I was open carrying at Wal-Mart, and....
- Thread starter mellow_c
- Start date
- Status
Uncle Billy
New member
.
Such training as you cite only makes someone efficient with a gun, it doesn't guarantee that they aren't a risk to those nearby, which those nearby don't like having to face against their wishes. What if the gun-toter IS a veteran of Blackwater, and got his emotions and psyche all in a scramble because of his combat experiences? Eschewing "what-ifs", the salient point is that you don't know anything about him or her except that they have the means to kill you within easy access. That sets me on alert and scares the crap out of a lot of citizens who have had nothing so directly to do with guns in the past. Anyone who lets that pass without notice or attention is too oblivious- their situational awareness is compromised if a gun nearby doesn't draw their alerted attention and focus. I can do that and plan contingencies, which I think to be prudent but not everyone does that without the emotion of fear, and they don't like to be afraid. My only emotion is disappointment that one of us is making us all look like people to be feared to those who don't know any better, which is a lot of people. It's those people, who have no strong feelings pro or con, who get radicalized when the guy next to them has a heavy piece of death-dealing hardware readily at hand and what his intentions are, are a complete mystery. Trust is hard to find in that situation, so they'd rather avoid that situation and will put some weight behind eliminating it. We don't need to contribute to the antis support like that.
Try to tell someone who is afraid of guns, who has never heard the Brady Bunch, that the person next to them carrying a large handgun is guaranteed not to be a threat to them. Convince them that he or she will certainly shoot only for credible reasons, would never make a mistake or have an accident, and will surely shoot straight enough to miss them. In other words, try to get them to believe the absolute opposite of what the anti- organizations say: they say there's an imminent threat with OC, we say there's never a threat when someone has a gun. Our case presented that way is just as much bovine excrement as the Brady's case against us is.
The antis have understood the latent fears of non-gunners and have played to them, and it works. Someone with no reason to feel any particular way about guns but would say they were afraid of them when pushed to state what they think, will find a way to think about them when they are presented with one in the possession of someone they have absolutely no reason to trust to be competent, balanced mentally, and sane, and they probably won't wave the flag in celebration of the Second Amendment. We don't need that either. CC makes the whole thing a non-issue, as I wrote before.
That's how a lot of people otherwise neutral see it. Not me, I'm not neutral about gun rights. But that's the view expressed by some of those who have expressed negatives about OC.
I'm not against anybody's rights, only against inappropriate, damaging use of them. Making people uncomfortable and nudging them toward being against us when there's alternative ways to go about the same intent to protect (i.e. CC) seems unnecessary and unwise to me. OC for any other reason is "showboating" and as such is reprehensible to me because that REALLY puts us up as cowboys. But I won't win any arguments on this- those who are into OC for whatever reason have the law behind them and that's all that matters to them. There's a lot more public relations and politics involved than just that but they don't care or don't get it. I wouldn't have anything to say about OC to someone I meet who has a gun on. I might get into a discussion about guns in other contexts because I'm interested in guns as they are, but I'm not about to start a dispute with them- they have a gun, after all, and might shoot me.
TMUSCLE!: said:
Such training as you cite only makes someone efficient with a gun, it doesn't guarantee that they aren't a risk to those nearby, which those nearby don't like having to face against their wishes. What if the gun-toter IS a veteran of Blackwater, and got his emotions and psyche all in a scramble because of his combat experiences? Eschewing "what-ifs", the salient point is that you don't know anything about him or her except that they have the means to kill you within easy access. That sets me on alert and scares the crap out of a lot of citizens who have had nothing so directly to do with guns in the past. Anyone who lets that pass without notice or attention is too oblivious- their situational awareness is compromised if a gun nearby doesn't draw their alerted attention and focus. I can do that and plan contingencies, which I think to be prudent but not everyone does that without the emotion of fear, and they don't like to be afraid. My only emotion is disappointment that one of us is making us all look like people to be feared to those who don't know any better, which is a lot of people. It's those people, who have no strong feelings pro or con, who get radicalized when the guy next to them has a heavy piece of death-dealing hardware readily at hand and what his intentions are, are a complete mystery. Trust is hard to find in that situation, so they'd rather avoid that situation and will put some weight behind eliminating it. We don't need to contribute to the antis support like that.
NavyLT: said:
Try to tell someone who is afraid of guns, who has never heard the Brady Bunch, that the person next to them carrying a large handgun is guaranteed not to be a threat to them. Convince them that he or she will certainly shoot only for credible reasons, would never make a mistake or have an accident, and will surely shoot straight enough to miss them. In other words, try to get them to believe the absolute opposite of what the anti- organizations say: they say there's an imminent threat with OC, we say there's never a threat when someone has a gun. Our case presented that way is just as much bovine excrement as the Brady's case against us is.
The antis have understood the latent fears of non-gunners and have played to them, and it works. Someone with no reason to feel any particular way about guns but would say they were afraid of them when pushed to state what they think, will find a way to think about them when they are presented with one in the possession of someone they have absolutely no reason to trust to be competent, balanced mentally, and sane, and they probably won't wave the flag in celebration of the Second Amendment. We don't need that either. CC makes the whole thing a non-issue, as I wrote before.
That's how a lot of people otherwise neutral see it. Not me, I'm not neutral about gun rights. But that's the view expressed by some of those who have expressed negatives about OC.
I'm not against anybody's rights, only against inappropriate, damaging use of them. Making people uncomfortable and nudging them toward being against us when there's alternative ways to go about the same intent to protect (i.e. CC) seems unnecessary and unwise to me. OC for any other reason is "showboating" and as such is reprehensible to me because that REALLY puts us up as cowboys. But I won't win any arguments on this- those who are into OC for whatever reason have the law behind them and that's all that matters to them. There's a lot more public relations and politics involved than just that but they don't care or don't get it. I wouldn't have anything to say about OC to someone I meet who has a gun on. I might get into a discussion about guns in other contexts because I'm interested in guns as they are, but I'm not about to start a dispute with them- they have a gun, after all, and might shoot me.
Here's my point....
If everybody only carried concealed, then 99% of what the general public saw regarding handguns would be the negative images projected by the media when a crime is committed and the false propaganda spewed by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center among others, not to mention the anti-gun education that our children receive in public schools. Out of sight, out of mind, right? By concealed carry only 1/2 of the gun image is out of sight and that is the positive half. The negative gun image is still going to be hammered into the public's minds starting in kindergarten.
Besides the tactical advantages of open carry... what open carry does is present the positive image of guns to the general public. It is a visible response that can dispell all the negative junk that is crammed down the public's throat. If a person calls 911 about a MWAG, and 911 responds with, "When something illegal happens call us back", or when the cops actually show up and look and walk away..."nothing wrong here" then the image that there is nothing wrong with a person carrying a gun gets presented to the public. Whether they accept it or not, an alternative idea that is positive to the image of a gun is presented to them that would not have come to light had the gun been concealed.
And maybe even just the image of the gun being carried by a normal person doing normal things will simply confuse the heck out of the person who has had it drilled into their head since kindergarten that only bad people and cops have guns. But they are never going to get that image presented to them that normal people carry guns for good reasons if they can't see it.
Finally, don't get me wrong. It is impossible to safely open carry in some areas. That is just a true fact of life. I fully admit that. There are some areas where it would scare the heck out of me to open carry and I would conceal carry in those areas, only if I absolutely had to be there anyway, I certainly would not go to those areas if I didn't have to.
If everybody only carried concealed, then 99% of what the general public saw regarding handguns would be the negative images projected by the media when a crime is committed and the false propaganda spewed by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center among others, not to mention the anti-gun education that our children receive in public schools. Out of sight, out of mind, right? By concealed carry only 1/2 of the gun image is out of sight and that is the positive half. The negative gun image is still going to be hammered into the public's minds starting in kindergarten.
Besides the tactical advantages of open carry... what open carry does is present the positive image of guns to the general public. It is a visible response that can dispell all the negative junk that is crammed down the public's throat. If a person calls 911 about a MWAG, and 911 responds with, "When something illegal happens call us back", or when the cops actually show up and look and walk away..."nothing wrong here" then the image that there is nothing wrong with a person carrying a gun gets presented to the public. Whether they accept it or not, an alternative idea that is positive to the image of a gun is presented to them that would not have come to light had the gun been concealed.
And maybe even just the image of the gun being carried by a normal person doing normal things will simply confuse the heck out of the person who has had it drilled into their head since kindergarten that only bad people and cops have guns. But they are never going to get that image presented to them that normal people carry guns for good reasons if they can't see it.
Finally, don't get me wrong. It is impossible to safely open carry in some areas. That is just a true fact of life. I fully admit that. There are some areas where it would scare the heck out of me to open carry and I would conceal carry in those areas, only if I absolutely had to be there anyway, I certainly would not go to those areas if I didn't have to.
OldMarksman
Staff
No, that's not the point. Not at all.
Anyone may have the means to commit a crime. However, if someone "clearly has the means to use a gun" in a lawful manner, that should bother no one.
If someone shows up without an "OC handgun", one does not know whether he has the means to do anything--but he may indeed have he means.
Quesion is, which one is more likely to have the intent? The guy who carries his gun openly, for whatever reason, whether or not I approve, or the guy who keeps his gun or knife hidden?
I'm afraid I seriously doubt that. If someone is conditioned to fear guns, seeing them will only make it worse.
Yes, their minds may be changed. They may see or hear of an armed citizen preventing a tragedy. They may have a close call themselves, and come to realize the advantage of being responsibly armed. But I fail to see how seeing people walking around carrying guns will assuage the negative feelings of anti-gunners.
oneounceload
Moderator
Nah, I agree, ego and just plain lunacy in wally world.
Folks have been conditioned against guns since LBJ's Great Society took over the education systems and against the need for a "Wild West" scenario. They see it as dangerous, uncalled for, and irrational. Forcing the square peg into the round hole solves nothing but only exacerbates the situation
Folks have been conditioned against guns since LBJ's Great Society took over the education systems and against the need for a "Wild West" scenario. They see it as dangerous, uncalled for, and irrational. Forcing the square peg into the round hole solves nothing but only exacerbates the situation
Far too sweeping a statement to have a chance of being accurate.
SOMETIMES it presents a positive image of guns to the general public.
SOMETIMES it presents a negative image of guns to the general public.
And a lot of the time it simply goes unnoticed.
Since we're discussing a specific incident here, how would you qualify the OP's experience? It certainly didn't go unnoticed and it's hard to see how an openly armed person getting thrown out of Wal-Mart would be considered as presenting a positive image of guns.
The statement made about "jamming your rights in someone's face" is clearly figurative and shouldn't be refuted by pretending it was literal.
OC is clearly and irrefutably perceived by many to be an "in your face" sort of action. Reading some of the opinions on this very thread will provide sufficient evidence of that fact for those who doubt it.
I don't think that this kind of rhetoric serves any useful purpose.
If we are to be objective about this, then we should mention that prior to the Starbucks victory the same movement and specific activity (California OC'ers gathering at coffee shops) resulted in at least one business adopting an anti-OC policy.
Again, sometimes the results are positive, sometimes they are negative. In the OP's case, the results were pretty decidedly negative although there's some potential for a positive outcome depending on how Wal-Mart corporate reacts to his letter.
OC has some advantages and it has some disadvantages both in terms of tactics and in terms of "public relations" (for lack of a better term). CC has some advantages and it has some disadvantages--again, both in terms of tactics and in terms of "public relations". Trying to pretend that either approach is PURELY advantageous or PURELY disadvantageous is inaccurate and it leads to the kind of back & forth we see on this thread.
christcorp
New member
Sorry Tmuscle; but you'll have to prove this to me. Go find me these news stories. Sorry, but that's border line "bull". If a crime "wasn't" committed, then there is NO WAY, unless you're psychic, that you know a crime would have been committed. So you're saying that a person walked into a place, everyone knew that person was a criminal, the criminal saw someone with an open carry pistol, and they turned around and walked out. Is that what you're saying? Sorry, but I won't buy it.
I'm done discussing this however. There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun openly when it's appropriate. Sorry, but I'm not going to make you a list of when it's appropriate. Just like I won't list when it's appropriate to fart or use foul language, and when it's not acceptable. That's a straw argument, and I won't play your game. As I said, there's nothing wrong with open carry, when it's appropriate. I've carried openly many times. But I won't side with the political activist who rationalizes their 1 man campaign to change the opinion of society. Even if it's your right to carry openly, I don't support the Mall Ninjas and those making a political statement. I also prefer concealed carry over open carry. When a criminal walks into a situation where I might be involved, I don't want that criminal to have one bit of knowledge or information that can allow him/her to make a more advantageous decision for themselves. I want them to be as much in the dark as possible and taking their chances.
I think we can all take it as a given that there has been a time when the sight of an openly carried gun deterred a crime.
As a counterpoint it's also true that there has been a time when the sight of an openly carried gun resulted in the carrier being assaulted and his gun taken.
Similarly I think it's a given that there has been a time when a concealed gun couldn't be accessed during an incident and therefore presented no deterrent.
In similar counterpoint it's also true that there has been a time when the fact that a gun was concealed allowed the carrier to choose an advantageous time to respond which let him save his own life and the life of others.
The bottom line is that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
As a counterpoint it's also true that there has been a time when the sight of an openly carried gun resulted in the carrier being assaulted and his gun taken.
Similarly I think it's a given that there has been a time when a concealed gun couldn't be accessed during an incident and therefore presented no deterrent.
In similar counterpoint it's also true that there has been a time when the fact that a gun was concealed allowed the carrier to choose an advantageous time to respond which let him save his own life and the life of others.
The bottom line is that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.
ursavus.elemensis
New member
OC is just plain showing off and trying to feel important because you have a gun.
Far too sweeping a statement to have a chance of being accurate.
Some people OC to show off and feel important.
Some people OC in an attempt to educate the public.
Some people OC for self defense because it's the only legal option.
Some people OC for self defense because they find CC is an unattractive or unworkable option for them.
It seems pretty clear that in the specific case under discussion the OP's primary goal was educating the public.
I hope that folks on both sides are starting to see a pattern.
These wide, sweeping statements about what OC'ers are, are not, do, don't do, are perceived as, aren't perceived as, are motivated by, etc. from both sides of this discussion aren't constructive.
lizziedog1
New member
Many years ago I worked as an armed guard to help pay for my college. I was stationed in a convience store in a bad part of town. I always positioned myself so that customers could see me and more importantly my holstered .357 magnum.
There were a few other convience/liquor stores in that area. The others did not have an armed guard. It was not all that uncommon to get reports that one of those stores had been robbed, usually at gun point. The store I worked in was never hit since armed security was employed. Two years of armed guards, not one hold-up.
Was it the sight of a gun?
Who knows?
I think it was.
There were a few other convience/liquor stores in that area. The others did not have an armed guard. It was not all that uncommon to get reports that one of those stores had been robbed, usually at gun point. The store I worked in was never hit since armed security was employed. Two years of armed guards, not one hold-up.
Was it the sight of a gun?
Who knows?
I think it was.
ursavus.elemensis said:
Hoss Fly said:
CC is just plain being afraid that someone might notice you are armed and you might have to actually talk to somebody. Or maybe it is your own personal feeling of elitism because you have paid for and taken the training and paid the state to have a license that documents your elite status. Criminals hide their guns, not law abiding citizens who are proud to be Americans and proud of the freedom of being American.
Now doesn't that sound nice.....
It's not the way I feel but I write it just to illustrate how those types of statements sound. Pretty much like a person who has biased bigotry against those who choose to be different from themselves.
Of course I notice most (not all) of bigoted statements come from those whose states' have made it illegal to open carry, therefore you don't get the chance to see the positives of open carry in action.
- Status