OC and CCW advantages and disadvantages -The Gun Show (springfield)

I support OC & CCW.

I obtained my CCW to give me another option to carry. I don't view it as better or worse. I do carry OC and CCW; depends upon the circumstances and my comfort level.

As for stats; they can always be construed/spun to mean whatever you want....ie politicians do it frequently. I think the LEO stats are interesting; but I find it hard to cross them over to civilians. It provides interesting conversation, but beyond that, it's anyones interpretation.

As for CCW instructors, mine wasn't against OC; however, they didn't promote it either. Their opinion was CCW is easiest and their preferred method. I have heard Mr. Canovi during several of his classes address OC as your preference; however, he would make some comments based upon the concerns he had. I have also heard his associates make comments that really didn't promote OC, but never did I hear them say it illegal. If one were listening, one would interpret their comments as a negative to OC, not direct comments but just their indirect comments, which is what I believe is just their opinion.

Many have pro's and con's for OC/CCW. If one believes their thinking is the only right one....I've got news for you....yikes!!

YMMV!

its the same bull. by the anti oc theory (that matt guy) then we should have criminals just "nonchalantly" walking into gas stations, restraints, stores and just shooting me in the head to take my gun...
also we know all robbers dont have any thought about committing a murder. not at all.

it is all just talk and opinions and no facts to back it up.
citing 1 bank robbery is far off...you ARE expected to have armed security there and have planned for it. the criminals ARE expecting to try and steal millions of dollars from a bank and prepared to have the federal government after them.

little johnny trying to hold up a gas station or a fast food place...dont expect things like that to happen.

REALteach4u said:

Matt is going to be covering the advantages and disadvantages of OC and CCW on this Sunday's show!

You can listen live at www.ksgf.com 3pm-5pm on Sunday.
If you want to call the show I'll have the 800 number later today.
Local: 417-447-5743
Toll free: 800-630-5743

Please don't make this show about which one is actually better.

We all know the trap that has been set by the OC regulatory law and it is very likely to come up on the show.

Click to expand...

We didn't make the show about which one is actually better, but IMHO Matt tried to. I do not fault him, he is entitled to his opinion. And let's be honest it is his show. But I do not believe he gave the proper consideration to the benefits of OC. I will say his beliefs come from the fact he is prior LE and one of the persons who is going to benefit financially from those beliefs. Again "MY opinion".

I just listened to both segments. While Matt says people who open carry need to realize just what the down falls of open carry are, he never gives or allows the benefits of open carry without just going back and someway critisizing with "tainted" satistics. Now do not get upset with the term tainted, I used for lack of better terminology. The satistics should be considered, but also should the facts that the criminal element is most likely to exit a situation when confronted with an OC'er because MOST will avoid confrontation. You will always have the one in a hundred that have planned for such, but since most crimes are crimes of opportunity. The opportunity is not there if presented with an OC'er. This can only be answered on each individuals circumstances, I just know what is best for me, and I'll be honest. I do both, but I prefer OC, when allowed to do so.

Now Matt knows the criminal mindset and gave satistics using LEO's and examples of security guards. IMHO I do not believe those to be accurate because most of us would not be involved in the activities that were probably in play when those instances happened. I would like to know the percentages of CC'ers involved in some sort of violent crime vs the percentage of OC'ers involved in some sort of violent crime that does also not involve uniformed persons. I do not have the satistics but I would bet the farm, the Oc'er is going to be far less likely to be a victim of a crime than a CC'er.

In December of 2007 I was a victim of a stabbing. My life was nearly by a knife wound that punctured my lung and slightly pierced my heart. I say slightly because if it had been worse , the doctors say no one would have survived it. It was 4 days and a major surgery before I was clearly given a chance of survival, and a couple months with some close calls before I was out of the woods. And I still have problems to this day because of this. I was not armed at the time, but as far as the criminal involved is concerned I could have been. If I would have been CC it is my opinion I would have been the same victim as far as the wounds that I have suffered. The perp was just that close. If I would have been carrying concealed he probably would be dead, but my I would have the same sufferings. It is also my opinion, if I had been OC'ing. the attack would never have happened to me. Now some would argue that I might be looking at the situation the wrong way and that is their right. It is just their OPINION not proof for or against OC. And this particular instance, is just my OPINION for endorsing OC, and I was there. There are some things that are not hypothetical and are just to long to post in this forum.

Now here is also my endorsement for situational awareness, some sort of close combat personal defense training, and carrying in whatever mode you choose. JUST DO IT, if not for yourself, for the ones you would leave behind.

Firearms training, should it be retention, low light, close combat should be considered by both CC and OC equally,neither being more important for one than the other. I believe you benefit from all the training you can get. But I will say " considered" because if you say NEED, there are those who would try to make it mandatory before you could exercise your 2nd amendment rights.

Also I would like to mention in the second segment that Matt and the others discussed the grandfathering not mentioned in the HB294, and it was kind of implied that of the local departments were going to honor prior qualifications which I believe is "GREAT". I still believe we need to push for a grandfathering clause be added. The sheriff is an elected official, and departmental policy could change with each newly elected sheriff. I do not believe we want the possibility that your old training is good today, but may not be good tommorrow. Or better yet just get rid of any training requirement and just push constitutional carry, but hey that's JMHO.

Now here is an interesting opinion, I think you will find yourself familiar with it.

REALteach4u said:

Please folks, don't try to argue that CCW instructors or those who hold CCW permits are against OC (even partly), because that starts the argument that OC folks are against CCW and that clearly is NOT what this is about. It IS about understanding your choice of carry method and TRAINING for that choice.

Click to expand...

I ain't real clear on why you opted to start this machine rolling, I took you at your word that it was an OC discussion and found it to be a defense of an internet posting which would typically draw some real entertaining comments from myself, but no reason to go there.

Then you come along with this stuff and attack anyone with an opinion other than your own. Well lets take a look at this posting shall we?

"I personally believe that training will be a positive thing, mandatory might be a dangerous route but options are out there (see below). Granted folks will resist it, but once people understand that it becomes very difficult to accurately dictate a justification without the training AND that someone can place uninvolved others in harms way by not having the hands-on firearms training it will be much easier to get folks on board with a training requirement.

That said, to what extent should the government become involved is the big question. It would be much easier to allow dealers to join forces with instructors and get the State to allow a tax-break on 1 firearm purchase in exchange for their attendance (one time) of a training class. If the classroom is the same as the CCW class, then all it takes is the CCW qualification requirements for the range to be met and a person can obtain their permit. There would be no need for that person to sit through another full classroom for the CCW class that way AND it gives the shooter options. "

I believe this was a response to someone's comment that constitutional carry has no training requirements. I think YOU are real familiar with this posting eh?

Seems to me like someone wants to see OC a reality as long as it includes a training requirement so they can continue to make coin off of it, damn that sounds a lot like what Pete was saying when you got all bent out of shape.

Oh, I would not really bother commenting unless you seek to fuss, I did not type those words, I simply took a screen shot and copy pasted em here to help you remember typing them.

Interesting position sir, very interesting.

Thanks LMTD!

i think every citizen needs to train themselves.

WOW, I just wasted time listening beyond minute 13 of the first one and the entire second and was it a waste of time.

This most certainly was not an OC discussion let alone any level of a pro oc discussion.

Very interesting changes in one and two, almost comical and someone gave significant input between them, very very interesting.

Freedom 1st said:

<snip>.....
Also I would like to mention in the second segment that Matt and the others discussed the grandfathering not mentioned in the HB294, and it was kind of implied that of the local departments were going to honor prior qualifications which I believe is "GREAT". I still believe we need to push for a grandfathering clause be added. The sheriff is an elected official, and departmental policy could change with each newly elected sheriff. I do not believe we want the possibility that your old training is good today, but may not be good tommorrow. Or better yet just get rid of any training requirement and just push constitutional carry, but hey that's JMHO.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no need for a "grandfather" clause because there is no requirement to show any proof of training when you apply for a renewal. New applicants, on the other hand, will always have to show compliance with the training requirements that are in place on the day they apply. The sheriff doesn't have any statutory authority to require anything else one way or the other.

+ 1

cshoff said:

There is absolutely no need for a "grandfather" clause because there is no requirement to show any proof of training when you apply for a renewal. New applicants, on the other hand, will always have to show compliance with the training requirements that are in place on the day they apply. The sheriff doesn't have any statutory authority to require anything else one way or the other.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I had forgotten that.
It is hard for me to remember ever single portion of the laws. And with the current state that our political leaders and .......well nevermind.

Let,s just I am developing a tendancy to expect the very worst of a person after they are elected to office.