Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[Brian Pfleuger]

I haven't the slightest desire to engage in debate along those lines.

The differences between 1760s English colonialism and 21st Century America with freely elected politicians is clear beyond any common sense. These is no requirement for further definition.

Equally clear is the difference between political activism and the carrying of a firearm (by any method) as a means of self-defense.

 

[44 AMP]

this discourse will ultimately hone my arguments and probably add a few words of "in my opinion" in a few places.

First off, let me compliment you on your ability to maintain calm and focus while we are blowing big holes in your arguments. This is an important, fundamental building block, and you are showing you have it. Lots of folks don't.

In the interest of helping you craft better arguments, let me point out something...

Comparing general things to/against a specific incident is a tricky thing. Usually it results in giving the listener a different impression than what is intended.

The fact that one specific incident of an OC having their gun taken simply shows that it can, and has happened. We all know this is possible. Police are the common everyday OC, everywhere. And they get their guns taken sometimes!

DO not confuse the fact that not having numerous reported incidents available for easy reference means something is impossible or extremely unlikely. Or the opposite.

 

[Tom Servo]

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group.

We absolutely are. How the rest of the population sees us matters, and they don't see the gun culture as a spectrum. They see us as a monolithic group.

The post-Sandy Hook legislation wasn't quashed by a landslide. It was by a very slim margin. We're still behind the ball, and that one guy who looks foolish (whether by intention or not) on the evening news hurts all of us.

 

[zukiphile]

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group.

We absolutely are. How the rest of the population sees us matters, and they don't see the gun culture as a spectrum. They see us as a monolithic group.

Rather than incorporate an error into the analysis and treatment of individuals, it would further accuracy to correct the error.

 

[Tom Servo]

Rather than incorporate an error into the analysis and treatment of individuals, it would further accuracy to correct the error.

But how? On the ground, Suzie Soccer Mom just sees a guy in a Ted Nugent t-shirt walking around the mall with a rifle glaring at people. Her mind is made up in that instant.

Will I ever meet her? Will I have a chance at changing her poor first impression if I do? Probably not.

A few bad apples can spoil it for us.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If:

1. It is admitted that OC is dangerous in a risky place, then I repeat I doubt its utility. It is claimed that you shouldn't go to risky places but if you must - why take a step that increases your risk? Also who is to say that the gun makes you seem like prey for high end predators won't happen in nice places?

2. Thus, from incidents and the above analyses we know that OC cannot be claimed as the universal, never failing deterrents. The statistical methodology exists to see if there is an OC deterrent effect. No such studies have been done. Past studies were not specific to OC laws recently put into effect.

Those who argue that they will grapple, thus admit that the deterrent value has failed. They fail to realize that you do not have to grapple to get the gun away. They see folks grapple on TV with one opponent who starts the fight by clearing announcing their intent. Yeah, that's the way it would happen.

3. It is claimed that OC will desensitize folks to gun presence as there is no uproar in some locales that are gun friendly. However, we do know from the aggressive priming literature, that firearms presence can engender negative thoughts. I can quote it in depth - trust me (PhD in this area). So there is no evidence yet that OC will change public opinion positively if negative gun attitudes exist. The evidence suggests otherwise.

4. The claim that not supporting unfounded OC claims somehow makes you not a supporter of OC or willing to stand up for the RKBA is scurrilous.

I think OC is tactically stupid. I don't think it has particular political utility.

Thus, I support us drinking tea and God Save the Queen. Or perhaps, I stand up to my boss and argue for campus concealed carry - which is much more useful to my real world than carrying a gun to Starbucks. Perhaps, I testify to the TX House and get interviewed on the tube, played on several TX stations and then quoted in the major Texas newspapers. That delights my antigun work place.

Where's my crumpets and bubble and squeak?

 

[zukiphile]

But how? On the ground, Suzie Soccer Mom just sees a guy in a Ted Nugent t-shirt walking around the mall with a rifle glaring at people. Her mind is made up in that instant.

Will I ever meet her? Will I have a chance at changing her poor first impression if I do? Probably not.

Assuming an impenetrable ignorance in those you would seek to convince, and incorporating the ignorance you assume into your own position does not improve the accuracy of your position.

Some mothers of small children have a husband who shoots recreationally. Many have a gun in the home. Your sense that this is her first impression on the issue may be misguided.

I don't see the problem in explaining that people we might not like have rights, just like people we do like. The fellow with a rifle at the mall, or leaving the shop after having his rifle bore-sighted as Al was, might not be her best friend, just as the fellow with the camo covered 4x4, might not be at her next dinner party, and just as people who yell at one another on the TV might not be over to her place at Christmas. Those people are still correctly entitled carry an arm, or drive a silly looking truck, or speak as they please.

Free speech advocates know that someone will speak in unpleasant ways, and they take that into account in arguing their positions. They do not function with a sense that everyone with a blog has a corporate/collective PR responsibility.

If you meet Suzie Soccer Mom, and you can't persuade her about the value of exercising constitutionally protected rights, even when individuals do it ham-handedly, you likely weren't going to win her over anyway.

The internicene blame for the failure to persuade third parties seems a bit of an excuse.

 

[Tom Servo]

If you meet Suzie Soccer Mom, and you can't persuade her about the value of exercising constitutionally protected rights, even when individuals do it ham-handedly, you likely weren't going to win her over anyway.

True, but Suzie's negative impression of us is preventable. That's the point.

A few years ago, Ted Nugent got on stage during a concert, brandished an AR-15, and shouted "suck on this, Hillary!" It made national news. Pundits had a field day with it. Ted's on the Board of Directors. Therefore, he's the NRA, right? To many viewers, he is.

We can hue and cry all we want that he doesn't always represent us. Doesn't matter. The damage is done.

We're not going to get a chance to talk to most of those people. Their minds are made up.

 

[Dashunde]

This same link has been posted several times on this thread and you obviously now think that there was more than one story. And the OCer would not have been shot and killed if he didn't chase the kid who stole his gun. As for other people being shot. I will do you a favor and pull all of articles of CCers who have had their guns stolen when the perp got the drop on them and used that gun to kill oher. The fact is, in many robberies of persons, the BG frisks the CCer, finds the gun and steals it. Would you care to guess how many times that has happened as opposed to this one incident in 2011.

For a moment nevermind the guy who had his gun stolen, focus on the 2nd guy who was shot with that gun... it never would have happened if the OC'er was CC'er. Period.
The visible availability of the gun itself was the catalyst of the first crime and the singular instrument used in the second.
Don’t assume it’s the first time its happened, or that it'll be the last.

Pull the stats on how many officers have had gun-grab attempts or been attacked for their pistols by those whom they were not perusing/arresting to begin with.
Follow that by producing evidence that you and the OC crowd are somehow better trained to deal with such grabs. How are you more prepared than those who make it their profession?

Yes, I've repeatedly stuffed the Tyler case in your face because it’s the most recent and most definitive example of an OC gone wrong from start to finish.
It’s a solid showing that criminals don’t magically shy away from a guy with a gun on his hip, and that a few are actually drawn to the gun as if it were a fat diamond hanging around the owners neck.
OC is a statistic in the making combined with low public acceptance... at statistic that none of us here care to see inflated to the detriment of overall 2A support.

The fact is, in many robberies of persons, the BG frisks the CCer, finds the gun and steals it. Would you care to guess how many times that has happened as opposed to this one incident in 2011.

Yes, please enlighten us with more of your opinions posing as "The fact is".

It just occurred to me.... your three days, a huge first post, and 29 more posts into this forum without making any headway.
You've attracted the scowls of every scholar, lawyer, and effective 2A activist here who conservatively studies and assists in the promotion of 2A in a tangible manner that benefits us all in the real world as well as keeping an even keel here in the forum.

 

[zukiphile]

True, but Suzie's negative impression of us is preventable. That's the point.

No one contests the tautology that bad press is bad.

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy.

But it is. If enough folks go off the reservation, it creates problems for all of us.

You do employ the language of tribalism and an ability to enforce your conclusions on those you see as part of a "community". This does not seem accidental inasmuch as you employ that language repeatedly. I do not see that sort of overreach, an analytical framework in which your embarrassment over this Ted Nugent fellow is a failure of your imagined authority to police others, as the most persuasive way to describe the issues surrounding a civil right.

If your experience is that the people to whom you speak or write find that language persuasive, compelling and productive, I encourage you to continue to use it. However, it strikes me as unlikely that your claim of responsibility for people whose behavior you oppose will persuade anyone who does not already agree with you, and is likely to be taken as overbearing by those who would defend the right described in the Second Amendment, but with whom you may have minor differences.

 

[Dashunde]

...and is likely to be taken as overbearing by those who would defend the right described in the Second Amendment, but with whom you may have minor differences.

The occasionally bizarre activism of OC'ers and the negative public (voter) impression it often leaves behind is not a minor difference.
"Come And Take It" rallies typically draw a large police presence and undesirable media coverage that can hamper the efforts of core 2A supporters concerned with the bigger picture.
So yea, many feel compelled to shun those on the outer fringe who can/do bring firearms into a negative light more often than necessary.

And for what? To narrowly focus on promoting a tactically unwise method of carry that spooks much of the public in hopes that the criminals steer clear?

I think OC should be legal everywhere, but I sure don’t want to see it become common, and I certainly don’t want to see it get more media coverage.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Unity is our key to success

I have a question for all of you? How often do your gun groups meet and discuss tactics to overcome oppressive gun regulations in your state through the legislative process?

How often to you sit down with CCers, OCers, legislators and candidates in one room to discuss gun issues in your city.

We do it every month at our Idaho Carry dinner meetings at Fuddruckers and last night we had 112 in attendance with our Deputy Attorney General, 2 state representatives and several candidates. We are changing hearts and minds in Idaho.

I’m a Washington DC transplant. Born and raised there for 21 years and then stayed in California for 30 years before moving back to DC where I spent the last 15 years living under the oppression of a totally anti-gun DC government.

I moved to Idaho and discovered that there were no statewide gun organizations other than the NRA and GOA and neither of those groups were actively addressing the increasing anti-gun policies being introduced in our cities and counties.

I started Idaho Carry Open & Concealed 2 years ago and we now have members in every county and city in Idaho, and we are gearing up our www.2ndAmendment2014.com site to identify our pro-gun candidates in state races.

We have members who are a little on the fringe side and see no problem walking down the street in rural areas with an AR15 on their back. We have in depth, heavy discussions about those practices in Idaho and over time, we are able to persuade them that it is more important to win someone’s heart and mind to OC, and that can best be accomplished by OCing a handgun while sharply dressed, displaying a friendly demeanor and engaging in pro-gun conversations with those who address you.

A few here seem to think that addressing the assault by anti-gun groups can best be addressed severally without the assistance from other gun groups, not recognizing that you can better influence the unwise actions of some by engaging them constructively within a broader organization.

It may make for lively debate as I obviously engendered here, but eventually, because we are on the same forum, calmer heads and reasoned arguments will prevail. I’m open to changing some of my original post to address issues that call for clarification between “opinion” and “statements of fact” but some of you need to realize that we operate more effectively as a team, OCers & CCers, when confronting the very real attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights from our state and federal government.

Here is a link to more photos from our 2nd Amendment Rally at our Capitol last winter. We will be holding another this January. It is this kind of rally organized by CCers & OCers that will bring unity.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151783784600550&set=t.100000280453952&type=1&theater

 

[Dashunde]

Well said, that post combined with a bit of your original, would have represented your efforts better.
It seems you and your group operate differently than your OP would suggest.

A few here seem to think that addressing the assault by anti-gun groups can best be addressed severally without the assistance from other gun groups, not recognizing that you can better influence the unwise actions of some by engaging them constructively within a broader organization.

This forum is a pretty broad organization, its educated thousands on nearly all firearm-related issues, including political.
It’s a random array of members, anchored by many who are heavily involved in groups, training, law, and so on.
In essence its similar to meeting at Fuddruckers, except we do it every day to some degree.

I’m open to changing some of my original post to address issues that call for clarification between “opinion” and “statements of fact” but some of you need to realize that we operate more effectively as a team, OCers & CCers

No one is saying we're on different teams, we were pointing out that howling at the moon wont bring an understanding to those your hoping to sway and can do more harm than good.
To promote your cause effectively your points need clear, concise, truthful documentation that others can follow and buy into.

 

[zincwarrior]

The Texas State Rifle Association meets annually, and has it own lobbying effort.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I’m open to changing some of my original post to address issues that call for clarification between “opinion” and “statements of fact” but some of you need to realize that we operate more effectively as a team, OCers & CCers, when confronting the very real attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights from our state and federal government....

Yes, we can be more effective as a team. But part of being effective is understanding the audience and tailoring the message to best speak to the audience.

And as far as revising your original post, I think it first needs to be clear what the message is supposed to be. In it's current form it almost seems to be intended to promote open carry as superior. If that's supposed to be the message, I don't think you'd be able to rigorously demonstrate it.

On the other hand, you might start with the premise that both open carry and concealed carry are useful. You could then explore some of the benefits and drawbacks of each and the sorts of considerations which might make someone prefer one to the other in certain circumstances and for certain purposes. Any choice involves trade-offs.

...How often do your gun groups meet and discuss tactics to overcome oppressive gun regulations in your state through the legislative process?...

In California we have regional NRA Member Councils which meet monthly. The California Rifle and Pistol Association works closely with the NRA and the Member Councils on lobbying and legislative matters. We also have the Calguns Foundation which works with the Second Amendment Foundation looking at possible litigation efforts and helping to fund litigation; and those interested in that area keep in touch electronically.

Different environments call for different methods. California has vastly different politics from Idaho and over 20 times the population (some 38,000,000 compared with about 1,600,000).

 

[hogdogs]

I have been following this thread without participating to share my opinion on this...

We have covered and recovered the pros and cons of open carry vs. concealed... That was, after all, the entire purpose of the thread... Beyond that the only other purpose would be pure and simple political activism...

Either way, this thread has gone back and forth and roundy round enuff...

If the OP would like to continue activism threads, then it can be on other issues and we will see where they go...

So this one is closed....

Brent