Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Is OC safer than CC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Same old, tired, argument regarding OC. That those who OC will be the first ones shot. If that were true, for safety issues, all Law Enforcement would carry concealed all the time, whether on duty or off, to protect themselves.



    As of press time American Police Beat Jan 2010(pg.1 continued onpg. 34) tells that there were 44 officers killed in the line of dutyin 2009. This compares with a total firearms related MURDERS in 2004 of 9,326 according to U.S. Department of Justice F.B.I.. So, this proves that the safest percent of the population are those that OC.



    We all know that if some criminal wants to rob a store and observes someone OCing he/she will move to another store.
    The responsibility is ours, the results, GODS

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in MO
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    IMO, comparing CC or OC to police officers is probably not an exact correlation. I am a firm believer in OC. Not for the fact that it may be safer or not safer than any other form of carry, (even though I feel that there are some strong arguments either way) but just the simple fact that it a very basic right that is being assaulted from many corners in today's society.

    I currently have my CC permit, but sometimes have a nagging feeling that I have just asked permission from the nanny state to allow me to exercise my basic right to keep and bear arms. If we get used to the fact that we have to ask this permission, take the courses, follow the proper processes, file the right paperwork, wait for the call, then carry the proper documentation, etc, then how easy is it going to be for the powers that be to take that away?

    When I open carry, I feel that I am taking responsibility for my safety and the safety of those around me without having to ask permission of anyone to exercise my right.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    We shouldn't have to ask for permission to exercise a "Right"!
    The responsibility is ours, the results, GODS

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in MO
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    patriotthad wrote:
    We shouldn't have to ask for permission to exercise a "Right"!
    That is one of the main reasons that I OC and fully support OC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    Lunie added this to a post last year and I still think it say's it better than anything I've heard. It doesn't matter wheather you're talking OC or CC we should not have to pay for or ask permission to exersise our rights.

    I'd say this young person has a better understanding of our rights than many older state congress people.


    (Lunie, my apologizes for lifting from one of your posts)



    From the MissouriCarry About Us section:

    "Anyone that requires you to disarm is not your friend, and not our friend."

    It would seem to me that laws banning the open air carrying of our constitutionally protected firearms, would fall right in with this. It amounts to being disarmed (more akin to "unarmed", but none the less) by municipalities within the state.

    Or is there some hypocrisy in that statement?

    I supported Concealed Carry, even though I don't exercise that right. I would appreciate support from those who benefit from it in protecting and re-establishing our RTBA in other areas as well.

    Open Carry does not preclude concealed carry, as I'm sure many people would still like to wear theirs unexposed.

    As far as CC goes though, I think it is excessive, in both fees and processing. It strikes me as ridiculous that I have a right to bear arms, but not (necessarily) to carry them in public, nor under my shirt.

    Is the point to discourage access to those who are less affluent? A Right is something given to all Citizens. Whereas this is nothing more than a privilege. It is far easier to lose a privilege than a right.

    There is no test to prove we are capable enough to use our Right to Free Speech. You need not apply to receive your Right to Due Process. No person must take a course to benefit from their Rights against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't know of anyone who had to pay a fee to practice their religion. And so long as we have full rights as citizens, we are supposed to be guaranteed the right to bear arms.

    It would just seem to me, that anyone who may lawfully purchase and possess their arms (Anyone who has not forfeited this right through due process of the law; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"), may carry them as they like, so long as they are on public, (their own)private property, or with the consent of the owner of private property.

    Of course I could be wrong, and maybe only the "right sort" of people should be allowed carry them. The issue is not with myself. There is nothing to disqualify me from having a permit but my age, which won't be an issue rather shortly. There is however the burden of the extra money to put out. And I'm not sure why it is I need to pay the extra to exercise my right.




    Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 09:51 pm by Lunie





    AUDE VIDE TACE

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern Half, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    No need to apologize, I'm surprised to find any interest in my rambling. I think the way that gun rights are being pushed into the realm of privilege is a travesty.

    As to the OC vs. CC debate...

    Both situations are a conscious decision by a person to carry along both the ability to protect themselves as well as others, and the responsibility to do so ethically, and of course, lawfully.

    I don't have the mind of a criminal, but I can't imagine seeing a person with iron strapped to their hip, and thinking that I would still want to rob a store with armed civilians. That if there was so much as any thought to themselves, they would much rather find a place without such blatant danger to their malevolent intentions.

    A person who is OC'ing could be more of a target in a bad situation, as well as being a deterrent to bad situations. And if that bad situation were to arise, they would at least have the basic means to react appropriately.

    It may be the more proactive of the two carry options...

    Whereas, the person who CC's is less of a perceived deterrent, but who may have the opportunity to protect themselves should the circumstances warrant.

    In truth, concealed carry, open carry, or doing neither are all still dangerous. Someone bent on coming into a crowded space with blood on their mind would be a hazard to everyone involved, including those who are armed, those who are not, and the law enforcement that respond to the scene. I think any belief otherwise is a fantasy. We live in the real world, where we must sometimes face the consequences of the actions of other people.

    Carrying may give you that chance to live, a more fair contest if you must fight for your life. And either way you prefer, having a weapon in a dire situation is probably better than depending on the flesh of your hands.

    A man with a gun is not a bad man. A bad man with a gun is a bad man.



Posting Permissions

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