. After all, they'll make the same sorts of fumble-bumble amateurish mistakes you fear new gun owners/carriers will make.

With EVERY social behavioral change (tape decks, 8-tracks, cassette players, CD players, DVD players, pagers, cellular phones, gps) there is a learning curve experienced by society that cannot be avoided. Yes, there will be SOME accidents, and SOME tragic circumstances, but what is the alternative? Forbid anyone from carrying? How will society learn to deal with citizens carrying if they are never allowed to take the first step? Traffic accidents caused by new drivers are accepted by society as the cost of having the freedom to drive. Everyone must learn how to drive and that learning only comes with experience. No one is born with the skills and knowledge, and the same goes for carrying guns.

You seem to fear the individual situation without seeing the bigger picture. Okay, so some brain-dead guy (not a teenager because they're under 18) does something stupid with his legally carried, legally owned pistol because he has no developed skills in handling the gun. It is a shame that this may happen, but I am not about to say that NO ONE in a given group should open carry because ONE person in the group might screw up! Should we deny fast food consumption to everyone because one fool doesn't know what a nutritious meal is?

We have courts and traffic laws and insurance and penalties and jail in place to deal with the "oops-es" of new drivers among our society, and the same will be in place for the "oops-es" of legal gun carry. Remember that driving a car is a privilege, while carrying a gun is a RIGHT. Why would you support tolerating the social costs of enjoying a privilege, while refusing to accept the social costs of exercising a RIGHT?

imported post

Ruark wrote:

Can you imagine allowing some yahoo to walk around with a .45 ACP on his belt without having even TOUCHED a gun before, much less a gun safety course? Under the proposed OC law, he could. Like I said, it makes me very nervous.

Click to expand...

I am far more nervous about a liberal turning 18 and being allowed to VOTE without the slightest knowledge about our country's history or laws. His or her poorly cast vote will do far more to permanently damage society than any stray bullet could ever hope to accomplish. This is how we ended up with Obama.

imported post

Why does it matter if people have dirty guns or use cheap ammo?It doesn't effect you if they don't take enough care to ensure that their weapon is reliable. They will merely suffer the consequences of their own ignorance and laziness.

As far as I know there is no "wrong" ammo either. CCW permits do not mandate that you carry a certain type of ammo.

In most places, carrying while drunk is illegal. Therefore, open carry while drunk when open carry is legal is just as illegal as open carry while drunk when open carry is illegal.

From areas where open carry exists, the problems of careless people running around causing massive numbers of accidents doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

People are still deterred by the consequences of their actions since a mistake with a firearm could easily put them in prison or six feet under.

Whilesomesafetyand proficiency courses are worthwhile, many are a wasteof money, especially the ones that are government mandated. Why can't friends and relatives also teach firearms use and safety?

I think most firearms accidents are not as a result of ignorance of how to be safe but rather of negligence and carelessness.

imported post

AsI mentioned in another thread, consider the recent example of Plaxico Burress. He had already demonstrated to the State of Florida that he was competent to handle a firearm to obtain his CC license. But clearly his judgement and firearmshandlingis suspect.

Licensing, even trainingwill never protect the public from the incompetent. It provides only a false sense of safety. Just as CC (out of sight out of mind) does the same thing. Most folks who choose to arm themselves are aware of the risks and naturally seek to educate themselves. In that respect I think Ruark's concerns with respect to firearms handling and safety are naturally inherent in people who carry and usefirearms. So rest easy and have a little faith in your fellow citizens.

Further, I believe that the total numbers of people who carry will change little with the legalization of OC. Some CCers will begin to OC. We will add some to our ranks by virtue of the publicity. But people who are not interested in firearms will still not be so.

imported post

Ruark wrote:

But when it's an object that endangers other people, then some regulation needs to be present, to protect the public. "Public education campaign"? Oh, please. Yeah, public education has eliminated drug abuse, AIDS, crime, etc. hasn't it?

Click to expand...

Although public education hasn't eliminated drug abuse, the ban onrecreational narcotic usehasn't either.

Many people carry guns who are not even legally allowed to own one since they are felons. Requiring a gun permit or training does not ensure that all people who carry a gun have a permit or training.



If people who want to carry have to have training, they willlikely end up withliceneses for proof of that training and you will basically have everyone who carries a gun registered and taxed exorbitant fees.


I don't think mandatory training is necessary because people usually voluntarily find the necessary knowledge and skills, but if I did I wouldn't find the training currently associated with CCW permits to be the best way to mandate training either.

If all parents taught their childrenhow to safely and proficiently use firearms, or even ifit was taught to all Americans in K-12 school, it would be far preferable to requiring a training course in order to carry. Not only would national defense be boosted from having everyone trained in the use of arms, but I think it would be more effective than a training course at increasing safetyand wouldn't require turning the right to carry into a privelege by requiring defacto licensure and registration.

imported post

"HOWEVER: the idea of allowing ANY legal firearm owner to open carry makes me VERY nervous. There are just too many people out there who are careless and/or naive, and a carelessly carried weapon is a danger to everyone.


There would be people carrying guns cocked, bullet in the chamber, and the safety off.There would be people pulling out their guns and showing them to people. Fumblebums pulling out their guns and dropping them, or guns falling out of misfit holsters. Guns that are dirty or jammed with cheap ammo, or the wrong ammo, or crooked sights. People who would stand too close to a little kid who might reach up and grab the gun. People who would put on their guns after Happy Hour. People who would use it in self-defense and miss, sending bullets through innocent bystanders or nearby houses. The possible scenarios are endless. Let's face it. You know how people are. This is reality.


Do you realize, the type of people you mention hide their weapons... ie....conceal them?:question:

imported post

vmaxanarchist wrote:

Finally,  statistics show that the great majority of America's millions of gun owners do not carry them outside the home loaded, nor are they likely to think they would ever need to.  Hurricane Katrina showed that the unexpected can happen and anybody might need to deter looters and other criminals with a display of arms.  Should these people be prosecuted for stepping off of their property line if they did not have the foresight to get a permit to exercise their constitutional right beforehand?  The second amendment does say keep and bear is a right.  It does not say keeping is a right, but bearing is a privilege that needs proof of training to do.

Click to expand...

Wow. Excellent point you've made here. +100

imported post

cccook wrote:

Licensing, even training will never protect the public from the incompetent.  It provides only a false sense of safety.  Just as CC (out of sight out of mind) does the same thing.

Click to expand...

+2

imported post

TheMrMitch wrote: edit

imported post

Ruark, welcome to OCDO.

You seem to be one of the many "I fully support gun rights, 2nd Amendment, etc. etc. BUT I don't think OC is a good idea" bunch. Or, more specifically, it appears you think some training should be required before someone's allowed to carry a gun in public.

At best, I think you must just not understand what a RIGHT is. At worst, well, I'd really rather not go there at this point, because we need all the supporters we can get

Let's apply your logic to some of the other rights protected by the US Constitution:

Allowing anyone tosay, or print and distributeanything they want in public makes me nervous. There are too many people out there that are careless or naive, and would hand out dangerous information I don't agree with. I'm sorry, I've spent too much time dealing with the public, and the idea of some of these people being able to say or print and distribute anything they want sends cold shivers down my spine.

or

There would be religions believing they have the one true God, or that infidels will burn in hell, or that Jello pudding is the way to heaven. There would be religions that insist their believers wear orange and hang out in airports. There might even be leaders that only release the "secrets" of their religion to those that donate vast sums of money to the "church." Let's face it, you know how people are. This is reality.

or

Can you imagine someone who doesn't know their rights against unreasonable search and seizure being denied those rights? Or not being allowed to exercise their right to travel unless they can read a map? Or allowed to vote unless they can read?

The best thing about rights is that they are for EVERYONE, regardless of knowledge, intelligence, or whether they use it wisely or not. I fully agree with you that there are some people that are too damn dumb to safely or wisely exercise some of their rights, and they probably shouldn't. But that doesn't mean they don't HAVE those rights.

When you start giving government the power toregulate the free exercise of rights, the government WILL abuse that power. The last example I mentioned, not being allowed to exercise their right to vote unless they can read? That was an actual law passed that government officials in the South used to prevent Blacks from voting.

If you allow the government to regulate who can carry a firearm for reasons of "safety," the government WILL (and HAS!) abused that power. If you allow government to require training and testing to carry a firearm, what stops the government from making the training too expensive, or the testing impossible to pass? NOTHING.

As I've seen many state on here before, and I'll say it again. Safety is a tyrant's tool, because who can be against safety?

...Can you pass the government's test to allow you on the Internet?...
...Orygunner...

imported post

Ruark wrote:

I'm an NRA life member, NRA certified instructor, ex-IPSC/Steel Challenge shooter, hunter, and I am definitely pro-gun and pro-CCW. I've been shooting, reloading for about 50 years and know my way around a firearm.

HOWEVER: the idea of allowing ANY legal firearm owner to open carry makes me VERY nervous. There are just too many people out there who are careless and/or naive, and a carelessly carried weapon is a danger to everyone. I'm sorry, but I've spent too many hours at shooting ranges and in the fields, and seen too many idiots who have no business even owning a gun, much less carrying one in public. The idea of some of these people walking around with an exposed, loaded firearm sends cold shivers down my spine.

There would be people carrying guns cocked, bullet in the chamber, and the safety off. There would be people pulling out their guns and showing them to people. Fumblebums pulling out their guns and dropping them, or guns falling out of misfit holsters. Guns that are dirty or jammed with cheap ammo, or the wrong ammo, or crooked sights. People who would stand too close to a little kid who might reach up and grab the gun. People who would put on their guns after Happy Hour. People who would use it in self-defense and miss, sending bullets through innocent bystanders or nearby houses. The possible scenarios are endless. Let's face it. You know how people are. This is reality.

Can you imagine allowing some yahoo to walk around with a .45 ACP on his belt without having even TOUCHED a gun before, much less a gun safety course? Under the proposed OC law, he could. Like I said, it makes me very nervous.

Don't get me wrong: I fully, FULLY support allowing open carry. But something like the CCW course should be required in order to do it. In my opinion, we should keep the current CCW permit system, and just expand it to include open as well as concealed carry. Just my opinion.

Ruark

Click to expand...

Know what makes me nervous? the MILLIONS and BILLIONS of people who drive cars, trucks, SUVs, etc. Know how many people are killed in car accidents every year?

People who are afraid of open carry or guns in general have an irrational fear with no solid ground for argument.

imported post

I believe training is important but the government should stay out of it. On the other hand I believe that some gun elitists over-emphasize training. A gun is a relatively simple tool that requires a minimal amount of training for safe and effective use. Merely driving a car requires much more training and is much more difficult and a lot more dangerous. I think there is an elitist culture of gun owners who hold a lot of NRA certificates and thereby feel that they are qualified to carry a gun but someone who is real new to firearms somehow doesn't deserve to have or carry one.

I felt that the Arizona CCW class was pretty good at covering the basic essentials which were operating and firing a handgun, safety, and legal issues. Chances are that having a gun without much experience will still be a better bet in an emergency than not having a gun at all. I believe that the more training the better but firearms are not rocket science. Sure there is skill involved and advanced training would benefit in a complicated defensive situation. Besides this, it really isn't that difficult to pick up a gun and shoot it even for a novice. Most defensive situations will occur at 30 feet or less anyway. I've taken no classes beyond the CCW yet the few times I've been to the range I've had no trouble hitting the proper area of the target every time and even at 60 feet. I'm no expert and again certainly think that practice makes perfect but let's stop glorifiying basic tools here. There are 10 year olds in various countries that can easily fire full-auto AK-47s accurately andbreak them down within seconds. I don't think Americans need to get a Ph.D. in how to use a handgun.

imported post

I know what Ruark's problem is. He's a gun safety instructor and he's afraid that if Texas allows OC without a permit it will take a bite out of his livelihood. He don't care about public safety, he's afraid he'll loose money.

Guess what, Ruark. I'm not a certified gun safety instructor, but I'll bet I could teach a novice just as much about safe gun handling and the legalities of using deadly force in self-defense as you can, and I'd do it for free. The only reason you guys have a job is because you have convinced legislatures that your services are direly needed before law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms.

Where do you think people got training before your gun safety schools started popping up? Most folks my age (55 yo)grew up with guns and were tought safe handling by parents and others that were experienced with firearms. Back in the "old west" days people learned firearm carry "etiquette", too. Like not drawing a gun out of it's holster and waving it around - dumb crap like that could get you killed back then.....and still can today.

I use to believe that some sort of vetting regulation was a good thing. But after realizing that the bad guys don't go through any vetting and they have guns dispite laws that prohibit them from having them, I don't buy into that regulatory vetting process anymore.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

I believe training is important but the government should stay out of it. On the other hand I believe that some gun elitists over-emphasize training. A gun is a relatively simple tool that requires a minimal amount of training for safe and effective use. Merely driving a car requires much more training and is much more difficult and a lot more dangerous. I think there is an elitist culture of gun owners who hold a lot of NRA certificates and thereby feel that they are qualified to carry a gun but someone who is real new to firearms somehow doesn't deserve to have or carry one.

I felt that the Arizona CCW class was pretty good at covering the basic essentials which were operating and firing a handgun, safety, and legal issues. Chances are that having a gun without much experience will still be a better bet in an emergency than not having a gun at all. I believe that the more training the better but firearms are not rocket science. Sure there is skill involved and advanced training would benefit in a complicated defensive situation. Besides this, it really isn't that difficult to pick up a gun and shoot it even for a novice. Most defensive situations will occur at 30 feet or less anyway. I've taken no classes beyond the CCW yet the few times I've been to the range I've had no trouble hitting the proper area of the target every time and even at 60 feet. I'm no expert and again certainly think that practice makes perfect but let's stop glorifiying basic tools here. There are 10 year olds in various countries that can easily fire full-auto AK-47s accurately and break them down within seconds. I don't think Americans need to get a Ph.D. in how to use a handgun.

Click to expand...

+1

Task Force 16 wrote:

I know what Ruark's problem is. He's a gun safety instructor and he's afraid that if Texas allows OC without a permit it will take a bite out of his livelihood. He don't care about public safety, he's afraid he'll loose money.

Guess what, Ruark. I'm not a certified gun safety instructor, but I'll bet I could teach a novice just as much about safe gun handling and the legalities of using deadly force in self-defense as you can, and I'd do it for free. The only reason you guys have a job is because you have convinced legislatures that your services are direly needed before law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms.

Where do you think people got training before your gun safety schools started popping up? Most folks my age (55 yo) grew up with guns and were tought safe handling by parents and others that were experienced with firearms. Back in the "old west" days people learned firearm carry "etiquette", too. Like not drawing a gun out of it's holster and waving it around - dumb crap like that could get you killed back then.....and still can today.

I use to believe that some sort of vetting regulation was a good thing. But after realizing that the bad guys don't go through any vetting and they have guns dispite laws that prohibit them from having them, I don't buy into that regulatory vetting process anymore.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this was basically my immediate reaction to this thread. +100

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Ruark wrote:

(1)There would be people carrying guns cocked, bullet in the chamber, and the safety off.

(2)There would be people pulling out their guns and showing them to people. Fumblebums pulling out their guns and dropping them, or guns falling out of misfit holsters. Guns that are dirty or jammed with cheap ammo, or the wrong ammo, or crooked sights. People who would stand too close to a little kid who might reach up and grab the gun. People who would put on their guns after Happy Hour. People who would use it in self-defense and miss, sending bullets through innocent bystanders or nearby houses. The possible scenarios are endless. Let's face it. You know how people are. This is reality.

(3)Don't get me wrong: I fully, FULLY support allowing open carry. But something like the CCW course should be required in order to do it.

Click to expand...

(1) That's the way 1911's are designed to be carried.

(2) The states that have free open carry (and concealed carry) laws such as Washington, Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, Idaho have all proven that this is not a problem.

(3) So long as those safety courses are offered AT NO COST to the individual, are given at different hours on different days so ANYONE can attend, and any such permit granted after the course is FREE to the individual, than go for it. Otherwise you going to end up with states jacking up the price and requirement of the training and permit so high that they will exclude a large number of the population who just can't afford it. This fact HAS been proven by a number of states who run their CCW permit program this way.

It should be no harder to get any kind of required permit to carry a gun as it is to get a driver's license.

Click to expand...

Regarding a single action pistol, this mode is called Condition Zero and is not the manner in which the gun was design to be carried in a holster when the need for its use is not immediate. Condition One is the mode to use.

imported post

vmaxanarchist wrote:

Open carry without a permit or license is already the law in the majority of states and has always been that way. From what I have learned from this forum only a tiny minority of people that are legally able to open carry do such. Of those that do they almost all are gun enthusiasts like you who are well trained and informed.

In all these states negligent carry incidents with open carriers are extremely rare.

Click to expand...

That's interesting to know. When I think of some of the loonies I've seen over the years handling guns carelessly, the thought of them carrying openly just gives me the willies. So it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I have been in some of the OC states mentioned, and thinking about it, I don't remember ever seeing anybody walking around with a gun on his belt. I wasn't aware that legal OC was so common.

I just wish that everybody who did OC could be made aware of the ramifications of self defense with a firearm. Depending on the specifics of the incident and the state in which it occurs, there are some very, very bad things that can happen to you and your family if you ever shoot somebody, even in legal self defense.

Ruark

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Ruark wrote:

(1)There would be people carrying guns cocked, bullet in the chamber, and the safety off.

Click to expand...

(1) That's the way 1911's are designed to be carried.

Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh, no.

Ruark

imported post

I probably shouldn't post this, but I'm in a perverse mood. :uhoh:

WARNING: GRAPHIC
(I'd rather not even link to it, but if you do a Google search for "snopes last interrogation", the first result is a video of a guy who shoots himself with a 1911 in a police interrogation cell.) The point is, even though he's Mexican carrying (pun acknowledged, but I'm referring to the lack of holster), he definitely snicks the thumb safety off first. So, I guess even suicidal, stupid criminals can figure out to use a safety.

imported post

1911s are designed to be carried "Cocked and Locked" - one in the chamber, hammer cocked, with safety on...
Not sure if Roark did this on purpose to illustrate the lack of knowledge one may have with a 1911, or if it was a typo...