Taking to the air in defense of open carry

imported post

For those interested, I found this while browsing the Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner, you know that under where it says that you are logged in.

Taking to the air in defense of open carry: "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington

On Sunday, June 28th 2009, Jim Irvine, Chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association will be discussing the pros and cons of open carry on his radio show which is carried by 1420 AM WHK News Talk in Cleveland, Ohio.

The hour-long segment, which you may listen to live on the internet from 8 - 9PM Eastern Time, will feature Ohio Attorney-General Richard Cordray, famed instructor and author Massad Ayoob, and yours truly. Would you care to guess which one of us is arguing for open carry?

In preparation for the spirited debate I am anticipating, I thought I would share some of the reasons that I feel that open carry serves a very positive purpose in the gun rights debate.

I should start by stating that one of the issues I expect Mr. Ayoob to bring up immediately is the tactical aspects of open carry vs. concealed carry. He discussed this at some length when I attended his LFI-1 class (which I highly recommend) and I need to clearly demonstrate that this is not the issue at hand. Otherwise, those of us who are proponents of open carry would lose quite handily. I will readily concede that if your primary concern is tactical superiority, then you should carry concealed.

However, the question that we, as pro-gun activists, should be asking is "What are the benefits to the gun-rights movement of my carrying openly?"

After all, we are bombarded, almost daily, by a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-gun media messages. And 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! The number of pro-gun, pro-concealed-carry advocates who will chastise open carriers 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.

Remember ... 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. Wayne LaPierre and Sarah Brady are, at best, distant figures to John and Jane Citizen, but you and I are their relatives, friends, neighbors and loved ones.

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.

Future Radio Appearances

I will also be appearing on Intelligent Talk 920 WGKA Atlanta on the Armed American Radio Show on July 5th, 2009 from 8 - 9 PM Eastern Time. The show, which is hosted by Mark Walters, Contributing Editor of Concealed Carry Magazine, will also feature Philip Van Cleave who is President of America's most effective gun rights organizations, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

imported post

The only thing I don't wholeheartedly agree with is that CC > OC tactically speaking. In some instances, maybe, but I like to think that OCing in the first place might keep said instances from taking place altogether, and that, for me, makes OC tactically superior.

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

The only thing I don't wholeheartedly agree with is that CC > OC tactically speaking. In some instances, maybe, but I like to think that OCing in the first place might keep said instances from taking place altogether, and that, for me, makes OC tactically superior.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you FC, also adding that with OC I can draw smoother, faster, and with one hand which leaves the other hand free for fending off an attacker.

Bronson

imported post

Ding Ding ding....we have a winner!

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

The only thing I don't wholeheartedly agree with is that CC > OC tactically speaking. In some instances, maybe, but I like to think that OCing in the first place might keep said instances from taking place altogether, and that, for me, makes OC tactically superior.

Click to expand...

This is the problem OC'ers face when there's attempt to prove that OC is a deterrent. When you OC it's highly unlikelya BG willconfront you and say that he/she was going to hold you up and decided not to due to the exposed pistol on your hip.

imported post

I'll also add that if I OC I can carry a larger firearm because I don't have to worry about it showing or printing.

To paraphraseClint Smith: "I've never met a person who'd been in a gunfight that wished he'd had a smaller gun"

Bronson

imported post

I consider OC as deterrent to a crime. Just like a highly visable police force will reduce crime for the general populace, OC will deter crime against me and those close to me.

I have seen mulitple people in this forum state that they believebad guy(s) have avoided them once they see the gun. This prevents the need to draw and brandish to prevent a crime. (Which is discourged for aCC'er)

And as we have all heard, there is not one documented case were a OC'er was shot first. (BTW, I am not sure if this is an accurate statement, but it is made alot)

One other educational thought, per a quick, but not through search of the internet, I found that there are just over 200,000 registered motorcycles and almost 194,000 CPL holders in Michigan. So the general population is just as likely to come in contact with a CPL holder as they are to see a motorcycle on the road.

imported post

2 things Geek Saint. I agree that OCing discourages punks, because I've seen it happen when I walk by punks. It's happened a lot with me. It happens once in a while when I walk around my neighborhood, but it happened once or twice a week when I was in Phoenix.

Also, I do know of a documented case where an OCer was shot first, someone who posts on this forum no less. A security guard from Indiana. Someone shot him, didn't kill him, but hurt him badly, then they stole his gun. That may not count since it was a uniformed security guard, and many police have been shot for their guns, but still, I think if over a million people OCed daily in the US, it would happen eventually to someone not wearing a uniform. That's not to say that you aren't vastly safer from everyone other than bad cops when you're OCing, but still, you should always be aware of your surroundings.

imported post

Wait, there are tactical advantages to CC?

News to me.

Then again, it must be true, because Ayoob said so. :quirky

imported post

Michigander wrote:

2 things Geek Saint. I agree that OCing discourages punks, because I've seen it happen when I walk by punks. It's happened a lot with me. It happens once in a while when I walk around my neighborhood, but it happened once or twice a week when I was in Phoenix.

Also, I do know of a documented case where an OCer was shot first, someone who posts on this forum no less. A security guard from Indiana. Someone shot him, didn't kill him, but hurt him badly, then they stole his gun. That may not count since it was a uniformed security guard, and many police have been shot for their guns, but still, I think if over a million people OCed daily in the US, it would happen eventually to someone not wearing a uniform. That's not to say that you aren't vastly safer from everyone other than bad cops when you're OCing, but still, you should always be aware of your surroundings. 

Click to expand...

The difference is, security guards are in the same place, day in, day out. It doesn't take much to come up with the idea and plan, even execute it. Security guards need to really stay on their toes for this reason.

The citizen, however, is unpredictable. Making a gun-grab an act of spontaneity.

At this point, the potential criminal's mindset (is he going to be deterred, or spurred to theft?) is already less relevant. Imagine: so a criminal decides, against all odds and common sense, to go for a gun grab. So what? The odds are still against him, acting spontaneously and unpreparedly, against a prepared opponent.

Gun grab attempts happen to police and security often enough that, every once in a while, a criminal succeeds in overcoming retention and acquiring the weapon. But cops are trying to arrest criminals, and security guards stand in one place all day. As a citizen, OC has to first surmount the incredible odds of someone actually trying a gun grab on a citizen going about his business, and then the nearly-as-incredible odds of such a gun grab succeeding, before it becomes remotely close to a "tactical disadvantage".

If OC deters hundreds (presumable, from incidents reported here), or even thousands (guessed, by my own estimation) of would-be criminals for every one gun grab attempt, where is the tactical disadvantage?

This is akin to arguing that it's a tactical disadvantage for a cop to be armed because he may be shot with his own gun. Ask a cop whether he agrees with that logic. :quirky

(Now, while I feel beat cops shouldn't be routinely armed, it's not because cops don't use their guns. It's actually because they use them far too often. But that's a different debate.)

imported post

I caught the last few minutes of the show in time to get the closing arguments, both of the other guests (Massad Ayoob, and I believe AG Richard Cordray. ETA: it wasn't the AG, but a Sergent from the Cleveland PD. ) basically summed it up by saying it was a bad tactical decision by resulting in MWAG calls, and tieing up valuable police resources, and setting the stage for a bad confrontation between LEO and OC.

I guess they plain ignored the fact that that only reinforces the idea that the departments should better train their officers.

That may be due to me missing the majority of the show, but that's what I got from their statements.

imported post

Now, pray tell, how do we have any control over how police waste their resources? If they don't "waste" resources investigating lawful OC, then they're going to "waste" resources not preventing crime in some other fashion.

Ayoob's false dilemma is really a 6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other proposition. If that's the best they have to offer, they still have a long way to go to show that the concept police is a valuable use of resources in the first place.


:quirky

That Ayoob guy has never impressed me, and he sure isn't starting to now. Everyone's full of opinions... and guess what?


:banghead:

imported post

That is somewhat of a red herring, the MWAG calls. I have thought many times that while Det. Aaron Brown and Officer Nancy Armstrong were harassing me(wasting resorces) that hundreds, perhaps thousands of $$$ in drugs were being illegally sold in other parts of The Peoples Republik of Kent County. I was a softer target. Hmmm... softer target, where have I heard that before? Path of least resistance.springerdave

imported post

Is this available to listen to yet?

imported post

dougwg wrote:

Is this available to listen to yet?

Click to expand...

FirearmsForum-2009-06-28.mp3

imported post

As I recall, Mr. Ayoob is/was a police officer (retired?). Stands to reason he would side w/ the police view on this. I do think some of his writing is OK, and some of his opinions are garbage... this is one of those.

imported post

Yes he was a career police officer. He has good points and bad points... like many people. In this case he is wrong but he had it drummed into his head for so many years I doubt he will change now.

imported post

autosurgeon wrote:

Yes he was a career police officer. He has good points and bad points... like many people. In this case he is wrong but he had it drummed into his head for so many years I doubt he will change now.

Click to expand...

IDK, I've thought for some time now that the main reason some LEO have such resistance to OC is because they fear it will make their job harder. It would probably also make their job easier if we didn't have any freedoms or liberties. It would be much easier for them if we didn't have a fourth Amendment, Second Amendment, etc...

If we wanted to make their job even easier, we could pass a law requiring all private citizens to stay inside their homes indefinitely. Then, anyone caught out in public is automatically a criminal. In that scenario, their job would be a cakewalk.


With OC it would be much easier if only the criminals and cops carried guns. That way, the only non-cops with guns would be criminals. It's no wonder we hear officers comment to the press that, "the only people with guns are cops or criminals." If a person is automatically a criminal for carrying a gun, then they don't need to make any more determination. If they can get society to buy into it, then it simplifies their job by ostracizing gun carriers into not thinking it worth the hassle. Score one for them. Not all of them think this way, but many do. At least that's my impression.

At least these two were honest about the real reason they had a problem with OC. They just fear it will make the LEO's jobs more difficult. We give up our rights, and they gain a convenience.

This is what I've thought. It has nothing to do with etiquette or social courtesy. Tactical advantage is just something they bring up to give them an air of expertise, and promote more fear among the general public. The truth is, they just fear it will make their duties more difficult.

I personally don’t agree all that much. After all, this isn’t something new. They don’t have any “new” fourth amendment procedures to follow as a result of OC. They still need RAS, and they gun alone is still not it.

Many officers (read LEO brass) had reservations about CC when the “shall issue” law first began taking effect. They’ve now come to realize that those fears were much ado about nothing. It’s my belief that in time, the same will be said about OC.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

autosurgeon wrote:

Yes he was a career police officer. He has good points and bad points... like many people. In this case he is wrong but he had it drummed into his head for so many years I doubt he will change now.

Click to expand...

IDK, I've thought for some time now that the main reason some LEO have such resistance to OC is because they fear it will make their job harder. It would probably also make their job easier if we didn't have any freedoms or liberties. It would be much easier for them if we didn't have a fourth Amendment, Second Amendment, etc...

If we wanted to make their job even easier, we could pass a law requiring all private citizens to stay inside their homes indefinitely. Then, anyone caught out in public is automatically a criminal. In that scenario, their job would be a cakewalk.


With OC it would be much easier if only the criminals and cops carried guns. That way, the only non-cops with guns would be criminals. It's no wonder we hear officers comment to the press that, "the only people with guns are cops or criminals." If a person is automatically a criminal for carrying a gun, then they don't need to make any more determination. If they can get society to buy into it, then it simplifies their job by ostracizing gun carriers into not thinking it worth the hassle. Score one for them. Not all of them think this way, but many do. At least that's my impression.

At least these two were honest about the real reason they had a problem with OC. They just fear it will make the LEO's jobs more difficult. We give up our rights, and they gain a convenience.

This is what I've thought. It has nothing to do with etiquette or social courtesy. Tactical advantage is just something they bring up to give them an air of expertise, and promote more fear among the general public. The truth is, they just fear it will make their duties more difficult.

I personally don’t agree all that much. After all, this isn’t something new. They don’t have any “new” fourth amendment procedures to follow as a result of OC. They still need RAS, and they gun alone is still not it.

Many officers (read LEO brass) had reservations about CC when the “shall issue” law first began taking effect. They’ve now come to realize that those fears were much ado about nothing. It’s my belief that in time, the same will be said about OC.

Click to expand...

Holy Shit!

That is one of the best posts I have ever read, and I've read a lot.

imported post

The thing he and all people who use the excuse that it will make their job harder fail to realize is BG's don't carry this way so when they see one of us OCing they already can be pretty sure that what they have is a good guy. Also the tactics bit doesn't hold water as the best defence is a good offence! OC is offencive in nature as it deters people from making stupid choices by making us a harder target.

Anyway I still think Mas has some good points but I really hate his position on OC because it is so ill conceaved. And the really sad part is how many people repeat what he says like it's gosple and just BC he is a retired police officer and an EXPERT witness is meaningless in my mind... (Deffinition of exspert " a has been drip under pressure")