Open Carry - In Your Face!

[crashm1]

"Truth can be a very subjective thing. The quote I used implied that those who were skeptical about open carry were "antis." I've seen this "us vs. them" attitude come up all too often lately. Some folks seem to have this strictly-defined polarity that has the True Believers on one side, the Brady Campaign on the other, and absolutely nothing in between."

Tom I called out Uncle Billy and at this point only him because he uses the same arguments about open carriers as the Brady and VPC folk over on Huff Po. I will also note he has been very argumentative and pretty dismissive of anyone else's point of view. I'm not sure what else to say, I don't really tend towards absolutism nor did I think I was doing the us versus them thing.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Can't say that about police, firemen, soldiers, teachers, doctors. Most of them are good guys too, yet the crime rate while not high among them is higher than that of the average carrier who isn't a criminal.

DOES ANYONE HAVE STATS TO BACK THIS UP?

I open carry some times. If you don't know how much more comfortable open carry is than concealed you can't possibly be very well trained or familiar with firearms Its like the difference between boxers and briefs.

If you don't exercise your rights you lose them. Simple as that.

 

[Uncle Billy]

... To easily dismiss a demonstrably higher risk (someone operating an automobile) yet cling to fear over an open carried firearm seems a little...phobic.

To compare the deaths due to cars, which are meant to be transportation, not weapons, that people must have and use whether they care about driving well or not and most don't, which require a license test be passed before it's legal to drive, where mechanical condition bears heavily on the possibility of injury when they are in use and which one is exposed to at a rate how many thousand times more often than guns being used- comparing those numbers with guns, which aren't anywhere nearly as commonly used (not carried but used) as cars are used and which have no other purpose than to kill people (in an OC situation) seems a little...stupid.

Can't say that about police, firemen, soldiers, teachers, doctors. Most of them are good guys too, yet the crime rate while not high among them is higher than that of the average carrier who isn't a criminal.

Comparing teachers and firemen with OCers is comparing apples and oranges and any kid who passed 5th grade could tell you that. See, teachers and firemen could ALSO be OCers; if they do something bad, is it because they are a teacher, fireman, etc, or because they are OCers? OCing isn't a profession, the others are. Geez.

NavyLt: If the Brady Bunch says "guns are dangerous" do you disagree? If military training says "Pay attention to anyone with a gun" and the Bradys say that as well, is the military against gun rights? If I give extra attention to someone with a gun that I don't know, and you don't think that's necessary, am I against your gun rights?

1. In the situation of feeling uncomfortable, or yellow alert, because a person is visibly carrying a gun, and when that feeling would not be there if that exact same person were not visibly carrying a gun - that uneasiness is obviously centered around the presence of the gun itself and has nothing to do with the person carrying it.

Wrong- the gun isn't all there is to it, neither is the gun toter. It's the combination of both that has significance and that combination is uncomfortable for some people, and sets me on "alert". IF you leave half, either half, of that equation out when they are together, then you are wrong. This issue has 2 components; nearly nothing has only one component, one separate fact to deal with. Ignoring factors directly involved in an issue is oversimplification and leads to wrong conclusions, sometimes to the opposite of what's correct. You do that a lot.

2. In the situation of the person that comes on here and says open carriers are trying to compensate for something, or trying to be a hero, or have some sort of attitude problem that they express by open carrying. To me, they are just as much an "enemy" as the anti. Like the anti, they are labeling a person based on their chosen method of defending themselves.

Once again I admonish you to read what I wrote in more detail than you have so far, if you are able to. Here's what I wrote I think you're referencing, emphasis added:
"If one's whole reason for OCing is "look at me, I'm armed and so deal with things at a life-or-death level all the time so I'm significant, I'm a SOMEbody!", and that fills missing things in one's self-image- it's a mating display meant to attract potential "mates" with a display of power under one's control which meets a missing sense of macho or power or virility or maturity- in short, it'a all about advertising and nothing else, then that's a huge and irresponsible use of our gun rights. When someone wearing a gun only as jewellery gets into a situation where what the gun really is- a device for killing- gets brought into play, the check written by using the gun only as an article of clothing gets cashed, and God help anyone within range."

Again, you haven't enough reasoning skills to see this, or any other issue we've debated here, in any other way but in 1 of 2 absolutes, and that inability to see the nuances, the details, makes you unable to see what things really are. I wrote that IF that's the reason why someone OC's, then they've made irresponsible and dangerous use of our gun rights. I didn't say EVERYone OCs for that reason, but that SOME do. But that's not what you read, you took it that I meant EVERYone who OC's is a poseur, and your response is NONE are, that NO ONE ever OCs to show off or create an image for themselves. So you got both sides of this wrong- what you attributed to me wasn't what I wrote, and your inference that no one OCs for lightweight or silly reasons is also clearly wrong. 0-for-2.

Tom I called out Uncle Billy and at this point only him because he uses the same arguments about open carriers as the Brady and VPC folk over on Huff Po.

... I don't really tend towards absolutism nor did I think I was doing the us versus them thing.

Well, you were. Those of you who think everything the Brady Bunch says is wrong just because they say it is a variation of a simple fallacy called "argumentum ad hominem"- judging the truth of what's said by who says it instead of what they said. It requires critical thinking skills to avoid this fallacy; that process isn't universally present here.

For the record: I've had a CCW permit in NY for about 37 years and CC whenever I sense the necessity; I'm certified by the NRA and the Boy Scouts of America as a "shooting sports instructor" in rifles, shotguns and muzzle loaders, and archery. I believe that teaching kids about guns when they are young gives them a more balanced understanding of them than they might get otherwise and might introduce them to something they can enjoy all their lives; I'm a strong supporter of our 2A rights as an individual's right to protect themselves and enjoy the uses and pleasures of shooting.

I think the Bradys and their ilk will take anything we give them to use against us and recruit with, and OC has that potential in a lot of places where guns were never a part of everyone's everyday experiences. I think it's a misjudgment that all the public who are unfamiliar with guns or are afraid of them will join us in support of gun rights when they have guns brought near them against their preferences. Not all of those forced to deal with armed strangers in situations where they don't see the need for guns will be okay with that. Not all, but some.

If OC isn't the only way to arm one's self, then OCing adds unnecessarily to those against us, those who would have remained silent otherwise.

 

[NavyLT]

is the military against gun rights?

You REALLY have to ask that question? YES, the U.S. military is absolutely positively AGAINST gun rights! There is no doubt about that at all. And I would like to see ONE argument against that fact!

AND, it is complete and utter nonsense to say that any of us has said that NO open carriers do so to show off, or that NO open carriers are dangerous. There are open carriers that do it only to get attention. And, unfortunately, those are the ones that you typically see in the media - Kurt Kirby, the guy at the Ohio airport, etc (on appearance anyway, who really knows their motivations, so I guess I am being judgmental)... There are concealed carriers that commit crimes that the media pushes into the limelight as well. And there are stark raving lunatic mad anti-s that I am sure they are embarassed by as well. Every side has it nut cases.

And there are people who open carry who are dangerous. But it is because of the way the person ACTS, not because of what they are carrying.

 

[ZeSpectre]

To compare the deaths due to cars, which are meant to be transportation, not weapons, that people must have and use whether they care about driving well or not and most don't, which require a license test be passed before it's legal to drive, where mechanical condition bears heavily on the possibility of injury when they are in use and which one is exposed to at a rate how many thousand times more often than guns being used- comparing those numbers with guns, which aren't anywhere nearly as commonly used (not carried but used) as cars are used and which have no other purpose than to kill people (in an OC situation) seems a little...stupid.

That's not much of an argument since intent in design really doesn't matter. Cars or guns or frying pans (still a frequent murder weapon in domestic disputes), left alone on the side of the road, would rust away into dust before they did anything on their own. They are just OBJECTS. USE matters and almost any item can be used in both constructively and/or destructively. The difference in use ALWAYS comes from people not objects. Therefore I am forced to conclude that with regards to your stance against open carry you are defending either a fear of objects (a phobia) or a fear of other people (which may or may not be reasonable depending on circumstances).

However you also go on to discuss all of the risk elements of operating a motor vehicle and the frequency that they are used (both arguments re-enforcing my point about the high relative risk of people using cars) and then you DISMISS the risk of people and the motor vehicles they operate. That leaves us with (looking over the whole thread)
People+automobiles=not worried (in spite of proven higher injury/death rates)
People+guns that can't be seen=not worried
People+guns that can be seen=worried

Which leads me to believe that this argument over open carry isn't about safety and isn't about people, it's about guns which takes us back into phobia territory.

 

[Uncle Billy]

You REALLY have to ask that question? YES, the U.S. military is absolutely positively AGAINST gun rights!

OK, granted. How about the rest of what I wrote in that paragraph? The Brady Bunch says that guns are dangerous. Do you agree with them? And if you do (you better!), does that mean you're against gun rights because you agree with the Bradys? If I give extra attention to someone with a gun that I don't know, which you think isn't necessary, am I against your gun rights?

...AND, it is complete and utter nonsense to say that any of us has said that NO open carriers do so to show off, or that NO open carriers are dangerous. There are open carriers that do it only to get attention. And, unfortunately, those are the ones that you typically see in the media... ...And there are people who open carry who are dangerous.

... and there's no effective way to know the difference, which is why a lot of people recoil from guns so near them in the hands of strangers.

How do you square that with your mission to show the public that OCers are nice, law-keeping, steady citizens? That's why people who aren't used to guns around them get upset with OCers- how do you know what he or she is up to? You don't. I'm talking about those who haven't given guns much of a thought, those whose experience with guns isn't first-hand, it's from TV and movies and news reports of mass shootings. Like Pavlov's dog, show them a gun nearby and they are upset that what they know of guns is suddenly right in their lap and it makes some of them afraid, angry and maybe against gun rights. What they think is the universal truth about guns and people who use guns is mostly baloney, but that's all they have, and they won't change their minds very easily just because the guy at the mall didn't kill everyone in sight with his OCed gun.

It's a big mistake to believe that those who aren't in favor of guns only need to be near them to change their minds. It's not like trying sushi for the first time, where if it goes wrong you just spit it out. Trust the wrong person with a gun and you could die, so non-gun people often ask why they should trust anybody with a gun, especially someone who jams that challenge which frightens them in their face and openly declares they are apparently ready to kill if they think it's necessary? Even Mister Rogers with an OC gun would be seen by those who don't know any better as a threat because he's openly declared to them who and what he is- he's equipped and willing to toss lead when he decides it's time, and kill if necessary. "What makes him so ready to be so violent? What if he misses? What if there's a ricochet? What if the creep he's trying to put down gets his gun?" The meaning of the mere presence of a gun, carried for all to see, that non-gun people can easily take is a readiness and willingness to be violent, to kill, and the hardware to do so. Why is it a surprise they wouldn't like being around that attitude?

 

[Uncle Billy]

ZeSpectre:

Guns are meant to kill and have no other purpose in OC situations; cars, frying pans etc. AREN'T meant to be weapons. If one intends harm to someone else, they can use a car, a frying pan or whatever is at hand. But in a mall, in public, there's no other use for a gun but to shoot someone; frying pans and cars have their intended non-weapon purposes which don't pose a threat. THAT's why the presence of a gun is significant- it's only purpose is to shoot people, to perform as a weapon, there's no reason for it to be present other than that. It has no benevolent first purpose like a frying pan does.

If you want to be casual about that, if the danger of a poorly handled gun or one handled by someone who is inept or nuts doesn't have any more meaning for you than a frying pan in the same situation in the same hands, if you think guns and frying pans are equivalent weapons then you better take a firearms class, and let me know when you go to the range so I can stay away so as not to get shot by you.

I wrote that it's about guns AND people, which it is, and there's no way the gun part can be left out of the calculations. That much nonchalance about deadly weapons is dangerous, as I said. Trying to pass it on to those who haven't thought about it is irresponsible; it's hypocritical to make your guns kid-proof and prevent them from being stolen as a responsibility, if they really don't have that sort of significance.

I'll bet the way you handle your guns shows an awareness of what power they have and what harm they can do (at least I hope you have) - do you call that a "phobia" as well? Is being attentive to something in the hands of someone who could kill you if they wanted to an unreasonable, ungrounded fear? I think not.

 

[NavyLT]

Guns are meant to kill and have no other purpose in OC situations

Where have I heard that one before...

If you are going along those lines of thinking, why is it limited to OC?

The Brady Bunch says that guns are dangerous. Do you agree with them?

NO, I don't agree with them.

And if you do (you better!),

Why?

does that mean you're against gun rights because you agree with the Bradys?

N/A. I don't agree with the Bradys.

If I give extra attention to someone with a gun that I don't know, which you think isn't necessary, am I against your gun rights?

Of course not. Until you take action to attempt to restrict my possession and carrying of that gun.

A gun is not dangerous. Sit a gun on a table and see how many people it shoots.

I wish I could find this cartoon.... it shows a gun sitting on a table, one guy is looking at the gun and saying something like, "Bad gun! Bad gun!". The other guy is telling the first guy something like, "Be quiet! What if it's loaded?!?"

 

[ZeSpectre]

Guns are meant to kill and have no other purpose in OC situations

You keep saying that. I guess you don't understand, or don't care, about the concepts of warning signs and/or insurance. There are many thousands of recorded instances where OC firearms have been reported as having a deterrent effect without ever being drawn or used so obviously the warning can be sufficient to preclude killing. Nature does the same thing with poison frogs, skunks, and porcupines, predators don't have to actually test the venom/stink/quills, they see the warning signs and often decide "I think I'll prey someplace else".

If you want to be casual about that, if the danger of a poorly handled gun or one handled by someone who is inept or nuts doesn't have any more meaning for you than a frying pan in the same situation in the same hands, if you think guns and frying pans are equivalent weapons then you better take a firearms class, and let me know when you go to the range so I can stay away so as not to get shot by you.

ad hominem argument aside, you presume a great deal if you think I'm casual about any of this and there are PLENTY of folks here who've seen me handle firearms first hand. I do, however, keep things in perspective and concern myself with the behaviors of people not what tools or equipment they have around.

Aside from that, when someone is calm, clean-cut, non-threatening, business as usual, they tend to drop fairly low on my radar even if they are armed. When someone is acting "twitchy" or belligerent they zoom way up on my radar even if they appear to be barehanded, let alone in possession of a car, armed, or holding a pen. Dangerous PEOPLE are the real issue and punishing all for the fraction of nuts that are out there is no way to run things.

Finally, It's obvious that, in the end, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this.

 

[Uncle Billy]

There are many thousands of recorded instances where OC firearms have been reported as having a deterrent effect without ever being drawn or used so obviously the warning can be sufficient to preclude killing. Nature does the same thing with poison frogs, skunks, and porcupines, predators don't have to actually test the venom/stink/quills, they see the warning signs and often decide "I think I'll prey someplace else".

The threat of killing only has traction if killing is possible. You can't threaten to kill with something that isn't known to be deadly. Nobody is going to forgo a criminal act because of a fear of being hurt or killed if they aren't threatened with something that can hurt or kill them. If they could be, if one could act as a deterrent of crime with something less than a threat of being shot, why not threaten them with a pillow or a feather? Any threat to kill, which OC makes, needs a credible means to kill to be credible itself. The inversion is also true in the case of taking a gun to a place where it would never be used except to shoot at people- having the means to kill in the mall, for example, indicates a willingness to kill, and it's that presence that might dissuade someone from doing harm themselves, and frightens any bystanders who get it and don't want to be around when and if it happens. Skunks actually stink and it takes being sprayed to make the threat of spraying have its purpose. Ever watch a puppy nose up to a skunk, and get a shot?

Aside from that, when someone is calm, clean-cut, non-threatening, business as usual, they tend to drop fairly low on my radar even if they are armed.

So if someone bent on mass murder has a nice haircut, a clean shirt and sits still with his gun on, he's okay with you, while the drunk in a t-shirt with muddy boots and no means to hurt anyone gets your attention. And that's what the OC mission is trying to promulgate. You bet we disagree.

Guns are meant to kill and have no other purpose in OC situations

Where have I heard that one before...
If you are going along those lines of thinking, why is it limited to OC?

Guns can kill people, they can kill animals, they can break glass bottles, pop cans and put holes in paper targets. Which of these is most likely the use of a gun taking one to the mall on your belt is meant to reference? You gonna plink at light bulbs or shoot at paper cups there, or kill the deer in the petting zoo with your OC handgun?

The Brady Bunch says that guns are dangerous. Do you agree with them?

NO, I don't agree with them.

Okay, then you won't mind if I point my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum at you and bring the hammer back with the cylinder fully loaded, right? You leave your .40 Glock in Condition One on the table where the children in your life ( if there are any) can pick it up? If someone at the range turns around after a misfire and sweeps you with the muzzle of their .458 Winchester, that's okay with you? The creep that killed all those people at Virginia Tech was the cause of their deaths, not his gun? If that's the level of your understanding, then you have nothing to say worthy of a response. I'll make one anyway, because I like this sort of debate.

I don't agree with the Bradys.

But only because they are Bradys, and which means that any truth they might say you differ with. All they need to do to make you look like a fool is to say things that are obviously true, like guns are inherently dangerous, because anyone at all, on any side of the gun issue knows that guns are dangerous as a certainty. Your engagement with what they say demonstrates a fallacy of argument called "argumentum ad hominem" in the formal language of debate. That's obviously beyond your comprehension, which I don't mean to be a disparagement of you, it only means that discussion and debate with you has some severe limits and what gets exchanged isn't likely to be very enlightening.

...Until you take action to attempt to restrict my possession and carrying of that gun.

I never said I was in favor of taking your gun rights. I never said I wished that your rights to guns to be restricted. I meant to say, which your limited reading skills missed, was that when people have a choice to OC or CC, that CC is better for public relations than OC because those who don't like guns or would be afraid of guns so close to them in the hands of civilians with unknown skills and intentions don't have to deal with guns when they are concealed, and CC still provides one with the means to self-protection.

...There are many thousands of recorded instances where OC firearms have been reported as having a deterrent effect without ever being drawn or used..

Oh, really? How was that data generated? What was done- did they know ahead of time that someone had evil intent in mind, but gave it up in the presence of someone OCing, and said so to the interviewer? Did they ask everyone around the OCer what they had in mind that changed or was abandoned when they saw the gun? Cite your sources for that claim, and don't try to pass off the OC missionaries as legit sources, because they aren't legitimately unbiased.

..you presume a great deal if you think I'm casual about any of this and there are PLENTY of folks here who've seen me handle firearms first hand. I do, however, keep things in perspective and concern myself with the behaviors of people not what tools or equipment they have around.

So you have no different reaction to a drunk on a rampage with a gun than one without a gun. If someone gets into a heated shouting match with someone else, it doesn't matter to you if one of them has a gun. Well, let me tell you that someone OCing, in a nasty argument with someone else, is gonna clear the room pretty quickly unless the spectators are suicidal. And don't bother to try to convince me that all those that OC are therefore less apt to get into debates, that they can take insults, baiting, slurs, disrespect, disparagement of whatever it is they believe deeply and sexual comments about their daughters without resorting to the power to set it straight on their belts. It's my opinion that a lot of the people who OC when there are alternatives are of the sort of mindset that holds their beliefs very close and is unable to tolerate much disparagement of them before they get pretty riled. Passion on the far right, where most OCers reside, isn't accompanied by a strong ability to take insults benevolently. And the result of that damages the credibility of gun rights for all the rest of us who aren't so impassioned that we've abandoned a balanced, reasonable approach to all of this.

 

[NavyLT]

Okay, then you won't mind if I point my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum at you and bring the hammer back with the cylinder fully loaded, right?

So, you do that, Uncle Billy, do you think I am going to shoot your gun, because it is the gun that is dangerous right? No, Uncle Billy, that's not what is going to happen. Instead you are going to get about 1,000 grains of lead floating around in your chest and head. I don't give a rat's butt about your gun, which is the dangerous part right? Nope. I am going to take the real danger out, which is you, Uncle Billy, not your gun.

You leave your .40 Glock in Condition One on the table where the children in your life ( if there are any) can pick it up?

Nope. Not because my gun is dangerous. It's because if I had children that did not know how to safely handle the gun, they would be dangerous. Not the gun, the kids holding the gun would be dangerous. My gun sitting on the table, once again, is not going to shoot anybody.

If someone at the range turns around after a misfire and sweeps you with the muzzle of their .458 Winchester, that's okay with you?

Nope. Because, once again, the PERSON handling the gun is doing so in a dangerous manner. NOW, in this particular case, the round in the chamber might be dangerous by itself, because of the hangfire.

The creep that killed all those people at Virginia Tech was the cause of their deaths, not his gun?

Well, according to you, Uncle Billy, then all we have to do is take away his gun and everything is OK, then isn't it? Tell me Uncle Billy... how well did that work in Washington D.C.? Let's just take away the guns and leave the criminals alone, because without their dangerous guns, then they are OK, right? Because, according to you, it's not the person that killed anyone at Virginia Tech, it was the gun. Uncle Billy, what exactly would have happened if someone did kill the Virginia Tech shooter in the act? I guess, according to you, his gun would have fallenl to the floor and kept killing people by itself.

If that's the level of your understanding, then you have nothing to say worthy of a response. I'll make one anyway, because I like this sort of debate.

You would do a lot better to go out and hang with the Brady Bunch, because they will all agree with you there. Now your posts sound EXACTLY like their propaganda.

I never said I was in favor of taking your gun rights. I never said I wished that your rights to guns to be restricted. I meant to say, which your limited reading skills missed, was that when people have a choice to OC or CC, that CC is better for public relations than OC because those who don't like guns or would be afraid of guns so close to them in the hands of civilians with unknown skills and intentions don't have to deal with guns when they are concealed, and CC still provides one with the means to self-protection.

You should go see a counselor and figure out why you are so afraid of guns.

 

[556plinker]

My 2 Cents

It does not bother me in the least for you to OPEN CARRY.
If it is done with the intention of protecting yourself from the bad guy you are pursuing an errant course. My following reasons:

The bad guy will not reveal himself to you until he shoots you because you do not know that he is carrying or that he has evil intentions.

A bad guy will case the establishment in which you are located and shoot you first because he sees that you have a gun.

You give away any tactical advantage by being identified as one who has firepower.

That law-abiding citizen has a better gun than me....I'll shoot him and take it.

Conceal Carry eliminates all of the above. If your state does not allow CC and you feel like your life is in absolute peril you can either follow the law or do what is necessary. The Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness clause provides little solace to the deadman.

 

[Al Norris]

I've read about all I can stand.

Both sides do not agree with each other. Neither side will change their minds. Arguments have run in circles. Both sides are flinging ad homs.

Closed.