For The Open Carry Crowd

[zukiphile]

I have long thought this. Honestly, I've seen a video of a cop interacting with a kooky "I can carry this FAL slung up front with a three point sling while I walk by a busy street to stir crap if I want." The cop was very knowledgeable, professional, and courteous. At the end of the day, the guy looked like a clown and didn't even realize it (he was the one that filmed and uploaded the video).

Indeed. Those videos seem much less common than a few years ago. The best ones show POs who are diplomatic but do respond with some sort of inquiry. It's a job they can do without any violation of rights.

It's largely a matter of luck that none of the "open carry" advocates were shot.

Well trained POs correctly identified the threat and didn't wrongly identify people as a threat merely because they were armed. I would call that good order, not luck.

And those who carry openly "just 'cause I can & it's my right" do more harm than good to responsible gun owners.
There's already talk among Tejas government of new legislation to restrict certain aspects of open carry.

So the harm of OC is that people talk about restricting it? What's the actual harm? You would avoid that harm how? People are going to talk about restrictions independent of these events.

In the current environment, thinking that "If more of us do it more often, it'll get the public more used to it & we'll get more support" is a major mis-reading of life today.
It ain't gonna happen that way.

It already has happened that way.

You sidestepped the honor guard example as "not the same thing at all", but identified no pertinent difference.

Seeing armed POs and honor guard are an ordinary part of life. Few people are alarmed by it. As more people carry, it becomes more routine and fewer people are genuinely alarmed by it. That's how people work. Remember when Segway's first appeared? People gawked.

As the events that inspired this protest indicate, one need not even have a firearm to be shot by a nervous or alarmed PO. I would associate the risk of actually being shot with provocative behavior more than the mere appearance of a weapon. As in all matters, courtesy and foresight have a lot of value.

 

[DPris]

It's almost entirely context. AKA- time & place, as mentioned repeatedly.
Honor guard rifles & salutes have been an accepted part of our culture for over a century, and evolved from entirely different times when guns were much more a part of everyday life & much less likely to be used to kill indiscriminately by extremists of whatever ideology.

They occur at a time & place where there's a REASON for them to be there.
People know it, people accept it, and in many cases people expect it.

A huge amount of difference between ten guys in uniform firing a salute at a funeral or other ceremonial function, and one lone guy traipsing through the mall with an AR slung over his shoulder looking to buy a new shirt.

In a static environment, absent daily shooting reports & the media whipping up the public into a fear-based society where the belief that guns are becoming an increasing danger is growing proportionately, the theory that "more gun sightings will generate more gun acceptance", might have a chance.

Meanwhile, in the real world, with such an agenda-driven bias among the media and the proliferation of headlining attacks by both foreign and domestic perpetrators, the sight of a gun IN AN INAPPROPRIATE CONTEXT (as determined by the majority, not the minority) both increases the fear of guns, and creates a resentment of the "in my face" antics of those who push the envelope by flaunting said guns in places where non-gun-people congregate & do not want to see them.

Constantly bombarded by reports of coast-to-coast shootings in regular everyday settings, not some biker bar or "seedy side of town" where "decent" people never go, people are NOT learning to accept the sight of guns openly displayed. Among those already fearful, their fears of guns are being reinforced, not allayed.

And quite seriously, many fence-sitters are being tilted off the fence, and in the wrong direction.

Those who insist on exercising their right to tote an AR on the bus, on downtown sidewalks, through WalMart, and during lunch at the Olive Garden, do us no good whatever.

Handguns openly carried in the same places are somewhat less ostentatious, but still create their own risks & liabilities, as well as their own negative perceptions among the other people occupying the same locations on their own daily business.

I have no problem whatever with open carry, in an appropriate context.
I do it every time I make an ATV excursion out on the desert or up in the hills.
It's quite common to see openly carried guns in the back country in my state.
It causes no real alarm, it's an accepted part of my corner of the world.

It did not come about because a few intrepid souls looking to make a statement about their rights gained public acceptance by openly displaying their guns.

The practice dates back to the original settlers of my state in 1847 & has continued ever since.
In modern terminology- it grew organically, it was not forced.
There are reasons to carry in the wilds here (as in most wilderness areas of the country) which include defense from threats on two legs AND four.

Open carry simply allows quicker access, and far from the Cineplex on a Saturday afternoon, it's neither out of place nor immediate cause for alarm.

I do not, however, sling one of my ARs or one of my AKs on my shoulder when I'm in town, where there's no good reason to do so.
I have zero interest in "making a statement" or "exercising my open-carry rights" for no other reason than to make a statement or exercise a right where it's not needed, draws undue attention to me personally, and bolsters an opinion that gun owners are irrational & guns should be banned in general.

This is far from being a case of "I don't do it, so you shouldn't either".
It's a case of thinking it through, balancing the benefits (none) vs the liabilities (already detailed), and deciding it just doesn't add up.

And no- the harm of open carry is not that people that will talk about restricting it.
If that's what you got out of my statement, there's no point in further discussion with you.
Denis

 

[zukiphile]

And no- the harm of open carry is not that people that will talk about restricting it.
If that's what you got out of my statement, there's no point in further discussion with you.
Denis

This is the very harm you cite.

Honor guard rifles & salutes have been an accepted part of our culture for over a century, and evolved from entirely different times when guns were much more a part of everyday life & much less likely to be used to kill indiscriminately by extremists of whatever ideology.

They occur at a time & place where there's a REASON for them to be there.
People know it, people accept it, and in many cases people expect it.

A huge amount of difference between ten guys in uniform firing a salute at a funeral or other ceremonial function, and one lone guy traipsing through the mall with an AR slung over his shoulder looking to buy a new shirt.

The problem with mere propriety as a standard is that it isn't a standard for the limitation of a right. Your sense of propriety may accept the honor guard and reject the shopper, but this reflects your preferences and sights to which you are habituated. Some people are habituated to the sight of ARs at the beach, so their sense of propriety will differ.

When I was a young boy, men didn't walk around with their rear ends hanging out of their trousers and giant radios sitting on their shoulders. Then, they did and people became used to the activity.

One can't become habituated to the sight of arms carried as a right unless people do it. At least where I live, people are less alarmed by carry than they were a couple of decades ago.

 

[K_Mac]

Zukiphile I am afraid that long before folks get acclimated to people carrying long-guns to protest marches and Toys R Us, public opinion will drive legislatures and courts to make open carry illegal. Once that we start down that slippery slope, how far will we go?

 

[zukiphile]

Zukiphile I am afraid that long before folks get acclimated to people carrying long-guns to protest marches and Toys R Us, public opinion will drive legislatures and courts to make open carry illegal. Once that we start down that slippery slope, how far will we go?

That slope as at least another side though. If people don't remain acclimated to people carrying long guns, the part of public opinion that is always looking for something to limit will limit the practice that seems unusual and odd.

In Ohio, carrying a long gun was effectively illegal, not because there was a law against it, but because police departments would arrest the carrier for inciting panic whether it caused panic or not.

Some people don't like ostentatious display of any kind. I am that way as well, so at a visceral level, I get it. A problem arises when we turn our antipathies into limits on civil liberties, or only defend the liberties expressed in ways we prefer.

This thread is about an example of ostentatious open carry of long guns by unthreatening protestors and well trained POs reacting properly. It isn't a good example of inevitable tragedy or harm flowing from OC.

 

[K_Mac]

This thread is about ostentatious open carry of long guns by unthreatening protestors and well trained POs reacting properly. It isn't a good example of inevitable tragedy or harm flowing from OC.

With all due respect, that is exactly what this thread is about. The quote below is from DPris's original post. I hope you are right but every conversation I have with folks who are not "gun" people tells me you are not.

The primary point is that when you carry openly, particularly your pet AR, you create certain potential risks for yourself.
When you do so in inappropriate times & places, more so.

And those who carry openly "just 'cause I can & it's my right" do more harm than good to responsible gun owners.
There's already talk among Tejas government of new legislation to restrict certain aspects of open carry.

The un-thinking few, as with the Starbucks AR-15 Club a couple years back, screw it up for the rest of us.

 

[Homerboy]

I live in PA, an Open Carry state. I see it maybe 4-5 times a year, and every one of them have that "look at me, I have a gun" look. One guy I saw at a gas station even had a license plate that read "OPN CRRY".

It is MY opinion that these OC fanatics are the gun grabbers best friend. Pelosi and Feinstein should employ these clowns. Texas has OC. What possible good could come from displaying weapons at a protest like this? These people claim they are doing it to "educate". They're doing it to "intimidate". So they can post their videos on YouTube and get high fives from their like minded friends. Mothers taking off a jacket to display her weapon at a kids soccer game. Fathers with AR's over their shoulders as they drive their daughters to airports. What is wrong with these people?

Personally, I wouldn't mourn any of those clowns if the cops did shoot them, thinking they were the bad guy. Seems like Darwin Award winners to me. The cops had enough of a hard time dealing with the crowd. Now they had to deal with these imbeciles.

Mark Hughes went to that protest to cause a scene and to make some political statement. When shots rang out, he ran towards those he had just been protesting. Typical. Those who hate the police are the first to call them.

Those who keep pushing this are going to get the exact opposite of we we all want. As has already been stated in this thread, we are a nation of laws. Those in more restrictive states live under those laws everyday. The day before Newtown, AR's and pre-ban mags were legal. A week after, no new AR's sold, mags over 10 rounds illegal. Think it can't happen in other states? We're members of a gun forum, and most here don't support these clowns! How hard will it be to convince the state legislature to write a new law?

On another gun forum I belong to, there was a guy who got stopped riding his motorcycle with an AK slung across his back and Molle gear filled with magazines. Just another OC fanatic looking for approval from his simple minded friends. And sad to say, too many people supported him.

Never forget this, had James Holmes committed his massacre in an OC state, a cop would have no legal right to stop him as he walked across that parking lot towards the movie theater.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Open carry makes you a target, it's not possible to keep a fully displayed weapon secured each and every moment.

Take it to a demonstration that turns violent, you may be shot by the police, or serve as a gun bearer for someone else in the crowd.

More than one person has had their OC piece stolen. Congratulations, you just armed a street criminal.

Far too many negatives, and no positives, for me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Open carry makes you a target, it's not possible to keep a fully displayed weapon secured each and every moment.

Take it to a demonstration that turns violent, you may be shot by the police, or serve as a gun bearer for someone else in the crowd.

More than one person has had their OC piece stolen. Congratulations, you just armed a street criminal.

It is not possible to keep your concealed carry or locked up guns secured at every moment (countless examples of guns stolen from CCW folks, from secured vehicles, and from secured homes)

Being someplace where things turn violent and the police respond, you may get shot by the police (Empire State Building incident, numerous blue on blue shootings, possibly Orlando, "Cops" tv show crewman)

More than one CC person has had their piece stolen. Congrats to them as well?

Given that there are virtually the same examples on both sides of the issue, it is not a very good set of arguments to make.

 

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Homerboy:

It is MY opinion that these OC fanatics are the gun grabbers best friend.

....and it is in my opinion the gun grabbers best friends are those fellow gun owners that only support those firearms/techniques that they us/own. Kinda the Fudd philosophy. Divided we fall. ... While I have no need or see a real need for the majority of civilians to own high capacity firearms, I still support the right of others to, as long as they do it legally and responsibly. Just because a few idiots use high capacity firearms for mass murders does not make me insist no one to have them and accuse all folks that do as "clowns". Still you see a few idiots OCing irresponsibly and you want all of us to stop?

Originally posted by Homerboy:

Personally, I wouldn't mourn any of those clowns if the cops did shoot them

So now it would make you happy to see fellow gun owners shot for no reason other than practicing their 2nd Amendment rights? And you claim OCers are the bad guy and promoting a negative image. ...

Again, for every idiot that OCs odds are there is a dozen or more idiots carrying concealed. There are incidents everyday where CWCers do stupid things and injure/kill innocent people. There isd anotherr thread on this forum where a parent allowed access to his firearms to his 6 year old and the 6 year old killed his younger sibling. Maybe we should outlaw the ownership of firearms to all parents, eh?

Again, it comes down to being responsible and reasonable within the confines of the law and what's practical. ...

 

[K_Mac]

Again, it comes down to being responsible and reasonable within the confines of the law and what's practical.

Therein lies the problem. Even here, where we are all in general agreement, defining what is reasonable, responsible, and practical is difficult. I do agree that we need to be careful not to vilify entire groups of gun owners based on the actions of a few "idiots".

 

[Homerboy]

None of these OC idiots are reasonable or practical. And the "FUDD" label is getting old. I own AR's, high capacity pistols, you name it.

And while I wouldn't be "happy" if Mark Hughes was shot by police mistaking him for THE SHOOTER, I wouldn't mourn him for one second. It would have been HIS antics that got him killed, not he cops.

The problem is that people can't see the difference between people like Hughes, and other gun owners. I consider people like Hughes my absolute enemy. It will be their antics that will pass more gun laws than we already have. Think semi auto rifles can't be outright banned? Think again.

 

[Andy Blozinski]

Lots of things are legal and we have rights for and can be really stupid to do in some situations.
This has zero to do with rights and crap. It has to do with not making us look like idiots.
This quote below can NOT be used as an excuse.
"I would also point out that NO ONE expected the situation to be what it became."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Anybody who has the time to make such stupid political statements like these, to walk through a town with an AR and a video camera, and then to post those ridiculous videos online, are losers in my book. You should have better things to do.

Like posting protest rants on the internet! Shouldn't you have better things to do?

Those with rifles at that protest weren't there to exercise their free speech, or their right to bear arms.

So to bear arms or use free speech at a protest, it must before for the purposes of bearing arms or using free speech? I don't think you understand how rights work.

None of these OC idiots are reasonable or practical.

You don't like it, so it is wrong? It may not be reasonable or practical for you, but that does not mean it isn't for other people.

However, sounds like you need to work to change the law. It would be an anti-gun effort on your part, but that would be the reasonable and practical thing to do so that people would have to be reasonable and practical from your perspective.

 

[Homerboy]

Typing a 40 second post hardly equals standing on a street corner with an AR for a few hours.

I don't need to change the law. These idiots will do it for us. Then we'll all look back and say "what happened?"

And I know how rights work. These clowns don't get charged because they are not breaking the law. I have a right to wear a Nazi outfit while goose stepping down Main Street, or dressing like a Klansman and standing outside a black church. If I was vile enough to do that, than hopefully I would get my ass kicked. And I doubt many here would have a problem with that.

it is the height of selfishness that there are those who don't care about the feelings of others while they excercise their right, ESPECIALLY when the ONlY reason they are doing it is because they "can".

 

[44 AMP]

Isn't it ironic that the same person in the same Starbucks, with the same gun, isn't an "idiot" if they are wearing a blue cops suit, a black swat ninja outfit or a military uniform??

When THOSE people do it, the response isn't "OMG! its a deranged psycho here to kill us all!" The response is "here's your coffee, thank you for shopping at Starbucks!"

Our right to bear arms as a political statement is, and must be, as legally protected as any of the other recognized, but distasteful expressions of free speech such as flag burning or Nazis being allowed to march.

However, lets be honest and admit to the elephant in the room about the people who are doing this. Generally, they seem to be.. not movie star attractive....

And that's a big part of the issue from a perception point of view. Its NOT the constitutional rights message that people see, its "ugly nut cases" that they see. Ugly nut jobs with GUNS!!

WE, as a people have been conditioned to respond to physical appearance more than the actual ideals people promote.

I'm a bit old, have a long white beard, thinning hair, weak scraggly ponytail, the remnant of when I had hair, and am within shouting distance of 300lbs.

If I saw me, walking around the shops/mall whatever in an XXXXL t-shirt, cammo shorts, socks and sandals, with a slung AR, I Would be scared!!!


The sad fact is, if people think you look like a nutter, nothing you say will be taken seriously, and if you aren't an eloquent speaker, it just re-enforces that opinion. ALSO, sadly, IF you ARE movie star attractive, people will listen to whatever drivel you spout, many seriously.

 

[Homerboy]

It's not ironic. Cops and soldiers are trained and armed for a purpose, to go on the offensive. Civilians are not. And generally, the only time they are armored up is when trouble might be coming. The soldiers at Fort Hood weren't even armed. I don't want some guy walking down the street looking like Rambo.

Cops and soldiers are readily recognizable, at least have a minimal level of training (I won't even shoot at my range with others anymore. Too many dangerous people there who have no clue), and are covered by their agency regarding injuries others may suffer at their hands. To think that some guy can buy a $700 AR, some Molle gear off eBay, and then "join the fray" is ludicrous.

 

[K_Mac]

Freedom is often a double edged sword. I completely agree that carrying a rifle in public generally is a bad idea and not in our best interests. However a black man legally open carrying a rifle to a peaceful march protesting police treatment of black men does make a political statement. Whether I agree with the point or not is not irrelevant.

 

[Homerboy]

Thst match was hardly "peaceful". Just a bitch session at the police. BLM walks down the street yelling "what do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!"

Hardly something MLK would have been a part of.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, the RNC is going to feature the New Black Panther Party, some leftist anarchist group that was involved in violence with a California white supremacist group, and of course the same California white supremacist group. All have stated their intention to make use of Ohio's open carry law. And thanks to the federal judge's ruling, the "free speech" zones for the RNC, even though larger than past examples which met scrutiny, were struck down. So the protestors will be able to intermingle freely.

In the next four days, we are going to have either some major news event that hurts open carry a lot or really solid evidence that open carry is not an issue.