Sidearms & Scatterguns Open carry vs Concealed

[kjsl105]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Agree that carrying concealed is both a right and a tactic. In that the mindest should focus past the right to carry, but how to best prepare for a possible incidcent. It may be your right to open carry in public but you give up the element of surprise. Counter-arguement being that it immediately makes you a "hard target" but it also centers you as an immediate threat to your would be attacker. We carry to respond to a situation, by highlighting yourself it seems it raises the possiblity of losing that vital step in your defense.

 

[marduk185]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joe Kim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agree that carrying concealed is both a right and a tactic. In that the mindest should focus past the right to carry, but how to best prepare for a possible incidcent. It may be your right to open carry in public but you give up the element of surprise. Counter-arguement being that it immediately makes you a "hard target" but it also centers you as an immediate threat to your would be attacker. We carry to respond to a situation, by highlighting yourself it seems it raises the possiblity of losing that vital step in your defense. </div></div>

one carries concealed to protect oneself. one carries openly as a deterent and to protect others by focusing those malcontents' agressions squarely at someone who welcomes the attentions.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

The trend here is there is no right or wrong answers. Carrying a firearm in either way, is no garuntee, but gives you a means to survive. Regardless of whatever method you use, you need a plan. The CC guy needs to be able to draw his/her weapon from concealment, when deemed an appropriate measure, whether in protection of ones self or another. The OC guy needs to consider that he may be viewed as a threat, but more than likely viewed as a deterrent. If I OC I am more aware of whats around me, fact being, I know I have a gun, and so does everone else. No, I really dont care what the public thinks, its legal here, so I am over that. Its more than likely a criminal looking for an easy target will move on. But those are not the only issues where having a gun will work as a deterant. Taking note to the news there has been an great increase of active shooters. These guys arent looking for easy victims. Most end the assault with suicide, or suicide by cop. Anyone can be distracted. Some nut barges into the local shop and the first person he sees has a gun...well we know who gets shot first. There is more than just the lone mugger in the dark alley scene that will cause a defensive situation. Speculation is not fact, but neither is opinion.

The OP asked what the advantage is to OC. It has been stated. Each method has its use.

 

[twadsw01]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

I read the first page but have skimmed many of the other posts and haven't seen where anyone's mentioned the concept of getting the public used to seeing and being near law-abiding citizens carrying firearms.

I work with people who are literally afraid of firearms (and other weapons too - pocket knives). In the car one day going to lunch, I had a rifle round in my shirt-pocket from shooting at the range the night before, and upon finding it and taking it out, the guy in the backseat with me was flat against his door telling me to watch where I was "pointing that thing", asking me what I was doing with it. Ignorance reigns when it comes to firearms, at least the area of NC I live in. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't that way in many places across the US (not to mention, the world).

I believe that most people associate firearms with criminals and LE/mil, and NOT law-abiding citizens. I think that if more "regular" people were seen properly (safely) handling/using/carrying firearms, that it would go a long way towards desensitizing and educating people about firearms, and perhaps garner more support (or at least less opposition) for 2A rights.

I also agree with all of the above posts about open-carry giving away the tactical advantage of surprise. That's probably the biggest deterrent for me personally doing it. As far as the concealed carrier being at a disadvantage in draw speed vs. the open carrier, I don't really see it being enough of a disadvantage to outweigh the tactical advantage of surprise. Not by a long shot. BUT, for the above stated reasons, I fully support the RIGHT to open carry. Even if any of you would consider it dumb, I'd like to retain the right to do dumb things and not have a nanny-state government specifying down the last detail everything I can and cannot do.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brutus1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in case you missed it, they even do it at obama rallies:

</div></div>Regardless of whether or not the man with the rifle had a right to carry, his choice to carry that day at that location was tactless, selfish, foolish, and showed a lack of mature judgement. He likely forced a re-allocation of priorities among law enforcement, which could have endangered innocent people at the event had there been an incident that required a response.

I support the recreational use of firearms and I encourage people to have fun with them, safely, on a shooting range or in the field. But playing dress-up should be reserved for Halloween. Far too many untrained people choose to carry for purposes of ego, or to display their weapon in public simply because they can or because their title or rank permits it (yes, being a 'wannabe' doesn't automatically end when you get the job).

Like the locally iconic footage of a tactical team that returned from a deployment sweeping each other with the muzzles of loaded firearms, the media will likely emphasize any footage of a man with no obvious reason for showing up to a political rally with a gun.

Bottom line: There are places where carrying a gun is inappropriate, although it may not be prohibited. And I prefer to spend my time with people who understand the difference.

Amateurs teach that being armed is a deterrent to crime. Professionals know better.

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regardless of whether or not the man with the rifle had a right to carry, his choice to carry that day at that location was tactless, selfish, foolish, and showed a lack of mature judgement. He likely forced a re-allocation of priorities among law enforcement, which could have endangered innocent people at the event had there been an incident that required a response.

I support the recreational use of firearms and I encourage people to have fun with them, safely, on a shooting range or in the field. But playing dress-up should be reserved for Halloween. Far too many untrained people choose to carry for purposes of ego, or to display their weapon in public simply because they can or because their title or rank permits it (yes, being a 'wannabe' doesn't automatically end when you get the job).

Like the locally iconic footage of a tactical team that returned from a deployment sweeping each other with the muzzles of loaded firearms, the media will likely emphasize any footage of a man with no obvious reason for showing up to a political rally with a gun.

Bottom line: There are places where carrying a gun is inappropriate, although it may not be prohibited. And I prefer to spend my time with people who understand the difference.

Amateurs teach that being armed is a deterrent to crime. Professionals know better. </div></div>

Member of the Brady campaign are ya? Recreational use? Places where carry is inappropriate? Carrying a weapon for self defense (or any other reason for that matter) in accordance with your second amendment rights become a burden for LE/security, forcing them to redeploy? Damn, that's all just too bad. These are the very marching lines of antis. So you are telling me there are places where you prefer citizens shouldn't be able to defend themselves? You don't believe the statistics that suggest places where carry is allowed have lower crime rates, thus carrying a weapon actually <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> a deterrent? Excuse me, but short of a political lobbyist for the Brady campaign, just what sort of "professional" believes an armed citizenry is not a deterrent to crime?

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Taking bets on how much longer till the mods lock this.

I say 3 more posts of the 2A pissing match that this is being stoked into (all we are missing now are the "sheep" insults).....which has not just veered, but went off a cliff, in regards to the OP's original question.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is the advantage to open carry for the citizen? </div></div>

The answers have been stated, move on. Your not gonna change his mind, he is not gonna change yours, and some folks are too blind to see there is more to life than what OPINION the other guy has. Or you can keep it going, the thread will get locked or deleted, and anyone that has a contribution lesser than a political plight will not be able to add to this. But at least someone got to angrily shake their fist at a computer screen. Makes it all worth it I guess.

 

[AK10mm]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Taking bets on how much longer till the mods lock this.

I say 3 more posts of the 2A pissing match that this is being stoked into (all we are missing now are the "sheep" insults).....which has not just veered, but went off a cliff, in regards to the OP's original question.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is the advantage to open carry for the citizen? </div></div>

The answers have been stated, move on. Your not gonna change his mind, he is not gonna change yours, and some folks are too blind to see there is more to life than what OPINION the other guy has. Or you can keep it going, the thread will get locked or deleted, and anyone that has a contribution lesser than a political plight will not be able to add to this. But at least someone got to angrily shake their fist at a computer screen. Makes it all worth it I guess. </div></div>

Why get emotional at all ? Just "Do what you gotta do",I know I do !!! I would rather nobody knows what I have up my sleeve.......good way to keep it !!!! JMHO.......

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brutus1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in case you missed it, they even do it at obama rallies:

</div></div>Regardless of whether or not the man with the rifle had a right to carry, his choice to carry that day at that location was tactless, selfish, foolish, and showed a lack of mature judgement. He likely forced a re-allocation of priorities among law enforcement, which could have endangered innocent people at the event had there been an incident that required a response.

I support the recreational use of firearms and I encourage people to have fun with them, safely, on a shooting range or in the field. But playing dress-up should be reserved for Halloween. Far too many untrained people choose to carry for purposes of ego, or to display their weapon in public simply because they can or because their title or rank permits it (yes, being a 'wannabe' doesn't automatically end when you get the job).

Like the locally iconic footage of a tactical team that returned from a deployment sweeping each other with the muzzles of loaded firearms, the media will likely emphasize any footage of a man with no obvious reason for showing up to a political rally with a gun.

Bottom line: There are places where carrying a gun is inappropriate, although it may not be prohibited. And I prefer to spend my time with people who understand the difference.

Amateurs teach that being armed is a deterrent to crime. Professionals know better. </div></div>


Exactly! Why would this fool want to do this....TO RUB IT IN?! There is no reason to piss of liberals and leftist by doing shit like this. I'm all about gun rights.....and maturity. Remember the old saying "there is a time and place for everything"? When people do this sort of stuff it makes the less educated on guns fear them more. Oh I know it's their problem blah blah. Well those peoples votes have the same values as the gun supporters. I disagree with this post on the thinking there are places where carrying is inappropiate though. You should be allowed to carry everywhere, open or concealed. I am just more for concealing.

 

[Falar]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brutus1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in case you missed it, they even do it at obama rallies:

</div></div>Regardless of whether or not the man with the rifle had a right to carry, his choice to carry that day at that location was tactless, selfish, foolish, and showed a lack of mature judgement. He likely forced a re-allocation of priorities among law enforcement, which could have endangered innocent people at the event had there been an incident that required a response.

I support the recreational use of firearms and I encourage people to have fun with them, safely, on a shooting range or in the field. But playing dress-up should be reserved for Halloween. Far too many untrained people choose to carry for purposes of ego, or to display their weapon in public simply because they can or because their title or rank permits it (yes, being a 'wannabe' doesn't automatically end when you get the job).

Like the locally iconic footage of a tactical team that returned from a deployment sweeping each other with the muzzles of loaded firearms, the media will likely emphasize any footage of a man with no obvious reason for showing up to a political rally with a gun.

Bottom line: There are places where carrying a gun is inappropriate, although it may not be prohibited. And I prefer to spend my time with people who understand the difference.

Amateurs teach that being armed is a deterrent to crime. Professionals know better. </div></div>


Exactly! Why would this fool want to do this....TO RUB IT IN?! There is no reason to piss of liberals and leftist by doing shit like this. I'm all about gun rights.....and maturity. Remember the old saying "there is a time and place for everything"? When people do this sort of stuff it makes the less educated on guns fear them more. Oh I know it's their problem blah blah. Well those peoples votes have the same values as the gun supporters. I disagree with this post on the thinking there are places where carrying is inappropiate though. You should be allowed to carry everywhere, open or concealed. I am just more for concealing. </div></div>


If by "rubbing it in" you mean reminding the government and the government officials who is really in charge then I guess that would be an excellent example of why he would carry like that there. I don't know that guy or what his motives were but if they were something along those lines then good for him.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If by "rubbing it in" you mean reminding the government and the government officials who is really in charge then I guess that would be an excellent example of why he would carry like that there. I don't know that guy or what his motives were but if they were something along those lines then good for him. </div></div> We are fortunate to live in a country where the government is required to trust its citizens with carrying deadly weapons. As to who is in charge, we are a country of laws, not of men. It makes no sense to provide others with the arguments they are looking for with which to change the laws to your disadvantage.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I disagree with this post on the thinking there are places where carrying is inappropiate though. You should be allowed to carry everywhere, open or concealed. I am just more for concealing. </div></div> I didn’t say that responsible people should not be allowed to carry everywhere. I said that people who are allowed to carry everywhere should exercise their judgement and discretion to avoid bolstering the argument of those who want to limit their right to carry.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Member of the Brady campaign are ya? Recreational use? Places where carry is inappropriate? Carrying a weapon for self defense (or any other reason for that matter) in accordance with your second amendment rights become a burden for LE/security, forcing them to redeploy? Damn, that's all just too bad.</div></div>I haven’t joined the Brady Campaign. But I do my part not to encourage others to do so.

Your reading of the state of the law on the Second Amendment is incorrect: <span style="font-style: italic">Heller</span> gives you the right to have a handgun in your home for self defense, but it does not (yet) give you the right to carry a weapon. People unmindful of the difference end-up sounding like idiots.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These are the very marching lines of antis. So you are telling me there are places where you prefer citizens shouldn't be able to defend themselves? You don't believe the statistics that suggest places where carry is allowed have lower crime rates, thus carrying a weapon actually <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> a deterrent?</div></div>Read again what I posted: There’s nothing in there about an armed citizenry, or places where I advocate that the law of self defense should be suspended. And No, I don't always believe statistics.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Excuse me, but short of a political lobbyist for the Brady campaign, just what sort of "professional" believes an armed citizenry is not a deterrent to crime?</div></div>One that has seen well-meaning but arrogant fools get in over their heads, and go to jail. That said, I am not against citizens being armed and/or carrying their weapons.

Perhaps Texagator put it best:

The sky is not falling. People are more free to carry weapons in public now than at any time since the end of the Civil War. The things that we take for granted right now when it comes to carrying, transporting, and using weapons (especially handguns) would land a guy in jail in 1957. In addition to being better equipped and better armed than any previous generation, American citizens are more free and able to conceal, carry, and use their firearms today than at any time in American history (with places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. being both exceptions and anomalies). The lack of an open carry law neither negates nor threatens any of our freedoms. We are free men and women who have a better enumerated and confirmed right to carry firearms on our persons and across the country than our grandfathers or great grandfathers did.

 

[PRDRIVER]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I teach I stress to students, "Know the why". Why are you doing one tactic or technique versus another? The are numerous ways to accomplish a task. For example, open carry versus concealed carry. There is a time and place for Joe Public to carry open. The post New Orleans Katrina was a great time to open carry. The tactic would tell those observing, "I am not an easy target". Outside of that type of scenario I can not conceive of an instance where a citizen would need to open carry.

So this week I was on vacation with the family and we stopped at a rest area on the PA turnpike. The rest area was very busy, to the point that there was a short wait to use the restroom. As I waited I noticed an older grandpa type helping what I assumed was his grandson wash his hands. The grandson was probably 4-5 years old. I noticed the grandpa had a chrome 1911 on his right hip. The grandpa's shirt was untucked but the shirt appeared to be slightly tucked in between the gun and waist band. My gut reaction was he failed to conceal the weapon after using the restroom so as he exited I discretely told him his handgun was exposed. To my surprised the guy acted like I was infringing on his rights and snapped back stating that PA is an open carry state.

All I could think was why would this guy want to advertise his handgun in a very crowded rest stop all while trying to manage his young grandson?

So what is the advantage to open carry for the citizen? </div></div>

I don't see any advantage to open carry in that situation.

1. He has now made himself the first target if he walks into a bad situation.
2. Now, he needs to worry about gun retention. How easily do you think it would have been for you to take his firearm while he was helping his grandson?
3. Most importantly, he has lost his tactical advantage.

In my view, Open Carry in a post Katrina scenario, would be slinging an AR, AK, or tactical 12 ga across your chest. Open Carry in that scenario, is to tell people from a distance, there are easier targets than me and if you mess with me you have a high probability of getting killed.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Tactically, unless the usual laws of polite soceity are suspended, there is no advantage to open carry.

Socially, the advantage to open carry for the citizen is to demonstrate that responsible people know when to properly exercise their rights with respect for others.

I’m not saying that carrying guns openly is a bad thing. I am saying that people who only repeat opinions they hear on FOX news or NPR do not realize that real change always takes place in two directions at the same time. Therefore I am not convinced that carrying an AR at a political rally is a victory for gun rights. In fact, I lean more in the direction of thinking that it makes gun owners look like braggarts and fools, and gives those ambivalent toward guns a legitimate argument for why armed morons at rallies already have more freedom than they can responsibly use.

 

[tomahawk84]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brutus1776</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in case you missed it, they even do it at obama rallies:

</div></div>Regardless of whether or not the man with the rifle had a right to carry, his choice to carry that day at that location was tactless, selfish, foolish, and showed a lack of mature judgement. He likely forced a re-allocation of priorities among law enforcement, which could have endangered innocent people at the event had there been an incident that required a response.

I support the recreational use of firearms and I encourage people to have fun with them, safely, on a shooting range or in the field. But playing dress-up should be reserved for Halloween. Far too many untrained people choose to carry for purposes of ego, or to display their weapon in public simply because they can or because their title or rank permits it (yes, being a 'wannabe' doesn't automatically end when you get the job).

Like the locally iconic footage of a tactical team that returned from a deployment sweeping each other with the muzzles of loaded firearms, the media will likely emphasize any footage of a man with no obvious reason for showing up to a political rally with a gun.

Bottom line: There are places where carrying a gun is inappropriate, although it may not be prohibited. And I prefer to spend my time with people who understand the difference.

Amateurs teach that being armed is a deterrent to crime. Professionals know better. </div></div>



There is no reason someone with a firearm should redirect LE. There is paranoia among LE when it comes to civilians and "guns" has run rampant. I am now working in DHS after 8 years in the Army. I have also worked in Nuclear security. I Carry concealed, as well as open carry, it all depends on where I go and who I am with people need to use common sense, and have respect for one another.

How do we know the guy with the slung AR is untrained, how do we know anything about him. We all have our own ideas of how things should be done but there is no reason to say one is wrong when really it is only different than our own way of doing things.

If someone chooses to open carry they will have to deal with the consequences, and if that makes someone feel uncomfortable being around them, they have the choice to leave and or keep their distance. The same goes for an individual who chooses to concealed carry. Many people are highly trained and skilled with firearms, many more are not. I know LEOs that I wouldn't go to the range with never mind go somewhere with while they are carrying open or concealed. "I have a badge I know how to shoot" There are civilians that I would go to war with, raid a house with or conduct a multitude of operations with. So before making comments about how and why people should carry maybe you should look at yourself. I am not the best at what I do, and I am sure I will more and more as time goes on, but don't forget everyone has their own way of conducting themselves, and if you don't like it disassociate with them and or accept things as they are.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tomahawk84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no reason someone with a firearm should redirect LE.</div></div>Having worked protection details, I can tell you that there are many obviously good reasons why someone with a loaded gun at a political rally would get scrutiny and overwatch. But if you don't believe me, read this year's news from Arizona.

Why is watching people with loaded guns important when trying to protect important people? Hmmmm... maybe because:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tomahawk84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do we know the guy with the slung AR is untrained, how do we know anything about him. We all have our own ideas of how things should be done...</div></div>
Agreed that someone who chooses to open carry will have to deal with the consequences. I am not 'paranoid' about people with guns, but LE has a duty to watch known potential threats and they do not have the choice to leave if they feel uncomfortable about a situation. That's why I said his choice to carry at a rally was selfish and stupid.

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Graham,
First off, let me offer a very sincere apology to you for turning somewhat personal in my previous posting. I was in a crap mood, and this topic is something that I believe very strongly in. Caught up in all that, I did something I try very hard to never do, and that is name-call, or turn things even remotely personal. I hope you will accept my apology for doing so.

That said, I believe you are wrong in your assessment of the second amendment. <span style="font-style: italic">Heller</span> conveys no such right. Heller merely <span style="font-style: italic">confirms</span> that the second amendment does so. This to me, should be a non-issue and should never have gone so far as to <span style="font-style: italic">need</span> confirmation.

As for professionals who don't believe armed citizens reduces crime, seeing morons get in over their heads and going to jail is a valid point. However, that occurs with most things. Alcohol; cars (think death by vehicle, whether alcohol related or not); guns, as you have mentioned; even fists. People use/abuse these and act in ways to disregard the rights of others all the time. But we can't treat responsible people in the same manner as we would those few morons just because their actions are stupid. Either way, the point I make is that concealed carry does reduce crime. Well, crime against people at least. My contention is that an armed society, whether open or concealed, is a good thing. Deal with the morons you suggest, but cut the arm off the patient who has a hangnail.

I actually do agree with you that there are places where one should use common sense and exercise some discretion. The rally mentioned above is a good example. While I understand that is the best place to make a political statement, I don't believe that is the way <span style="font-weight: bold">I</span> would choose to do so. But I do defend the right of the other fellow to do so. Similarly, I will likely never choose to open carry. That's just not my bag, which is why I chose to get me CHP. But I do defend the right to do so.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

csi, no worries, I appreciate your perspective and I respect it.

I, too, have no problems with an armed society, but it is important to consider how the limits to it are set: France under the Nazi occupation was also an armed society, but I would not have supported it, nor fared well under that regime.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe you are wrong in your assessment of the second amendment. <span style="font-style: italic">Heller</span> conveys no such right. Heller merely <span style="font-style: italic">confirms</span> that the second amendment does so.</div></div>You can argue semantics, but you're still wrong. <span style="font-style: italic">Heller</span> interpreted the Second Amendment with regard to federal enclaves, it didn't confirm it. Heller held that a handgun ban and a specific trigger-lock requirement violated the Second Amendment.

<span style="font-style: italic">McDonald</span> held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense, and incorporated the right of an individual to 'keep and bear arms' through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But still today, if you get caught carrying a concealed handgun in Illinios without a permit, you're going to jail. The Second Amendment is no defense. I often take issue with misinformation on public forums because I have seen people argue, in court, that they had the right to carry a gun under the Second Amendment. Good luck with that argument, because it isn't one: They lost.

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

And therein lies my problem with those such as yourself who feel justification with "interpretation" of the second amendment. It's pretty damned clear, and the fact that we as a nation have allowed it to be diluted to the point that we stand for interpreting it as we (some) see fit is abysmal. I understand this position you defend from an anti-gun standpoint - it furthers that agenda. However, this is what angers me the most; when supposed pro-gun folks such as yourself accept this position and even argue that these "interpretations" say what you claim. You can cite all the case law you want, and call it semantics if you like, but that does not negate the fact that all are based upon the second amendment, and were it not for that very amendment, those cases would have gone the other way. They are merely confirming a right conveyed by the Constitution, otherwise there would have been no basis for those decisions. My contention is that those cases never should have seen a courtroom in the first place. I remind you,

<span style="font-style: italic">"... shall not be infringed"</span>.

Where's the need for <span style="font-style: italic">interpretation</span>? When we allow the government, the very entity that amendment was designed to defend against, to <span style="font-style: italic">interpret</span> the meaning of these words for themselves, we pretty much defeat the purpose. I understand that you may be arguing from a "real world" perspective with regard to the particulars of some state laws, however, in my opinion, people who believe as you seem to are part of the problem. Again, I don't mean to be personal, and this is in no way meant as a personal attack. I simply don't know a more genteel way to put it. You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. You either believe the folks who wrote it had a better command of the English language than most, and worded it to mean exactly what the meant, or you don't. I, for one, believe they were a fairly smart bunch, knew exactly what they wanted to say, had enough of a command of the language to say it, had very valid reasons for their views, and left little room for <span style="font-style: italic">interpretation</span>. The fact that the people you cite lost their arguments in court is in no way a reflection on the Constitution, but a condemnation of what we have allowed to happen through <span style="font-style: italic">interpretation</span> of a pretty well-written document.

ETA: While I welcome the chance to continue this line of discussion, I recognize that I have been party to derailing the OP's original thread, and for that too, I apologize. This will be the last remark I will offer on this topic. Also, to actually speak to the OPs original post, perhaps the fellow's arthritis hindered him a bit and he didn't feel like trusting his or his families lives to the fumblings of an old man with a shirt, pants, or some other method of concealment in order to respect the civilities of some of those around him. Again, I understand the anti-gun crowd's criticism, but you don't gain the acceptance of the general society by hiding in the closet. I can think of several other groups whom I may well disagree that have found this to be the case and are now generally accepted and even protected. Why should gun owners enjoy anything less?

 

[3PER]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BillPrudden</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greetings all -

I think grandpop is carrying for a very different reason than most of us do. A displayed chrome 1911 is an identity piece and is being carried to be a political bumper sticker or oversized "Don't Tread on Me" flag in the front yard, not as any sort of meaningful self-defense solution. He carried that gun, in that way, in that setting to make a statement, not to protect himself and his family. Going CCW would have therefore defeated the purpose.

That said, I am sure if you had interviewed him further he would have spouted all sort of nonsensical shit about self-defense, evidencing a profound lack of appreciation regarding the true nature of the threat, and perhaps even pointed back to the service pistol award he won in the Army in '58. Convincing folks that a gun is neither the lightning rod of Zeus nor a magic evil-shield is hard work, and low-paying work at that...

My big complaint with this guy, and the guys in the orange NRA hats who man the booths at the county fair, and the guys who write the vitriol-filled letters to the editors, and the guys who so clumsily and arrograntly "greet" newcomers at the local range, is that they misrepresent all of us, or at least most of us. His "identity issues" are a possible threat to my freedom, or at least I fear they will be.

Bill </div></div>


You presume way too much. Your "fears" are unimportant to me and the "threats to your freedom" don't come from a citizen exercising a God given right. I open carry often. I conceal carry more often. I carry always. I don't concern myself about what other people think about my reasons for doing so or whether they approve of my tactics. Get my point?

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">"... shall not be infringed"</span></div></div>What shall not be infringed? The right to Keep? What does 'Keep' mean? And Bear? What does it mean to 'Bear' arms? Is your idea of what it means the same as mine? Is our idea the same as was that of each of the Founding Fathers? Can it be? If not, who decides?

See the problem: The affairs of men are neither simple nor transparent, because there are over three hundred million different versions of reality present right now in this country alone.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When we allow the government, the very entity that amendment was designed to defend against, to <span style="font-style: italic">interpret</span> the meaning of these words for themselves, we pretty much defeat the purpose.</div></div>The government didn't interpret the Second Amendment in those cases, the Supreme Court did. Before <span style="font-style: italic">McDonald</span> the Second Amendment was not incorporated into the Bill of Rights. The Amendment is therefore stronger now than it ever was in our lifetime. Thus the strength and wisdom of our Constitution is that it is not static, but continues to apply to the changes of today's world. Otherwise we would only have a right to keep and bear muskets, and no one would care.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You either belive in the constitution or you don't. You either believe the folks who wrote it had a better command of the English language than most, and worded it to mean exactly what the meant, or you don't.</div></div>It doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not; it exists anyway. But even the English language has changed since then. Our task as inheritors of it is to give the Constitution, and its fundamental principles, relevant meaning in today's world.

Declaring that a book or a writing says what it says, or means what it means, is a circular argument. Those may be comforting thoughts, but both fall short of meaningful understanding.

...which comes full circle to Cowboy's original post, where he said that whatever path one chooses one should know the 'why'.

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 3PER</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BillPrudden</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greetings all -

I think grandpop is carrying for a very different reason than most of us do. A displayed chrome 1911 is an identity piece and is being carried to be a political bumper sticker or oversized "Don't Tread on Me" flag in the front yard, not as any sort of meaningful self-defense solution. He carried that gun, in that way, in that setting to make a statement, not to protect himself and his family. Going CCW would have therefore defeated the purpose.

That said, I am sure if you had interviewed him further he would have spouted all sort of nonsensical shit about self-defense, evidencing a profound lack of appreciation regarding the true nature of the threat, and perhaps even pointed back to the service pistol award he won in the Army in '58. Convincing folks that a gun is neither the lightning rod of Zeus nor a magic evil-shield is hard work, and low-paying work at that...

My big complaint with this guy, and the guys in the orange NRA hats who man the booths at the county fair, and the guys who write the vitriol-filled letters to the editors, and the guys who so clumsily and arrograntly "greet" newcomers at the local range, is that they misrepresent all of us, or at least most of us. His "identity issues" are a possible threat to my freedom, or at least I fear they will be.

Bill </div></div>


You presume way too much. Your "fears" are unimportant to me and the "threats to your freedom" don't come from a citizen exercising a God given right. I open carry often. I conceal carry more often. I carry always. I don't concern myself about what other people think about my reasons for doing so or whether they approve of my tactics. Get my point? </div></div>


WOW, now it's a GOD given right ahahahahaha Hate to tell you but your GOD didn't right the constitution.
Everyone keeps talking about the "right" well we have the right of freedom of speech but does it make it right when a 60 year old says something sexually to a twelve year old? I mean he does have the "right" of freedom of speech. I know it's not the same thing but some weirdos think it's ok. Just like some weirdos think it's ok to walk around political rallies with an AR slung on their back. Right this and right that....use some damn sense!

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

In the years to come we will see whether the Second Amendment will be treated by the courts more like the First Amendment, which has teeth, or more like the Fourth Amendment, which is so riddled with exceptions as to be a shadow of its former self.

Which version do you think is being advanced by people who refuse to concern themselves with what other people think?

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

I'm sorry, but now you are just trying to "win" an argument. Your assertion ring somewhat hollow and disingenuous to me. Or should I say a bit too <span style="font-style: italic">progressive</span>? You, I, and everyone else know exactly what the meanings were and are. If not, may I suggest the writings of George Mason may help clear the waters for you. As for your contention of muskets being a limiting factor, again, <span style="font-style: italic">"shall not be infringed"</span> makes that a moot point as well. Yes, I know this line of thinking opens me up to your asking should the general citizenry be allowed to own nukes or biological weapons as well. Of course, the answer is no. But this can be accomplished through the regulation of nuclear and biologic materials necessary to build these weapons - a whole different topic.

As for the SCOTUS serving as interpreters of the Constitution and not the government, you CAN'T be serious. You do realize that not only is the SCOTUS appointed by the government, thus reflective of that particular government's view, they are at the top of a little thing called the Judicial branch of <span style="font-style: italic">government</span>. In short, the SCOTUS is, in fact, the government.

I would respect your <span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span> more if you simply stated it without the condescension and insulting insinuations, such as "falling short of meaningful and understanding". Suffice it to say you are among those that see the Constitution as a guideline, open to interpretation. I do not. I reject your assertion to see it otherwise lacks "understanding". To say that a book or document doesn't mean exactly what the original author wrote is both arrogant and presumptuous, as well as insulting to both the author and others who read the same document. In fact, the argument can be made that because you feel the need to <span style="font-style: italic">interpret</span> said work demonstrates a lack "understanding" on your part. The "circular argument" you suggest is a result of your view that the Constitution be interpreted. Accept it as is, adhere to it's original intent, and your argument moot. The problem is not that 300 million people can't interpret the Constitution; the problem is that so many feel they have the right to do so.

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

WOW, now it's a GOD given right ahahahahaha Hate to tell you but your GOD didn't right the constitution.
Everyone keeps talking about the "right" well we have the right of freedom of speech but does it make it right when a 60 year old says something sexually to a twelve year old? I mean he does have the "right" of freedom of speech. I know it's not the same thing but some weirdos think it's ok. Just like some weirdos think it's ok to walk around political rallies with an AR slung on their back. Right this and right that....use some damn sense! </div></div>

You know, you're write (sic, meant to mock a right(ing) of the Constitution), to hell with all these damned cumbersome "rights", regardless of where they came from. Let's all just be ruled by your "damn sense". That sound ok to you?

Edit: Sorry, went back on my word. I'm out of this one, there's no reason to be had here.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You, I, and everyone else know exactly what the meanings were and are.</div></div>Nine Supreme Court Justices, all smarter than me by the way

, and everyone on both sides of the argument who helped write the amicus briefs agreed that the meanings were not shared.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I know this line of thinking opens me up to your asking should the general citizenry be allowed to own nukes or biological weapons as well.</div></div>Nope: Neither of them are 'arms' under either the literal language or any interprtation of the Amendment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for the SCOTUS serving as interpreters of the Constitution and not the government, you CAN'T be serious. You do realize that not only is the SCOTUS appointed by the government, thus reflective of that particular government's view, they are at the top of a little thing called the Judicial branch of <span style="font-style: italic">government</span>. In short, the SCOTUS is, in fact, the government.</div></div>Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, which is why some change their stripes after confirmation. I get it, though, your argument is that only some of the Constitution applies, therefore no co-equal branch enumerated in the Constitution should be permitted to speak on the Second Amendment. But wait a minute... if 'We, the people' are the government we must all be the government. So, in your political model who decides what the Amendment says? You alone? Or only people who agree with you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To say that a book or document doesn't mean exactly what the original author wrote is both arrogant and presumptuous, as well as insulting to both the author and others who read the same document.</div></div>But what did the original author write? How do you know what he meant? And who is the one claiming to have a monopoly on the truth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is not that 300 million people can't interpret the Constitution; the problem is that so many feel they have the right to do so. </div></div>Agreed.

 

[3PER]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 3PER</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BillPrudden</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greetings all -

I think grandpop is carrying for a very different reason than most of us do. A displayed chrome 1911 is an identity piece and is being carried to be a political bumper sticker or oversized "Don't Tread on Me" flag in the front yard, not as any sort of meaningful self-defense solution. He carried that gun, in that way, in that setting to make a statement, not to protect himself and his family. Going CCW would have therefore defeated the purpose.

That said, I am sure if you had interviewed him further he would have spouted all sort of nonsensical shit about self-defense, evidencing a profound lack of appreciation regarding the true nature of the threat, and perhaps even pointed back to the service pistol award he won in the Army in '58. Convincing folks that a gun is neither the lightning rod of Zeus nor a magic evil-shield is hard work, and low-paying work at that...

My big complaint with this guy, and the guys in the orange NRA hats who man the booths at the county fair, and the guys who write the vitriol-filled letters to the editors, and the guys who so clumsily and arrograntly "greet" newcomers at the local range, is that they misrepresent all of us, or at least most of us. His "identity issues" are a possible threat to my freedom, or at least I fear they will be.

Bill </div></div>


You presume way too much. Your "fears" are unimportant to me and the "threats to your freedom" don't come from a citizen exercising a God given right. I open carry often. I conceal carry more often. I carry always. I don't concern myself about what other people think about my reasons for doing so or whether they approve of my tactics. Get my point? </div></div>


WOW, now it's a GOD given right ahahahahaha Hate to tell you but your GOD didn't right the constitution.
Everyone keeps talking about the "right" well we have the right of freedom of speech but does it make it right when a 60 year old says something sexually to a twelve year old? I mean he does have the "right" of freedom of speech. I know it's not the same thing but some weirdos think it's ok. Just like some weirdos think it's ok to walk around political rallies with an AR slung on their back. Right this and right that....use some damn sense! </div></div>


Let me try to explain this so even you can understand it...

I was born with my rights. They were not issued to me by any piece of paper and cannot be taken away from me by any man or piece of paper. My rights are for me to defend or surrender. I'm not giving up any more.

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

They are issued to you by a piece of paper....constitution ring a bell?

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Like I said in the beginning, I'm not against open carry I just think there is a time and place for it. No one is going to change their mind about it either way. The question at the beginning of this thread has been lost and turned to a rights debate. I'm over it and feel like I have been beating the shit outta a dead horse. Never argue with an idiot, I will drag you down to my level and win with experience!!!

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are issued to you by a piece of paper....constitution ring a bell? </div></div>
<span style="text-decoration: line-through">
Actually, a document predating the Constitution states that

<span style="font-style: italic">"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."</span>

One could make the argument that the rights conveyed by the Constitution, more specifically, the Bill of Rights, were by extension, an endowment from their creator under that "liberty" thing, and simply guaranteed by the Constitution.


But I digress.....
</span>
Never mind. I'm out of this. Sorry for the extraneous post.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 3PER</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Let me try to explain this so even you can understand it...

I was born with my rights. They were not issued to me by any piece of paper and cannot be taken away from me by any man or piece of paper. My rights are for me to defend or surrender. I'm not giving up any more.</div></div>

Yeah, I am sure there is a ripe ole man in China that has those exact same thoughts, maybe some woman in the Middle East, as well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: csi:cyberspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"... shall not be infringed".</div></div>

Well then I guess the convicted felons released from prison are having their constitutional rights violated. They can get 5 years just for posessing a firearm in ANY capacity. But I am sure we can do something for the pedofiles, you know, those hopeless romantics that the government keeps a leash on for life. Surely they are entitled to have a gun. I mean the kids dont fall for the free candy trick anymore, a gun is a sure shot to romance. Sounds pretty disgusting doesnt it? But...."shall not be infringed". Unless of coarse you agree with limiting them, but then where will it end?!?!?!?! I tried to lay the sarcasm on as thick as possible.

One of the best quotes from a movie:
THUG: Whatsa matter, guns make you nervous?
Paul Kirtsie: Guns have their uses. Idiots with guns make me nervous.- Deathwish V

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Well then I guess the convicted felons released from prison are having their constitutional rights violated. They can get 5 years just for posessing a firearm in ANY capacity. But I am sure we can do something for the pedofiles, you know, those hopeless romantics that the government keeps a leash on for life. Surely they are entitled to have a gun. I mean the kids dont fall for the free candy trick anymore, a gun is a sure shot to romance. Sounds pretty disgusting doesnt it? But...."shall not be infringed". Unless of coarse you agree with limiting them, but then where will it end?!?!?!?! I tried to lay the sarcasm on as thick as possible.
</div></div>
As reluctant as I am to reengage this beaten to shit topic.... I'm going to assume you know more than you seem and realize that convicted felons have had their rights REVOKED by virtue of voluntarily violating valid laws? You know, they knew what they were doing was illegal, knew the penalties, and knew that revocation of their rights was a part of those penalties and chose to conduct themselves as such anyway. You knew that - right? If so, your point is as absurd as moot. As it stands, the Constitution applies only to the citizens of the United States of America. Convicted felons no longer enjoy such status as a result of having said citizenship revoked/stripped as a part of the penalty imposed for their transgressions.

Now I gotta ask.... why such contempt for the Constitution?

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One of the best quotes from a movie:
THUG: Whatsa matter, guns make you nervous?
Paul Kirtsie: Guns have their uses. Idiots with guns make me nervous.- Deathwish V </div></div>

And by the way, if we're intent on being juvenile here, it's Paul <span style="font-style: italic">Kersey</span>.

 

[csi:cyberspace]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

To the OP,
One last apology from me for my part in perpetuating the derailing of your thread. While I am afflicted with the condition of feeling the need to get in the last word - or at least respond to shots fired at me, <span style="font-style: italic">THIS time</span> I am done.

 

[Arbiter]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A uniformed officer with backup on the way is a deterrent to crime. Uncle Elmo with a chrome .45 on his hip is not.

Ideally, a firearm should remain out of sight until the moment before it is (lawfully) used. Doing otherwise is as likely to escalate a conflict as it is to end it.
</div></div>


+1^</div></div>

Your assertion is that a visible firearm is more likely to:

A: Escalate a confrontation
B: Increase one's profile as a target
C: Result in being shot or being forcibly disarmed by an attacker

Not only has no one managed to present any citation for this theory that open carry causes these events to occur, I've yet to see so much as a <span style="font-weight: bold">single</span> citation of such a thing happening in this thread.

Your argument's validity is contingent not on an opinion of what's right, but on a factual basis of real-world events. To make the claim that open carry will cause a specific set of harmful consequences, you need to demonstrate not just that they are possible, but that their probability outweighs that of any potential positive consequences.

Theoretically, if ten potential confrontations are averted because a criminal is deterred by a visible weapon, but yet one person is targeted first in a shooting because they're openly carrying, then we can say that open carry is a net positive for those who choose to employ it as a tactic. There will be no police reports filed for those ten averted fights, nor will there be any blood shed.

On some level, all but the schizophrenic and/or hallucinogenic are going to evaluate their potential opponents before initiating violence. Anything that increases the threat of that potential opponent is going to be a force of deterrence in making the decision whether to attack or retreat. While I'm not willing to believe the old myth of criminals showing greater caution about attacking an officer with custom grips on their sidearm (ergo indicating proficiency with the weapon), it shouldn't even require mentioning that criminals, by definition, tend to prey on those they perceive as weak. I'm puzzled as to where this curious notion arose from that criminals are more likely to assault someone they perceive as being dangerous, flying as it does in the face of human instinct, common sense, and societal history.

 

[Badshot308]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A uniformed officer with backup on the way is a deterrent to crime. Uncle Elmo with a chrome .45 on his hip is not.

Ideally, a firearm should remain out of sight until the moment before it is (lawfully) used. Doing otherwise is as likely to escalate a conflict as it is to end it.
</div></div>


+1^</div></div>

Your assertion is that a visible firearm is more likely to:

A: Escalate a confrontation
B: Increase one's profile as a target
C: Result in being shot or being forcibly disarmed by an attacker

Not only has no one managed to present any citation for this theory that open carry causes these events to occur, I've yet to see so much as a <span style="font-weight: bold">single</span> citation of such a thing happening in this thread.

Your argument's validity is contingent not on an opinion of what's right, but on a factual basis of real-world events. To make the claim that open carry will cause a specific set of harmful consequences, you need to demonstrate not just that they are possible, but that their probability outweighs that of any potential positive consequences.

Theoretically, if ten potential confrontations are averted because a criminal is deterred by a visible weapon, but yet one person is targeted first in a shooting because they're openly carrying, then we can say that open carry is a net positive for those who choose to employ it as a tactic. There will be no police reports filed for those ten averted fights, nor will there be any blood shed.

On some level, all but the schizophrenic and/or hallucinogenic are going to evaluate their potential opponents before initiating violence. Anything that increases the threat of that potential opponent is going to be a force of deterrence in making the decision whether to attack or retreat. While I'm not willing to believe the old myth of criminals showing greater caution about attacking an officer with custom grips on their sidearm (ergo indicating proficiency with the weapon), it shouldn't even require mentioning that criminals, by definition, tend to prey on those they perceive as weak. <span style="color: #FF0000">I'm puzzled as to where this curious notion arose from that criminals are more likely to assault someone they perceive as being dangerous, flying as it does in the face of human instinct, common sense, and societal history.</span> </div></div>

Really, ask these four officers how that theory worked for them. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html Well actually you can't since the gunman killed them all. Too bad there wasn't someone carrying concealed in the coffee shop at the time. Things might have ended differently.

 

[Graham]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A uniformed officer with backup on the way is a deterrent to crime. Uncle Elmo with a chrome .45 on his hip is not. Ideally, a firearm should remain out of sight until the moment before it is (lawfully) used. Doing otherwise is as likely to escalate a conflict as it is to end it. </div></div>+1^</div></div> Your assertion is that a visible firearm is more likely to:
A: Escalate a confrontation
B: Increase one's profile as a target
C: Result in being shot or being forcibly disarmed by an attacker

Not only has no one managed to present any citation for this theory that open carry causes these events to occur, I've yet to see so much as a <span style="font-weight: bold">single</span> citation of such a thing happening in this thread.</div></div>The example is in my first post. Have a look at the link at the bottom:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no tactical advantage to open carry in an urban environment. That said, almost everyone in Israel carries openly eveywhere. So, and again, it depends on where you are.

It also depends on who you are. Here in Michigan there are people who cannot obtain CCWs but are not prohibited from carrying a gun, so they carry openly.

I would not advise carrying openly unless you also possess good open-hand defensive tactics skills. Otherwise you may be the one bringing a gun to a conflict. In most states an assault without a weapon and without injury to another is a misdemeanor. Can you use deadly force (your gun) to protect against a misdemeanor assault (someone grabbing your jacket or wrestling with you)? Think about it. Because that scenario exists:
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

</div></div>

 

[Jig Stick]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kellogg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-style: italic">"All I could think was why would this guy want to advertise his handgun in a very crowded rest stop all while trying to manage his young grandson?"</span>

How does carrying a sidearm, whether openly or concealed, affect your management of a child? And who decides when/where it is appropriate for "Joe Public" to exercise his rights? The "tactical" advantage/disadvantage to how a person carries is his own opinion, and people can debate that forever. But for you to think someone should not do something, especially when it is legal, just because you don't like it or because you personally don't see a reason for it is a bit silly. </div></div>

What he said

 

[dpairborneranger]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Take that horse....and that....wait, one more, and take that, whack, whack, whack, whack

 

[marduk185]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

i aplaud the rally going rifle slinger and i say the second gaurantees i should be perfectly okay wearing a stinger over me shoulder at the airport or a mark19 mounted on me explorer when i drive ta church, but little victories on the path to more perfect freedom from tyranny and opression i suppose. howd we end up with a nation of so many nonshooters anyway? oh must been all our immmi grayshuns.

 

[jh222503030]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

If and when you become Joe Citizen you will be allow you to carry under the federal law as being a former LEO. Concealed or otherwise.

 

[johngfoster]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A uniformed officer with backup on the way is a deterrent to crime. Uncle Elmo with a chrome .45 on his hip is not.

Ideally, a firearm should remain out of sight until the moment before it is (lawfully) used. Doing otherwise is as likely to escalate a conflict as it is to end it.
</div></div>


+1^</div></div>

Your assertion is that a visible firearm is more likely to:

A: Escalate a confrontation
B: Increase one's profile as a target
C: Result in being shot or being forcibly disarmed by an attacker

Not only has no one managed to present any citation for this theory that open carry causes these events to occur, I've yet to see so much as a <span style="font-weight: bold">single</span> citation of such a thing happening in this thread.

Your argument's validity is contingent not on an opinion of what's right, but on a factual basis of real-world events. To make the claim that open carry will cause a specific set of harmful consequences, you need to demonstrate not just that they are possible, but that their probability outweighs that of any potential positive consequences.

Theoretically, if ten potential confrontations are averted because a criminal is deterred by a visible weapon, but yet one person is targeted first in a shooting because they're openly carrying, then we can say that open carry is a net positive for those who choose to employ it as a tactic. There will be no police reports filed for those ten averted fights, nor will there be any blood shed.

On some level, all but the schizophrenic and/or hallucinogenic are going to evaluate their potential opponents before initiating violence. Anything that increases the threat of that potential opponent is going to be a force of deterrence in making the decision whether to attack or retreat. While I'm not willing to believe the old myth of criminals showing greater caution about attacking an officer with custom grips on their sidearm (ergo indicating proficiency with the weapon), it shouldn't even require mentioning that criminals, by definition, tend to prey on those they perceive as weak. I'm puzzled as to where this curious notion arose from that criminals are more likely to assault someone they perceive as being dangerous, flying as it does in the face of human instinct, common sense, and societal history. </div></div>

My point exactly! Trouble is, there is no way to prove it. And yes, you only hear about the instances where it didnt' work, like when the cops got shot in the coffee shop. There is no ABSOLUTE right or wrong when it comes to OC vs CC. The OP asked if there were some tactical advantages of when OC would be TACTICALLY preferred, and I believe the above quote elucidates where it would tactically help. Always, no. Increased risk? Yes. You have to weigh those risks/benefits for yourself and your particular situation.

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mar2012</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> immmi grayshuns. </div></div>

is a geisha free to love?

 

[Kingof battle]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

Post Katrina open carried got your weapon confiscated.

 

[John_in_WYO]

Re: Open carry vs Concealed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So this week I was on vacation with the family and we stopped at a rest area on the PA turnpike.</div></div>

Fugitives drive cars and use bathrooms, too. People have no idea how many bad guys there are on Interstates around them. Turnpikes are the same.

I've personally taken several bad (some really bad) guys off Interstate rest areas/stops.

Their cars break down, they look to steal another one. Rapists look for targets there, too.

Years ago, Oklahoma shut down a rest area north of OKC on I-35 due to prostitution activities between hookers and "clients".

Yes, I always have a concealed handgun on my person when using rest stops while traveling. The guy in your scenario may have been like minded.

There are bad people on the planet.

When I retire, again, I'll wish I could predict when one was going to pop up to ruin my day. I wouldn't be there, then.

<span style="font-weight: bold">"If someone already knows I am armed chances are I will be engaged before I can do anything for my family."</span>

I think the advantage to open carry is the signal the predator receives that the target is too hard, pick someone or somewhere else.

These guys tend to pick those they think they can intimidate and overwhelm. A guy packing a gun sends a signal that he's willing to use it.

30+ years ago I had a college student shoot an attempted rapist (big guy, little girl) in the arm with a .25 auto. He didn't stick around for the second round.



<span style="color: #FF0000">OOPS! I see I responded to the OP and THEN read all the stuff in between. Man, this thread kinda went wild.</span>