Open Carry - In Your Face!

[USAFNoDak]

Good points by NavyLT. If you are walking in a very large mall, such as the Mall of America in the Twin Cities, chances are you will eventually walk by someone who is carrying concealed, either legally or illegally. The illegally scenario probably increases to some degree in the evening hours. I'm inclined to be more concerned about someone who "looks" or "dresses" a certain way carrying a concealed weapon, than I am about someone who is openly carrying. If openly carrying, the person would seem to have nothing to hide and to me, this ups the trust level.

We all make our own judgements about other people and how they look, dress, act, or what they are carrying in plain view. Sometimes those judgements are wrong. I'm not sure we can do much about that as our own experiences cause us to make those judgements. Many of us see news and we receive images of the types of characters who tend to use guns to commit crimes. This doesn't have to be a racial thing either as there are white people involved in gangs. The Mongols or Hells Angels come to mind. Most of us would steer a wide path around them.

 

[Al Norris]

OK ....

How many criminals carry firearms openly?

Outside of the extremely rare berserker, I believe the answer to be rather obvious. The common gun-toting crook carries concealed. They want the advantage of surprise. The element of surprise is an offensive tactic. Always has been. Always will be.

Those of you, that have concealed carry permits, and indeed, do carry concealed; Why? For self-defense? By using an entirely offensive tactic?

So let's be entirely honest with ourselves here, shall we? We (those of us that have concealed carry permits) carry concealed for the same exact reasons the criminal carries concealed. We want the element of surprise. We want that tactical offensive capability. We differ from the criminal, only in that we are not carrying in order to facilitate our commission of a crime.

Those of you that disagree with the above, will be quick to rationalize your disagreement. But that's all it will be. Rationalization.

Those that choose to openly carry, carry in a wholly defensive manner. Everyone (who has any situational awareness) will see the firearm. Hence most elements of surprise is lost, from the start. Notice I said most? There are way too many of the public that simply have no situational awareness whatsoever. Everything appears to be a surprise to these folks. Ah well...

Putting aside the obvious problem that people today are simply not used to seeing common citizens openly carrying firearms, let's look at it from a slightly different angle.

That is the problem of trust.

Uncle Billy states it rather eloquently. He sees an openly carried firearm and he doesn't trust that individual. Because the person is a stranger. Or it's someone he knows, but doesn't trust his gun handling skills.

Also, there is something else going on. We don't know the intentions of the gun carrier. He could have some criminal intent, completely forgetting that criminals don't carry openly, our paranoia raises its ugly head.

This is something I have noted in all gun forums and all communities I have had this conversation with.

It boils down to: "I trust me and my own intentions, but I don't trust you." It is not a completely irrational fear.

Funny thing though, it is an attitude more prevalent in the gun community than in the general public.

Which leads to my next to last point. Concealed carriers are more prone to question the individual and his motives, when they observe an openly displayed firearm, than the general population.

Yet as NavyLT has stated, out of sight, out of mind. That attitude betrays a lack of situational awareness. You will be surprised when a crook reveals his firearm in an attempted hostile encounter.

Last point.

Criminals will avoid people who openly carry. Way too many studies on this to list. So those of you who insist that the bad guy will simply take you gun and shoot you with it, are being as irrational as those who say the same about about your carrying concealed.

For those of you that do carry openly, please use at least a Level II retention holster and have the sense to get retention training. As always, Practice what you have learned. It's just the right thing to do.

 

[ZeSpectre]

NavyLT beat me to the punch, but I agree completely with him.

 

[NavyLT]

Uncle Billy states it rather eloquently. He sees an openly carried firearm and he doesn't trust that individual. Because the person is a stranger. Or it's someone he knows, but doesn't trust his gun handling skills.

Also, there is something else going on. We don't know the intentions of the gun carrier. He could have some criminal intent, completely forgetting that criminals don't carry openly, our paranoia raises its ugly head.

And this "paranoia" is brought about by the propaganda that the anti-gun crowd has pushed so hard. Uncle Billy will come back and tells us that he watches the person with the gun more carefully because he has the means available to him to kill people. And yet, does he really?

If you set a cell phone and a handgun on a table, which object is more likely to kill someone? The answer is neither. They are objects. The part of the equation that is left out is the person. A person open carrying a cell phone is just as likely to have criminal intent AND the ability to use deadly force as the person who is open carrying the gun. Why? Because you don't know what the person with the cell phone is hiding. But the anti-gun propaganda teaches us the cell phone is OK, but the gun - just another inanimate object, is suspicious. That propaganda completely leaves the person carrying the object out of the equation.

A question for you, though Antipitas....

Why are you anti pitas? What did a pita ever do to you?

 

[Sefner]

Antipitas again is right on the money, but the thread was about how OC is "in your face". I'd like to take Antipitas' points a little further.

It boils down to: "I trust me and my own intentions, but I don't trust you." It is not a completely irrational fear.

Funny thing though, it is an attitude more prevalent in the gun community than in the general public...

For those of you that do carry openly, please use at least a Level II retention holster and have the sense to get retention training.

In another thread about OC, someone (if you read this let me know so I can quote you) posted two examples of OC, one right way and one wrong way. The wrong was was hanging out of a back pocket of some ripped jeans with a white t-shirt and a confederate flag hat. The right way was in a retention holster, canted, and the dude was wearing a belt, jeans, and a dress polo. It would not be the guy carrying his Wilson Combat Custom 1911 in the $300 Safariland Level II that I would be worried about. But the guy OCing with Mexican Carry and a Hi-Point raises some alarms. Obviously I'm discriminating against Mexican Carry and Hi-Points here but you get the idea; there are certain OCers that should raise the awareness level (UncleBilly's point) and there are some that you should go up to and ask how they like their gun.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Also, if you go on "high alert" when you see someone carrying openly, you may as well stay on high alert all day - there are plenty of people carrying concealed that you'll never know about.

Here in Virginia, about 1 in 28 adult residents have a concealed-carry permit. So if you pick an adult at random, there's only about a 3.6% chance that they have a permit. But the more people you encounter, the higher the odds are that at least one of them will have a permit. It only takes encountering 19 adults before the odds are 50-50. How many adults do *you* encounter in a given day?

Granted, I know that not everyone with a CHL carries 24/7, but I'm also ignoring the people that carry concealed without a permit, whether with a nefarious purpose or not.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Why does anyone carry a gun, OC or CC? Because they are inherently suspicious ("on high alert") of what someone may do, what violence may be brought to them. There is no other serious reason to go out in public armed; it's one of the central rights we have under the 2A- the right of self-protection with a firearm, the need of which comes from suspicion. So, yes, people who go out with a gun, CC or OC, are by definition "on high alert"- they better be, having a gun aboard is serious business. But OC makes EVERYone suspicious, including those who weren't before. Among non-gun people who are awake and alert, the known presence of a gun nearby sets them "on high alert", OC or flawed CC. If we're suspicious enough to CC or OC, how can we justify denying non-gun people their right to be suspicious and on high alert when they see something they fear in the hands of someone they don't know? Are we the only ones allowed to be suspicious? Not hardly.

And this "paranoia" is brought about by the propaganda that the anti-gun crowd has pushed so hard. Uncle Billy will come back and tells us that he watches the person with the gun more carefully because he has the means available to him to kill people. And yet, does he really?

Yes I do, because being alert and aware of a deadly weapon nearby is simple self-preservation which I find no reason to abandon. You're so blinded by your passion for OC that you'd call simple prudence and situational awareness "paranoia" as though they were some sort of irrational behavior. Those disciplines which are taught in any credible handgun class, are basic foundations of intelligent, capable self-defense with a gun. They are eminently rational and sensible; if you think they're "paranoia" then your ideas are pretty twisted.

It's clear you don't believe in them- You see a holstered gun in public in the hands of someone you don't know and are convinced it's no threat whatsoever to you so you pretend the gun isn't there, in support of the fantasy that no gun is ever a threat to anyone- THAT'S irrational.

You take the oversimplified route- the antis say that no one is safe with a gun in their hands, which is baloney, and you say EVERYone with a gun in their hands is safe which is just as much baloney. If your reason hadn't been shorted out, you'd get it.

Your fervent campaign is to convince everyday non-gun people that armed strangers in their presence are certainly no threat. Not only is that incorrect, unreasonable and totally unrealistic, it thoroughly misunderstands what a multitude of non-gun people will do about OC and gun rights in general if they get upset enough.

Our Constitutional rights are amendable, remember, and if enough otherwise disinterested people get irritated and made to feel unsafe in the open presence of guns wherever they go, they'll join the antis and we'll have a fight on our hands that the OCers helped bring to us.

I know, there's no chance in the world that you'd recognize any truth in any point I make or acknowledge any part of what I write to be accurate; you apparently aren't equipped to reason on this issue. So carry on, those of us who think you're making us all look bad aren't going to say anything to change your mind even a little. "Don't try to convince me with facts and reason, my mind is made up without any" seems to be the operating principle here.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Why does anyone carry a gun, OC or CC? Because they are inherently suspicious ("on high alert") of what someone may do, what violence may be brought to them

Nope.

I carry for the same reason I buckle on a seatbelt in a car or have policies to protect my home and belongings. It's not because I'm on "high alert" or especially suspicious/paranoid/nervous at all times, it's because I know bad things happen and I'll take all the insurance against those bad things that I can get. Maybe it's just a matter of degree, but degree is part of what we're talking about here I think.

 

[Webleymkv]

Uncle Billy, I think you're missing the whole point of the OC movement. The point is to get the general public accustomed to seeing firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens and thus reduce or eliminate negative reactions. As Antipitas pointed out, going on "high alert" at the sight of an openly carried firearm is somewhat irrational because those who carry firearms for nefarious purposes usually don't want the world to know what their up to and thusly choose to conceal them. The only time that I look at someone openly carrying with suspicion is when they do it poorly as I described in my previous post. Openly carrying in such a way tells me that the individual in question is attempting to intimidate other people and should therefore be watched closely. However, people who openly carry and choose to present themselves in a respectable and responsible manner through their dress, language, demeanor, and method of carry doesn't draw any unusual attention from me other than to maybe admire their chosen firearm. As I said earlier, openly carrying properly while presenting one's self eloquently sends a completely different message than doing so lackadaisically and presenting one's self as a representative of a negative stereotype.

 

[misnomerga]

I have done just that, (I don't have a badge) and nobody ever reacted at all. Nobody called the police, nobody jumped up and left, nobody screamed, or berated me for carrying a gun.

All I can say CajunBass is it is different here in Georgia. I was at my local gun store recently talking to the sales person there (off duty LEO on his second job) and we were discussing this subject as well as the wording on the GFL. He pretty much concurred with me, "if you open carry in one of the outer lying counties of Georgia there is less of a chance of you being hassled by the police or treated weirdly by the local folks, but here in these counties close in to Atlanta I can pretty much assure you that every policeman you pass will inquire as to why you have the gun on your hip. Since there is much higher degree of gun violence in and around Atlanta due to gang activity the local citizenry will also be a lot more skittish around a person who is open carrying." He was a pretty straight up LEO and I have no reason to doubt what he was saying.

 

[Venom1956]

Removed.

 

[Uncle Billy]

In what reality is someone obviously carrying a gun certain to be the good guy, and the criminals are the ones who conceal their weapons? Why would someone with criminal intent hide his gun if it was legit for him to OC it? Unless the cops stop everyone with a gun to check them out, how would anyone know whether the guy with a gun is breaking the law, or whether he is dangerous or not?

Guns are deadly weapons that deserve respect, a wary, attentive attitude, and ought to be taken seriously and not ignored- when OCing requires that those truths be ignored or suspended, it becomes a bad thing. At the range, with others with loaded guns around, do you just assume they've opened the actions, stood behind the ready line and aren't handling their guns before you walk down to the targets? Do you just blithely step over the firing line and walk out in front of them, or do you take a close look at what the others are doing, every one of them, and stay behind the line until you're certain none of them are doing anything risky? At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different? Just because someone is OCing doesn't alter the prudent actions one takes when loaded guns are around in the hands of others, your unreasoned passion for OC notwithstanding.

What sort of blind faith and unreasoned trust leads you to assume the guy with a gun is always a good guy? Why should anyone assume you're a good guy when you bring deadly weapons into their presence, which is a tacit statement that you're ready to shoot when it suits you to do so- that alone is enough for some people to consider you a bad guy, someone from whom they need protection. You'll gain a lot of recruits for the anti organizations when your rights impinge on their passionate need and desire to be free of fear.

I think it's absolute equine excrement to assume that most non-gun or anti-gun people will see a lot of guns around and react in favor of a lot of guns being around. It's the mere presence of guns that they react to, how one is dressed or how he speaks makes little difference- it's the gun they are afraid of.

If CC is available, that's the sensible, uncontroversial, non-incendiary way to go about armed. If your aim is to protect yourself, that aim is met with CC. If your mission is to proselytize, to show off your rights, to draw attention, to frighten people, and the choice is OC or CC, then OC is your choice, and welcome to the stage of the Theater of the Absurd.

As I said, there's no sense in discussing OC with anyone who's obsessed with the idea and is prepared to bent realities, invert and ignore truths and make up a lot of baloney to justify it. Go ahead, do your thing- I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am. But it's your right to present yourself that way if you want. I'll protect your right to firearms, but I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. Flame away!

 

[alloy]

I imagine some places OC was acceptable before CC was due to some mental block about concealed being what criminals do, or possibly an establishment thinking if you are gonna carry we want to know it, possibly even we will shame you out of the habit with our harrassment.

Or like in Virginia...OC doesn't require a permit, or up until recently....it was the only way to carry and eat in some restaurants. Other states likely have similar idiocies....meaning OC was the hand people were dealt, and it was that or nothing.

I don't do it, but I got no problem with it, and it has most likely done more to speed up CC law than any other factor. If the right is the right it's claimed, then it's either open or concealed, and if antis don't like open carry they have to accept the alternative. Seems a valuable tool, and it seems to be working.

I remember around '75 when I was a teenager, I used to see some older gent always carrying around Mechanicsville, VA. The grocery store....bank, whereever. Don't know if he was police or a pawn shop owner.

Didn't bother me then except maybe some mild curiosity from too many cowboy matinees....and it doesn't bother me now, and I figure it's because everyone I saw wasn't all freaked out and petitioning town councils because of some guy that carried a gun around Mechanicsville.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Uncle Billy

In what reality is someone obviously carrying a gun certain to be the good guy

And in what reality are they certain to be a bad guy?

and the criminals are the ones who conceal their weapons?

Because OC shows everyone that you have a weapon. A criminal is unlikely to want extra attention because that will make it more difficult for him to carry out his nefarious acts.

Unless the cops stop everyone with a gun to check them out, how would anyone know whether the guy with a gun is breaking the law, or whether he is dangerous or not?

Unless the cops stop and check everyone, how do we know that someone isn't carrying a concealed weapon illegally?

Why would someone with criminal intent hide his gun if it was legit for him to OC it?

Why do we not see a rash of crimes committed by people openly carrying guns in places where it is legal?

Guns are deadly weapons that deserve respect, a wary, attentive attitude, and ought to be taken seriously and not ignored- when OCing requires that those truths be ignored or suspended, it becomes a bad thing.

OC does not require that we not respect deadly weapons. It only requires us to observe the person who chooses to openly carry. A gun hanging precariously out of someone's pocket will make me nervous, a gun in a holster on their belt, not so much.

By your logic, should we automatically assume that anyone driving a sports car is a wreckless driver?

At the range, with others with loaded guns around, do you just assume they've opened the actions, stood behind the ready line and aren't handling their guns before you walk down to the targets? Do you just blithely step over the firing line and walk out in front of them, or do you take a close look at what the others are doing, every one of them, and stay behind the line until you're certain none of them are doing anything risky? At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?

When at the range, do you demand that anyone who has a holstered handgun remove it from the holster, unload it, lock the action open, and set it on the bench before you go downrange? There is a difference between someone who is actively engaged in firing a gun and someone who has one in a holster on their belt.

Just because someone is OCing doesn't alter the prudent actions one takes when loaded guns are around in the hands of others, your unreasoned passion for OC notwithstanding.

Rather than just assume that someone who is OCing is unsafe, I take a moment to observe them. If they don't act in an unsafe way, then I don't worry about it. I look at the person rather than the gun.

What sort of blind faith and unreasoned trust leads you to assume the guy with a gun is always a good guy?

The question as to why anyone who has something to fear from the law would choose to bring attention to himself in such a way.

Why should anyone assume you're a good guy when you bring deadly weapons into their presence, which is a tacit statement that you're ready to shoot when it suits you to do so- that alone is enough for some people to consider you a bad guy, someone from whom they need protection.

Why should they assume that you're a bad guy? Why should they not be more worried about the gun that they can't see rather than the one they know is there? Perhaps they would be better served by carefully observing everyone around them rather than just the person who chooses not to hide his weapon.

You'll gain a lot of recruits for the anti organizations when your rights impinge on their passionate need and desire to be free of fear.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that it's the criminals rather than the guns that they should fear.

I think it's absolute equine excrement to assume that most non-gun or anti-gun people will see a lot of guns around and react in favor of a lot of guns being around.

I think it depends upon who they see with the guns and how those people choose to present themselves.

It's the mere presence of guns that they react to, how one is dressed or how he speaks makes little difference- it's the gun they are afraid of.

No, it's not the mere presence of guns that sets them off. They see guns in the holsters of cops every day and they aren't afraid. They do not fear guns in the hands of the police because the police are viewed as trustworthy and safe. The whole point of the OC movement is to demonstrate that law-abiding citizens are also trustworthy and safe and therefore guns in their hands don't need to be feared either. Even here in my home state of Indiana, where OC is legal but not particularly common, OCers aren't viewed with suscpicion or fear unless they present themselves in a negative light. Hard core antis oppose carry of any sort be it concealed or open. They are just as shrill about the insidious hidden weapons as they are about the intimidating visible ones. It's not the hard-core antis that are the target of the OC movement as their minds are already made up. It is instead the fence sitters who don't really have an opinion one way or the other. The whole point is that through responsible OC we can demonstrate that the antis arguments don't hold true in the real world.

As I said, there's no sense in discussing OC with anyone who's obsessed with the idea and is prepared to bent realities, invert and ignore truths and make up a lot of baloney to justify it. Go ahead, do your thing- I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am. But it's your right to present yourself that way if you want. I'll protect your right to firearms, but I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. Flame away!

Now you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. First of all, I've never OC'd in my life. I choose to carry concealed because that is what best fits my lifestyle. However, I am not so arrogant as to assume that what is the best choice for me is necessarily the best choice for everyone. Also, why would you assume that everyone who OC's is untrained and inexperienced? In many places, the legal requirements for OC are exactly the same as those for CC. Why is the person who chooses to CC assumed to be a trained, experienced, responsible citizen while the person who chooses to OC is some sort or wild, irresponsible cowboy? Honestly, I find this whole "I'm trustworthy but you're not" attitude to be rather elitist.

 

[Uncle Billy]

In what reality is someone obviously carrying a gun certain to be the good guy

And in what reality are they certain to be a bad guy?

They aren't certain to be any sort of guy, but they have a gun and without knowing what sort they are, prudence dictates keeping a wary eye on them. Does someone OCing immediately get accorded sainthood? Only by those whose reasoning and gun disciplines have been suspended, and you'll never sell that to those who don't like guns too close to them.

...and the criminals are the ones who conceal their weapons?

Because OC shows everyone that you have a weapon. A criminal is unlikely to want extra attention because that will make it more difficult for him to carry out his nefarious acts.

In one argument, it's claimed that OCing ought to draw no attention because the world has to learn that OCers are law-abiding citizens. Now your argument is that someone who has a gun does draw attention- scrutiny, even- which is why a criminal won't OC. So which is it? Are we to assume that everyone OCing is a good guy like the OC movement hopes to "teach" the public, or are we to be skeptical of anyone OCing because he might be an armed criminal?

Unless the cops stop everyone with a gun to check them out, how would anyone know whether the guy with a gun is breaking the law, or whether he is dangerous or not?

Unless the cops stop and check everyone, how do we know that someone isn't carrying a concealed weapon illegally?

We don't, and we don't know if anyone is CCing legally either. But if someone has a OC gun on, we know he has a gun. Next question that ought to immediately follow: What are his intentions? That's my point.

Why would someone with criminal intent hide his gun if it was legit for him to OC it?

Why do we not see a rash of crimes committed by people openly carrying guns in places where it is legal?

Is your point that no one OCing is ever up to criminal activity with a gun, and never will be? Simple reason shows the fallacy of that assumption.

Guns are deadly weapons that deserve respect, a wary, attentive attitude, and ought to be taken seriously and not ignored- when OCing requires that those truths be ignored or suspended, it becomes a bad thing.

OC does not require that we not respect deadly weapons. It only requires us to observe the person who chooses to openly carry. A gun hanging precariously out of someone's pocket will make me nervous, a gun in a holster on their belt, not so much.

That's your criteria, which expects people to act according to stereotypes which they don't always, especially if they want to hide their real intentions. So you don't go along then with the OC mission to teach non-gun and anti-gun people that there's no reason to regard OCers with any more scrutiny than anyone else?

By your logic, should we automatically assume that anyone driving a sports car is a wreckless driver?

That's not my "logic"; read it again. My contention is that sensible people will alert on someone with a gun nearby since a gun is a deadly weapon, and if the skills, discipline, integrity and sanity of the person carrying it are unknown, prudent self-preservation will cause some sort of reaction in the observer. If the observer is a non-gun or anti-gun person, the fear of gun violence becomes paramount, and reducing the presence of guns that close to them becomes an appealing mission.

At the range, with others with loaded guns around, do you just assume they've opened the actions, stood behind the ready line and aren't handling their guns before you walk down to the targets? Do you just blithely step over the firing line and walk out in front of them, or do you take a close look at what the others are doing, every one of them, and stay behind the line until you're certain none of them are doing anything risky? At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?

When at the range, do you demand that anyone who has a holstered handgun remove it from the holster, unload it, lock the action open, and set it on the bench before you go downrange? There is a difference between someone who is actively engaged in firing a gun and someone who has one in a holster on their belt.

No, there isn't, in my version of what's prudent- both have a gun at hand, and I don't trust them to know what they are doing with it or what they might be up to if I don't know them. Read this sentence again: "At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?

Just because someone is OCing doesn't alter the prudent actions one takes when loaded guns are around in the hands of others, your unreasoned passion for OC notwithstanding.

Rather than just assume that someone who is OCing is unsafe, I take a moment to observe them. If they don't act in an unsafe way, then I don't worry about it. I look at the person rather than the gun.

Do it any way you wish- if the purpose of OCing is to "educate" the public, the "lesson" most of them will learn most clearly, if they aren't gun people to start with, is that guns are too available and too present close to them against their wishes, and so ought to be less available and less present in everyday public life. That's exactly the opposite of what the misguided missionaries of OC expect will happen.

What sort of blind faith and unreasoned trust leads you to assume the guy with a gun is always a good guy?

The question as to why anyone who has something to fear from the law would choose to bring attention to himself in such a way.

If the mission of OC is to educate the public that only good, honest, law-abiding people open carry guns, why wouldn't the missionaries for OC see that if they succeed in selling that idea (they won't), a bad guy who wants to look like a good guy would benefit from OC? There's that delirious logic again- the good guys will OC the guns, the bad guys won't. So if a bad guy wants to look like a good guy, and the OC mission succeeds, then of course he'd OC. Be suspicious of anyone without a gun, but trust someone with one to be a stand-up good guy. I'll say this a new way: If someone is a stranger, then we don't know what sort of person he is, what his intentions are, what his character is, what his mental state is. If he obviously has a gun, then all that mystery takes on a new significance, since a gun is a deadly weapon that can kill people. Add those two together and some things result: those who fear guns and don't like guns will be uneasy with that sum, some will seek to prevent unknown people to have guns so close to them in public places. It's very simple.

Why should anyone assume you're a good guy when you bring deadly weapons into their presence, which is a tacit statement that you're ready to shoot when it suits you to do so- that alone is enough for some people to consider you a bad guy, someone from whom they need protection.

Why should they assume that you're a bad guy? Why should they not be more worried about the gun that they can't see rather than the one they know is there? Perhaps they would be better served by carefully observing everyone around them rather than just the person who chooses not to hide his weapon.

People who fear guns, who want no association with guns, will regard anyone who brings one near them in any way to be bringing the risk of gun violence to them against their wishes, and that makes the OCer a bad guy since you can see his gun when he's close to you. The result: His access to guns is too easy. You need to stop thinking like a pro-gun person and start thinking like an anti-gun person or one who hasn't any opinion yet. Stirring them up with a lot of guns around them in places where in their estimation there isn't any need for them just makes them afraid and mad at gun rights. Why the hell can't any OC missionaries see that truth?

You'll gain a lot of recruits for the anti organizations when your rights impinge on their passionate need and desire to be free of fear.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that it's the criminals rather than the guns that they should fear.

Okay, YOU try to convince them that there's no need to fear guns in anyone's hands, it's the criminals that make guns dangerous; in the hands of OCers they are no danger.

I think it's absolute equine excrement to assume that most non-gun or anti-gun people will see a lot of guns around and react in favor of a lot of guns being around.

I think it depends upon who they see with the guns and how those people choose to present themselves.

Try again- if one hates guns and is afraid of them, who is carrying them has no impact at all. Any reasonably smart person will see a gun in the hands of a "civilian" and get nervous about its presence. In what conceivable way would a fear of guns too close be moderated by the wardrobe of who is carrying it?

It's the mere presence of guns that they react to, how one is dressed or how he speaks makes little difference- it's the gun they are afraid of.

No, it's not the mere presence of guns that sets them off. They see guns in the holsters of cops every day and they aren't afraid. They do not fear guns in the hands of the police because the police are viewed as trustworthy and safe. The whole point of the OC movement is to demonstrate that law-abiding citizens are also trustworthy and safe and therefore guns in their hands don't need to be feared either. Even here in my home state of Indiana, where OC is legal but not particularly common, OCers aren't viewed with suscpicion or fear unless they present themselves in a negative light. Hard core antis oppose carry of any sort be it concealed or open. They are just as shrill about the insidious hidden weapons as they are about the intimidating visible ones. It's not the hard-core antis that are the target of the OC movement as their minds are already made up. It is instead the fence sitters who don't really have an opinion one way or the other. The whole point is that through responsible OC we can demonstrate that the antis arguments don't hold true in the real world.

You hope! Any reasonable person will react to a gun in the hands of a "civilian" nearby; in my opinion those who are "on the fence" are more likely to become negative about guns near them, in places where they don't see the need. I don't think you can "brute force" people to give up their doubts or fears by creating the doubts or fears- by OCing you make it mandatory for those "on the fence" to tolerate the presence of guns in the hands of those who could be untrained, inexperienced amateur gun nuts. If they give it any thought, they wouldn't like being forced to accept that.

As I said, there's no sense in discussing OC with anyone who's obsessed with the idea and is prepared to bent realities, invert and ignore truths and make up a lot of baloney to justify it. Go ahead, do your thing- I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am. But it's your right to present yourself that way if you want. I'll protect your right to firearms, but I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. Flame away!

Now you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. First of all, I've never OC'd in my life. I choose to carry concealed because that is what best fits my lifestyle. However, I am not so arrogant as to assume that what is the best choice for me is necessarily the best choice for everyone. Also, why would you assume that everyone who OC's is untrained and inexperienced? In many places, the legal requirements for OC are exactly the same as those for CC. Why is the person who chooses to CC assumed to be a trained, experienced, responsible citizen while the person who chooses to OC is some sort or wild, irresponsible cowboy? Honestly, I find this whole "I'm trustworthy but you're not" attitude to be rather elitist.

Well, I know I can trust myself, and I don't know if I can trust you, and if I see you have a gun that lack of trust takes on reasonable significance. But if you don't trust yourself any better than you trust someone you don't know, then you better not have any guns at all. It's not black or white, it isn't a binary equation- add a gun to unknown mentalities and any sensible person will get wary and alert, and maybe resent that they had to.

In a lot of places OC doesn't have any legal requirements attached except to be qualified to own a gun, and the antis know that. That's why there's a lot of objection to guns in everyday places on the belts of untrained, undisciplined amateurs. I'll say this again: I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. There are a multitude of people on both sides of the gun rights debate who agree.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Uncle Billy

Uncle Billy: In what reality is someone obviously carrying a gun certain to be the good guy

Webleymkv: And in what reality are they certain to be a bad guy?

They aren't certain to be any sort of guy, but they have a gun and without knowing what sort they are, prudence dictates keeping a wary eye on them. Does someone OCing immediately get accorded sainthood? Only by those whose reasoning and gun disciplines have been suspended, and you'll never sell that to those who don't like guns too close to them.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't base my good guy/bad guy assessment on whether or not the individual in question has a gun. Rather, I base it on the individual. The only way in which an openly carried gun enters into the equation is in regards to how the individual in question chooses to openly carry it and how they act about it. Trouble makers typically aren't all that difficult to spot if you know what you're looking for. I'm going to be a bit wary of the guy with the big mouth with a pistol hanging out of his pocket, but I'm not going to be overly concerned with the guy who has a holstered gun on his belt and is minding his own business.

Uncle Billy: ...and the criminals are the ones who conceal their weapons?

Webleymkv: Because OC shows everyone that you have a weapon. A criminal is unlikely to want extra attention because that will make it more difficult for him to carry out his nefarious acts.

In one argument, it's claimed that OCing ought to draw no attention because the world has to learn that OCers are law-abiding citizens. Now your argument is that someone who has a gun does draw attention- scrutiny, even- which is why a criminal won't OC. So which is it? Are we to assume that everyone OCing is a good guy like the OC movement hopes to "teach" the public, or are we to be skeptical of anyone OCing because he might be an armed criminal?

I never said that OC does not, or even should not draw any attention at all. Rather, I said that it shouldn't necessarily draw negative attention. Obviously anyone behaving irresponsibly, sucspiciously, or threateningly with a firearm, or any other instrument for that matter, should be approached and dealt with cautiously. However, so long as the individual in question behaves appropriately, I am no more threatened by him than anyone else I meet.

Undoubtedly OC does draw attention, be it positive or negative. Most criminals wil choose to conceal a firearm because most criminals don't want attention of any kind.

Webleymkv: Unless the cops stop and check everyone, how do we know that someone isn't carrying a concealed weapon illegally?

We don't, and we don't know if anyone is CCing legally either. But if someone has a OC gun on, we know he has a gun. Next question that ought to immediately follow: What are his intentions? That's my point.

But why shouldn't we ask about the intentions of everyone since anyone we meet might have a gun. It's the people, not the guns that worries me and the people I worry about don't usually display their guns for all to see.

Uncle Billy: Why would someone with criminal intent hide his gun if it was legit for him to OC it?

Webleymkv: Why do we not see a rash of crimes committed by people openly carrying guns in places where it is legal?

Is your point that no one OCing is ever up to criminal activity with a gun, and never will be? Simple reason shows the fallacy of that assumption.

No, my point is that, in the real world, criminals don't seem to take advantage of open carry laws. I've yet to see any information suggesting that states which allow open carry have unusually high crime rates.

Uncle Billy: Guns are deadly weapons that deserve respect, a wary, attentive attitude, and ought to be taken seriously and not ignored- when OCing requires that those truths be ignored or suspended, it becomes a bad thing.

Webleymkv: OC does not require that we not respect deadly weapons. It only requires us to observe the person who chooses to openly carry. A gun hanging precariously out of someone's pocket will make me nervous, a gun in a holster on their belt, not so much.

That's your criteria, which expects people to act according to stereotypes which they don't always, especially if they want to hide their real intentions. So you don't go along then with the OC mission to teach non-gun and anti-gun people that there's no reason to regard OCers with any more scrutiny than anyone else?

My criteria has nothing to do with sterotypes. A gun hanging precariously out of someones pocket is unsafe and irresponsible, a holstered gun on their hip, not so much. An OCer that behaves in an irresponsible, threatening, or suscpicious way is one to beware of, but then again anyone who acts in an irresponsible, threatening, or suscpicious way is one to be wary of. If someone is trying to hide their intentions, then openly displaying an item which is likely to draw attention isn't a very effective way to go about it.

Webleymkv: By your logic, should we automatically assume that anyone driving a sports car is a wreckless driver?

That's not my "logic"; read it again. My contention is that sensible people will alert on someone with a gun nearby since a gun is a deadly weapon, and if the skills, discipline, integrity and sanity of the person carrying it are unknown, prudent self-preservation will cause some sort of reaction in the observer. If the observer is a non-gun or anti-gun person, the fear of gun violence becomes paramount, and reducing the presence of guns that close to them becomes an appealing mission.

Yes, it is your logic. You assume that anyone who chooses to OC is "untrained and inexperienced" and that they are a "wannabe cowboy". I fail to see how that is any different from assuming that someone who drives a Corvette is a lead-footed speed-addict who is unconcerned with traffic laws or the safety of themself and fellow motorists. I choose to observe how the OCer behaves just like I observe how the Corvette owner drives.

Uncle Billy: At the range, with others with loaded guns around, do you just assume they've opened the actions, stood behind the ready line and aren't handling their guns before you walk down to the targets? Do you just blithely step over the firing line and walk out in front of them, or do you take a close look at what the others are doing, every one of them, and stay behind the line until you're certain none of them are doing anything risky? At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?

Webleymkv: When at the range, do you demand that anyone who has a holstered handgun remove it from the holster, unload it, lock the action open, and set it on the bench before you go downrange? There is a difference between someone who is actively engaged in firing a gun and someone who has one in a holster on their belt.

No, there isn't, in my version of what's prudent- both have a gun at hand, and I don't trust them to know what they are doing with it or what they might be up to if I don't know them. Read this sentence again: "At the range, you give guns in the hands of others some serious and wary attention, and don't blindly trust them to be no risk; in what way is the line at Starbucks, with the guy behind you carrying a gun, any different?

Apparently, you don't see the difference between a holstered gun and one that is in someone's hand. A holstered gun, like a gun lying on a shooting bench, cannot harm anyone. Now, if the guy at Starbucks removes his gun from its holster, I'm going to be wary of him. However, the danger of that happening is no greater than that of one of the strangers at the range picking their gun up off the bench and loading it after you gone down to check your target.

Uncle Billy: Just because someone is OCing doesn't alter the prudent actions one takes when loaded guns are around in the hands of others, your unreasoned passion for OC notwithstanding.

Webleymkv: Rather than just assume that someone who is OCing is unsafe, I take a moment to observe them. If they don't act in an unsafe way, then I don't worry about it. I look at the person rather than the gun.

Do it any way you wish- if the purpose of OCing is to "educate" the public, the "lesson" most of them will learn most clearly, if they aren't gun people to start with, is that guns are too available and too present close to them against their wishes, and so ought to be less available and less present in everyday public life. That's exactly the opposite of what the misguided missionaries of OC expect will happen.

You're assuming that everyone who is not a "gun person" is inherently afraid of guns. That has not been my experience and I've yet to see any information that suggests that is the case. Basically, it seems as though you're assuming that everyone who isn't a "gun person" is automatically an anti. Given the waning public support for gun control laws over the last 10-20 years, I find it difficult to believe that the majority of people are inherently frightened by guns. Certainly, the antis and their collaborators in the media have tried to create fear over the "easy availability of guns" but fewer and fewer people seem to be listening to them.

Uncle Billy: What sort of blind faith and unreasoned trust leads you to assume the guy with a gun is always a good guy?

Webleymkv: The question as to why anyone who has something to fear from the law would choose to bring attention to himself in such a way.

If the mission of OC is to educate the public that only good, honest, law-abiding people open carry guns, why wouldn't the missionaries for OC see that if they succeed in selling that idea (they won't), a bad guy who wants to look like a good guy would benefit from OC? There's that delirious logic again- the good guys will OC the guns, the bad guys won't. So if a bad guy wants to look like a good guy, and the OC mission succeeds, then of course he'd OC. Be suspicious of anyone without a gun, but trust someone with one to be a stand-up good guy. I'll say this a new way: If someone is a stranger, then we don't know what sort of person he is, what his intentions are, what his character is, what his mental state is. If he obviously has a gun, then all that mystery takes on a new significance, since a gun is a deadly weapon that can kill people. Add those two together and some things result: those who fear guns and don't like guns will be uneasy with that sum, some will seek to prevent unknown people to have guns so close to them in public places. It's very simple.

The mission of the OC movement isn't to suggest that only law-abiding people carry guns because that obviously isn't true. The mission is to demonstrate that criminals aren't the only ones who carry guns. The point is to get the public to look at the people rather than the guns.

Uncle Billy: Why should anyone assume you're a good guy when you bring deadly weapons into their presence, which is a tacit statement that you're ready to shoot when it suits you to do so- that alone is enough for some people to consider you a bad guy, someone from whom they need protection.

Webleymkv: Why should they assume that you're a bad guy? Why should they not be more worried about the gun that they can't see rather than the one they know is there? Perhaps they would be better served by carefully observing everyone around them rather than just the person who chooses not to hide his weapon.

People who fear guns, who want no association with guns, will regard anyone who brings one near them in any way to be bringing the risk of gun violence to them against their wishes, and that makes the OCer a bad guy since you can see his gun when he's close to you. The result: His access to guns is too easy. You need to stop thinking like a pro-gun person and start thinking like an anti-gun person or one who hasn't any opinion yet. Stirring them up with a lot of guns around them in places where in their estimation there isn't any need for them just makes them afraid and mad at gun rights. Why the hell can't any OC missionaries see that truth?

Someone who is inherently afraid of guns isn't likely to support concealed carry any more than they support open carry. As a matter of fact, someone with such a pathological fear of guns will probably think that any access to guns is too much. Again you're assuming that everyone but we enlightened few is inherently fearful of guns and I just don't see any evidence of that.

Uncle Billy: You'll gain a lot of recruits for the anti organizations when your rights impinge on their passionate need and desire to be free of fear.

Webleymkv: Unless of course you can demonstrate that it's the criminals rather than the guns that they should fear.

Okay, YOU try to convince them that there's no need to fear guns in anyone's hands, it's the criminals that make guns dangerous; in the hands of OCers they are no danger.

Who ever said that they shouldn't fear a gun in anyone's hands? I just don't want them to fear a gun in everyone's hands. The only message that I want to get across is that it's the person rather than the gun that is dangerous.

 

[Webleymkv]

Continued

Uncle Billy: I think it's absolute equine excrement to assume that most non-gun or anti-gun people will see a lot of guns around and react in favor of a lot of guns being around.

Webleymkv: I think it depends upon who they see with the guns and how those people choose to present themselves.

Try again- if one hates guns and is afraid of them, who is carrying them has no impact at all. Any reasonably smart person will see a gun in the hands of a "civilian" and get nervous about its presence. In what conceivable way would a fear of guns too close be moderated by the wardrobe of who is carrying it?

If someone truly hates and fears guns, they'll probably want to ban them whether they see an OCer or not. Fear of an inanimate object is irrational. However, someone who isn't inherently afraid of guns is far less likely to be frightened by seeing someone OCing who presents themselves in a respectable manner that by seeing someone OCing who presents themselves like a dumb redneck or wannabe gangster.

Uncle Billy: It's the mere presence of guns that they react to, how one is dressed or how he speaks makes little difference- it's the gun they are afraid of.

Webleymkv: No, it's not the mere presence of guns that sets them off. They see guns in the holsters of cops every day and they aren't afraid. They do not fear guns in the hands of the police because the police are viewed as trustworthy and safe. The whole point of the OC movement is to demonstrate that law-abiding citizens are also trustworthy and safe and therefore guns in their hands don't need to be feared either. Even here in my home state of Indiana, where OC is legal but not particularly common, OCers aren't viewed with suscpicion or fear unless they present themselves in a negative light. Hard core antis oppose carry of any sort be it concealed or open. They are just as shrill about the insidious hidden weapons as they are about the intimidating visible ones. It's not the hard-core antis that are the target of the OC movement as their minds are already made up. It is instead the fence sitters who don't really have an opinion one way or the other. The whole point is that through responsible OC we can demonstrate that the antis arguments don't hold true in the real world.

You hope! Any reasonable person will react to a gun in the hands of a "civilian" nearby; in my opinion those who are "on the fence" are more likely to become negative about guns near them, in places where they don't see the need. I don't think you can "brute force" people to give up their doubts or fears by creating the doubts or fears- by OCing you make it mandatory for those "on the fence" to tolerate the presence of guns in the hands of those who could be untrained, inexperienced amateur gun nuts. If they give it any thought, they wouldn't like being forced to accept that.

Well, perhaps in New York where as you stated earlier OC is, for all intents and purposes, illegal they react that way. However, here in Indiana, where OC is legal but not particularly common, I've yet to see the reaction you describe.

Uncle Billy: As I said, there's no sense in discussing OC with anyone who's obsessed with the idea and is prepared to bent realities, invert and ignore truths and make up a lot of baloney to justify it. Go ahead, do your thing- I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am. But it's your right to present yourself that way if you want. I'll protect your right to firearms, but I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. Flame away!

Webleymkv: Now you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. First of all, I've never OC'd in my life. I choose to carry concealed because that is what best fits my lifestyle. However, I am not so arrogant as to assume that what is the best choice for me is necessarily the best choice for everyone. Also, why would you assume that everyone who OC's is untrained and inexperienced? In many places, the legal requirements for OC are exactly the same as those for CC. Why is the person who chooses to CC assumed to be a trained, experienced, responsible citizen while the person who chooses to OC is some sort or wild, irresponsible cowboy? Honestly, I find this whole "I'm trustworthy but you're not" attitude to be rather elitist.

Well, I know I can trust myself, and I don't know if I can trust you, and if I see you have a gun that lack of trust takes on reasonable significance. But if you don't trust yourself any better than you trust someone you don't know, then you better not have any guns at all. It's not black or white, it isn't a binary equation- add a gun to unknown mentalities and any sensible person will get wary and alert, and maybe resent that they had to.

I simply try not to make assumptions (you know what assuming does right?). I don't view anyone as trustworthy or untrustworthy without gathering some information on which to base such an assessment. Jumping to conclusions will usually land you the wrong one.

In a lot of places OC doesn't have any legal requirements attached except to be qualified to own a gun, and the antis know that. That's why there's a lot of objection to guns in everyday places on the belts of untrained, undisciplined amateurs. I'll say this again: I think OC is dangerous in most of those who OC, I think it's a disservice to gun rights and sours the general public's impression of gun people and I won't support it. There are a multitude of people on both sides of the gun rights debate who agree.

And in many other places, OC has exactly the same requirements attatched to it as CC. Again, I don't see any information suggesting that there is a higher crime rate or higher incidence of accidental shootings in places where OC is legal.

 

[NavyLT]

All day today...

Well, went to the town carnival and street fair today, followed by Wal Mart. Riding all the rides open carrying. Even did the shoot the star out shooting gallery. He had to use a magnifying glass to see the one tip of red point left on the target . That was my second try, our first try my 13 year old step daughter did better than me!

Anyway, walked around all day, rode the rides, shopped all up and down the street fair, Wal Mart aftewards. I guess I didn't shove it in their faces correctly because if anybody was offended or scared, they were too offended or scared to say anything, or even to call the coppers. My fiance said she didn't see anyone even look twice, and none of the carnies running the rides said anything at all (except the fat guy sits on the outside position!).

 

[Olibobwa]

+1 for in your face. Most of the open carry proponents I've met IRL seem to be out to fulfill a hero's fantasy or tryin to add inches. Not exactly the kind of people I want to get caught up with in a Starbucks robbery. People like that will get you killed.

At the range or in the woods or somewhere known for serious crime yeah no big deal...But Starbucks?... or Walmart or the Mall? Come on this isn't Baghdad.

Ever ask a LEO why he doesn't open carry his BUG? Excuse me, *He or she.

But that's all from the perspective of someone who has the option of both cc & oc. If it's open carry or nothing then you've got to do what you've got to do.

 

[Skans]

Although I have no problem at all with other people carrying guns openly, personally, I wouldn't choose to carry a gun that wasn't concealed. It just doesn't fit with my philosophy, which is - the less others know about you from just looking at you, the better.

I don't have any tats or other advertisments printed on my body....I don't have any bumper stickers on my vehicle (except during election years). I don't normally wear T-shirts or hats that declare what kind of music I like, or what else I might like or dislike. I don't wear designer clothing with conspicuous labels. I'm generally not an exibitionist.

So, for me, carrying a gun openly would be like having "Armed by S&W" tatooed on the side of my neck. Just becaue I like looking at other people's guns doesn't mean that I want them looking at mine!