vox rationis
New member
I totally agree. You give up a huge tactical advantage by carrying in the open.
Also with open carry, weapon retention training is mandatory in my opinion.
explaining to an anti gun person
- Thread starter HAMMER1DOWN
- Start date
I totally agree. You give up a huge tactical advantage by carrying in the open.
Also with open carry, weapon retention training is mandatory in my opinion.
Lots of possibilities
And remember that there are people who really aren't "anti" they just don't know any better, and come off sounding like they are. "Why are you carrying a gun?" isn't pure hate filled anti, on the surface of it. Unfortunately, lots of people have been brainwashed to be apprehensive about someone carrying a gun unless they are wearing a uniform and a badge.
Personally, I would be much more apprehensive about someone carrying "concealed" (and "printing"), because you have to judge from their appearance how likely it is that they are one of the "good guys", or not. And appearances can be extremely misleading. One thing for sure, "bad guys" very, very, very seldom strap a handgun on their hip in plain sight and walk around town. Seems like they all try to carry concealed (and illegally so).
If this were the case, wouldn't we have a huge number of dead cops out there? To me, this kind of argument is on the same level as someone saying you shouldn't keep a handgun for self defense, because the bad guy will just take it away from you and use it on you. Or that you, or a family member, are 47 times more likely to be shot if you keep a gun in the house.
While I'm sure these kinds of things have happened some where, some time, the place they happen most is in Hollywood "dramas" and the closed minds of the anti gunners.
And remember that there are people who really aren't "anti" they just don't know any better, and come off sounding like they are. "Why are you carrying a gun?" isn't pure hate filled anti, on the surface of it. Unfortunately, lots of people have been brainwashed to be apprehensive about someone carrying a gun unless they are wearing a uniform and a badge.
Personally, I would be much more apprehensive about someone carrying "concealed" (and "printing"), because you have to judge from their appearance how likely it is that they are one of the "good guys", or not. And appearances can be extremely misleading. One thing for sure, "bad guys" very, very, very seldom strap a handgun on their hip in plain sight and walk around town. Seems like they all try to carry concealed (and illegally so).
If this were the case, wouldn't we have a huge number of dead cops out there? To me, this kind of argument is on the same level as someone saying you shouldn't keep a handgun for self defense, because the bad guy will just take it away from you and use it on you. Or that you, or a family member, are 47 times more likely to be shot if you keep a gun in the house.
While I'm sure these kinds of things have happened some where, some time, the place they happen most is in Hollywood "dramas" and the closed minds of the anti gunners.
Catfishman
New member
This is a silly statement. A gun is specificly designed to kill. I don't understand the point. By the way, it is really hard to kill with a pen and really easy to kill with a gun.
If you are carrying a gun it is other people's business. If I own a restaurant and someone walks in with a .45 on their side I'll ask them if they are LE. If they aren't I'll tell them to leave. CC may be a right but business owners have property rights. Why would I take this stance? I have a business to run and I don't want you scaring my customers or my employees.
If people push the carry-thing to far there will be a backlash.
If someone's personality changes when they carry a gun they should leave it at home.
Lost Sheep
New member
Carry is Civil, Snide responses to hones questions are not.
I apologize, I must have been unclear. You misunderstood my post. The uncivil part is not the carrying, but the replies "Because I can" and "It's my right" could be construed as uncivil.
Note: Anticipating your next question, I care about how I am perceived because I am interested in maintaining a dialogue between my anti-gun friends and acquaintances any me. Annoying the opposition may be fun, but ultimately unproductive.
Lost Sheep
Pete,peetzakilla said:
I apologize, I must have been unclear. You misunderstood my post. The uncivil part is not the carrying, but the replies "Because I can" and "It's my right" could be construed as uncivil.
Note: Anticipating your next question, I care about how I am perceived because I am interested in maintaining a dialogue between my anti-gun friends and acquaintances any me. Annoying the opposition may be fun, but ultimately unproductive.
Lost Sheep
Lost Sheep
New member
Stepping in for OL'MONN (hoping that's OK with him)
Since OL'MONN has not answered and I am here, I think I will presume to answer for him. I hope it's OK.
I believe that is how the quote is supposed to go. The scenario that makes it understandable is this:
Gunman comes in and shoots someone. OL'MONN responds to contain the situation (either with a gunshot or by forcing the perpetrator to stop at gunpoint). It is unlikely any armed civilian would be the one to pull a gun first.
for example, Luby's Cafe, October 16, 1991. George Hennard drove a car through the front of Luby's and started shooting people. If Suzanne Gratia had been armed, she would have been able to shoot Mr Hennard from cover before his tally ran up to 23 dead (her testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1994).
Another case in point. Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007. Even if everyone on campus had been armed, the first victim, or possibly two, would probably have been killed. By the time Seung-Hui Cho got to the Engineering building (Norris Hall), and certainly after he killed the first person there, (when everyone was climbing out windows and barring doors) if that one teacher who blocked a classroom door with his own body had been armed, Cho could have certainly been stopped rather than gone on to kill two dozen additional people (total 32 plus himself). I am being pessimistic in estimating that he might have been able to kill 6 in Norris hall before being stopped by an armed civilian.
The armed civilian, if not the first one shot is in the best position to be the second one to fire a bullet. That one in self-defense, aimed, from cover and bring an end to whatever evil is being done.
Lost sheep
FyredUp,; FyredUp said:
Since OL'MONN has not answered and I am here, I think I will presume to answer for him. I hope it's OK.
I believe that is how the quote is supposed to go. The scenario that makes it understandable is this:
Gunman comes in and shoots someone. OL'MONN responds to contain the situation (either with a gunshot or by forcing the perpetrator to stop at gunpoint). It is unlikely any armed civilian would be the one to pull a gun first.
for example, Luby's Cafe, October 16, 1991. George Hennard drove a car through the front of Luby's and started shooting people. If Suzanne Gratia had been armed, she would have been able to shoot Mr Hennard from cover before his tally ran up to 23 dead (her testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1994).
Another case in point. Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007. Even if everyone on campus had been armed, the first victim, or possibly two, would probably have been killed. By the time Seung-Hui Cho got to the Engineering building (Norris Hall), and certainly after he killed the first person there, (when everyone was climbing out windows and barring doors) if that one teacher who blocked a classroom door with his own body had been armed, Cho could have certainly been stopped rather than gone on to kill two dozen additional people (total 32 plus himself). I am being pessimistic in estimating that he might have been able to kill 6 in Norris hall before being stopped by an armed civilian.
The armed civilian, if not the first one shot is in the best position to be the second one to fire a bullet. That one in self-defense, aimed, from cover and bring an end to whatever evil is being done.
Lost sheep
Last edited:
Years ago, I worked directly next to a business where the manager thought it was ok to print, brandish and occasionally late in the day, open carry.
His store was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight.
The first person to loose his weapon...... You guessed it, the manager. No shots were fired, the robber just walked up to him, calmly placed a gun to the managers head and took his weapon.
To add insult to injury, the Police pulled his TARGET permit. He did not even have a business carry.
To review, he lost his dignity, his gun, his permit and succeeded in putting another gun on the streets for the bad guys. It could have been worse, he could have lost his life.
OC= Inviting trouble. Just keep it concealed.
Simply say,
"I'm recognize you are uncomfortable."
"I assure you I am a legal carrier of this handgun and it will only be used to save someones life from a criminals attack."
"Have a nice day."
It helps if you are carrying a dark blued snubbie as opposed as a brilliant stainless full sized six inch barrel 44 magnum as well.
I have carried a snub 38 open carry Ultralight and people never see it 3/4 of the time.
I would think a small semi auto in black stainless or blue matte finish would get the same reaction.
Heck,a Ruger LCP or a KelTec P3at in a small side belt holster would likely be missed as a pager with the right holster being used.
But legally so,enough of the gun has to show to be legal.
"I'm recognize you are uncomfortable."
"I assure you I am a legal carrier of this handgun and it will only be used to save someones life from a criminals attack."
"Have a nice day."
It helps if you are carrying a dark blued snubbie as opposed as a brilliant stainless full sized six inch barrel 44 magnum as well.
I have carried a snub 38 open carry Ultralight and people never see it 3/4 of the time.
I would think a small semi auto in black stainless or blue matte finish would get the same reaction.
Heck,a Ruger LCP or a KelTec P3at in a small side belt holster would likely be missed as a pager with the right holster being used.
But legally so,enough of the gun has to show to be legal.
Last edited:
#18indycolts
Moderator
and I'll give you 100 conservative anti gunners to go along with that.
I live in a state (Georgia) where a carry permit permits both open and concealed carry. I have a permit and I wouldn't dream of carrying openly. It's simply a way to attract attention to yourself and, in a commercial establishment, to raise suspicions as to what you're up to. I would imagine that walking into a convenience store at night with a gun strapped to your hip is likely to make the clerk nervous at a minimum and might cause a really dangerous unintended reaction.
As for the reaction of an anti-gun friend or relative, my thought is that the best way to make a convert is to take that person shooting. Until a few years ago I didn't own a gun and wouldn't dream of owning one. I wasn't exactly passionate about gun owners' rights (although it was never an issue that I gave a lot of thought or emotion to). Then, one day, a friend took me shooting and that first trip to the range was all it took for me to change my mind completely. Within a few months I'd made a convert out of my wife and shooting is now our shared hobby.
As for the reaction of an anti-gun friend or relative, my thought is that the best way to make a convert is to take that person shooting. Until a few years ago I didn't own a gun and wouldn't dream of owning one. I wasn't exactly passionate about gun owners' rights (although it was never an issue that I gave a lot of thought or emotion to). Then, one day, a friend took me shooting and that first trip to the range was all it took for me to change my mind completely. Within a few months I'd made a convert out of my wife and shooting is now our shared hobby.
I can totally understand this sentiment. People have families to feed and bills to pay. It can be a scary thing to have to risk your income to protect and further the free exercise of a right. Too many people are not willing to take that risk, which is too bad, because that is exactly what is necessary to win access to and preserve any right. When we cater to the fears of the fearful, those fears become the default position; and rights and desires will be forever confused.
I have my doubts. While it's fair to say that the Second Amendment has proponents and opponents in both camps, there are strong indications that the split is not particularly even in amongst true conservatives. One of the strong markers of conservative thought in the US is an emphasis on individualism. The Second Amendment is the flagstaff on which they fly that banner. That's not to say you couldn't find some otherwise conservative people who somehow missed the gun memo - Charles Krauthammer comes to mind - but not at the same ratio. The term "conservative" is simply more narrowly defined today than is "liberal."
Now, if you go simply looking for anti-gun Republicans, that would be a quickly-filled order.
Drifting back to the OP's question....
This is exactly the type of situation that everyone considering open carry needs to think through before you begin that journey. When you put that gun on, whether you like it or not, you become an ambassador for the gun community. If you show genuine conviction and are pleasant, patient and understanding with the curious, you will be doing us great justice. If you are gruff or dismissive, or worse, if you make a pretense of being some kind of operator or commando, you will be doing us great harm. Be thoughtful in your response, as you are answering for all of us.
#18indycolts
Moderator
+1, I agree, and will give you that.
I gave up trying to explain things to close minded people a long time ago. In all matters of opinion, debate is futile. If I were to be asked now "Why are you carrying a gun?" I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and reply "Why not?" and walk off, failing to stick around for the retort.
Lost Sheep
New member
Warchild,;Warchild said:
Not all who ask the question do so from a closed mind.
When you fire off a retort, do so with the same care you fire off a bullet.
Your audience is not only your questioner, but all within earshot, and all that those people will tell the story to. The proverbial ripples in a pond.
Lost Sheep
When I read these type of threads on the internet it just reinforces my decision to continue to live in rural Arizona, where it's common to see people carrying openly in the grocery store, resteraunts, the library, just about every place. Locals don't think anything of it, you sometimes run into tourists that are a little suprised but that's it.
You have the occasional California transplant who will be a bit disturbed but overall it goes unnoticed.
The responses seem to follow geographic lines.
We certainly haven't seen "always predicted" (on the net
) deaths of citizens who carry open by the criminal element seeking them out to die "first".
I think I'm several times more likely to die via lightening strike than I am by an armed robber singling me out because I have a firearm on. So to me, it's no issue. Maybe if I was frequenting convinient stores in Oakland or Martinez at 4 am, but then I can't carry openly in those locals anyway.
Open carry by well behaved normal folks presents a positive to the public, not a negative.
All my opinion, so take it or leave it.
JTMcC.
You have the occasional California transplant who will be a bit disturbed but overall it goes unnoticed.
The responses seem to follow geographic lines.
We certainly haven't seen "always predicted" (on the net
) deaths of citizens who carry open by the criminal element seeking them out to die "first". I think I'm several times more likely to die via lightening strike than I am by an armed robber singling me out because I have a firearm on. So to me, it's no issue. Maybe if I was frequenting convinient stores in Oakland or Martinez at 4 am, but then I can't carry openly in those locals anyway.
Open carry by well behaved normal folks presents a positive to the public, not a negative.
All my opinion, so take it or leave it.
JTMcC.
TridentOne
New member
I explain gun ownership and carrying to be similar to locking your doors at night or wearing a seat belt. Neither locking your doors nor a seat belt is a guarantee against death anymore than a gun would be, but if you are at an ATM with your kid in the car 8ft away, wouldn't you want some reasonable protection against being carjacked, kidnapped, raped or murdered? Is it likely? Of course not. Is a gun reasonable protection? Just as reasonable as wearing a seat belt in the unlikely event you are in a car wreck. That's how I try and verbalize the "reasoning" to someone frightened by a paperweight.
I wouldn't recommend everyone who can operate a seat belt own or carry a gun and the "menace" associated with guns is a little childish in the 21st century.
I wouldn't recommend everyone who can operate a seat belt own or carry a gun and the "menace" associated with guns is a little childish in the 21st century.
