Open Carry Advocates: Shooting Themselves in the Foot
In shooting circles, a “negligent discharge” is the unintentional firing of a weapon, almost always as the result of careless behavior. For those of us who subscribe to this point of view, there are no such thing as gun accidents, just incidents of gun negligence.
One of the more common kind of negligent discharges occurs when a shooter attempts to holster a pistol with his or her trigger finger still inside the trigger guard. As the shooter pushes the gun into the holster, the side of the holster comes in contact with the finger, driving it back into the trigger. The resulting sharp report is stunning, and is soon followed by the pain that comes from the bullet carving a crease down the outside of the shooter’s leg on its way to the ground. In somewhat rarer instances, shooters with their finger in the trigger guard sometimes manage to shoot themselves in the buttocks … and you have every right to read that with your best Forrest Gump accent.
Open carry advocates, as a gun rights subgroup, are the continuing negligent political discharge of the shooting community. Their disastrous nationwide campaign to normalize the open carrying of firearms alienates Americans from coast to coast, even among those who champion the concealed carry of weapons.
You only need to look at examples of the media incompetence of these groups in the past year to understand how this theoretically pro-gun movement has managed to cause the public to recoil in horror and actually set the movement back on its heels. It is enough to make you wonder if the group isn’t the operation that “Crash the Tea Party” wanted to be, executed by the otherwise inept anti-gun harpies.
Other than small-scale displays primarily consumed by the local news, the open carry movement is known to most people for precisely two awkward public displays: an August 17, 2009, protest in Phoenix and one this past Sunday on the Potomac’s Virginia shores.
The Associated Press headline sums up what everyone remembers about the Arizona incident: “Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest.”
The actual story of a peaceful rally, coordinated with the local police officers to make sure everything was absolutely legal, was and is utterly irrelevant. A dozen men with guns showed up to protest outside a venue where the president was speaking. How exactly did they think this was going to be reported and received by their fellow citizens? It was a bit of self-indulgent show and tell that alarmed and disturbed people who heard about the incident, as I wrote at the time:
As much as I support the open carry movement in theory, I have a very hard time seeing open carry at a political event full of people as anything other than a very bad idea. It is needlessly provocative (and I suspect in many instances, purposefully so), and potentially dangerous.
While the protesters themselves may not have any intent to use the firearms they are carrying, open carry in dense, emotional crowds opens up a whole host of possible scenarios that could end in disaster.
Regardless of political ideology, reasonable, intelligent people have a very hard time understanding what good can come of bringing firearms to political rallies or protests. Even among those of us who own them and champion their utility, the idea of using weapons to make a political statement is distasteful. Most of us understand that the media’s laser-like focus on the displayed weapons completely overwhelms any other message the protesters may be attempting to champion. You would hope that open carry advocates learned from that debacle.
They didn’t learn anything.
The second train wreck took place this past weekend in a pair of parks in Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. In a sad display, critics in the on-hand media gloated over the fact that they outnumbered the armed protesters significantly. The rag-tag group of malcontents featured violence-championing militiamen, extras from a casting call for the People of Walmart, and a bizarre activist from California who attempted to merge a Revolutionary War-era replica of a tri-corner hat with SWAT-style paramilitary web gear. It created a display that would have any normal person recoiling in horror. And it did.
Such rallies, featuring a mix of fringe personalities seemingly more interested in getting on camera than appealing to the sensibilities of their fellow citizens, do a great disservice to America’s gun owners. Worse, they reinforce stereotypes of gun owners as part of a potentially violent subculture precisely when it is politically advantageous for our shared political opponents.
As a result of these poorly executed and often dimwitted displays, open carry is now under threat precisely because of how open carry advocates have conducted themselves. A Bakersfield, CA, news story makes that fact painfully clear:
The California Assembly is moving closer to banning gun owners from being able to carry their unloaded weapons openly in public.
Over the last few months there has been an increase in the number of open carry rallies and meetings in Northern California. On Tuesday a committee moved closer to ending such practices.
As concealed carry grows across the country and more Americans adopt shooting sports, the open carry movement alone seems to be moving backward.
Like the aforementioned shooter with his finger in the trigger guard trying to holster his weapon, all these open carry advocates seem to manage is shooting themselves in their own posteriors, time and time again.
So our rights should be determined by what? our looks? If we are “fringe” personalities, do we have the same rights as those who are not “fringe”? How about location? Do Californians have less of a right than those in Arizona, say? This is a red herring. We have become more and more a nation of marketing, as opposed to a nation of laws. We have “unalienable rights…” period. The right to own a weapon is not modified in any way in the Bill of Rights. I do not have a permit to carry, while I own several weapons, including a sidearm. I do not smoke, but defend the rights of those who choose to. I fear for our country as we continue to erode the concept of a “God given right”, and replace it with how we “feel” about something. This piece is sounding more and more like the latter.
Big_Bob hits a home run.
Was a time people didn’t “feel” good about a black man sitting at a lunch counter in certain businesses. Each business could “feel” like letting a man have lunch (a very natural thing), or not. If that man dared to sit at the wrong counter, or drink from the wrong fountain, or if a woman tried to sit on the front of the bus – They were accused of being “provocative”. Saying that a man having lunch in a certain place was ‘provocative’ – revealed much about the inner thoughts and fears of the accusers. It said nothing about the fundamental right.
Today, it’s “Don’t bring that gun to my lunch counter” or some such. The act is normal, natural thing, acknowledged as fundamentally important in the Constitution. Finding it ‘provacative’ reveals much about the accuser. Saying that a man carrying a gun while he eats lunch in a certain place is ‘provocative’ – reveals some flaw in the heart and mind of the accuser. It says nothing about the right.
Bearing arms is a natural right, regardless of how people “feel”. Saying it’s provocative reveals much about the thoughts and fears of the accusers.
I agree that open carry at a political rally is profoundly stupid, but I have to admit that I like the concept of open carry. Personally, I don’t like the “belt anchor” and that’s one of the reasons I never pursued getting a concealed carry permit. But why shouldn’t legal citizens openly carry firearms? It makes a bold statement. “I’m ready, willing and able to defend myself.” If it were more common I might actually carry openly myself. I know several folks with CCW permits. They don’t carry all the time because it’s a hassle (mostly uncomfortable). Open carry is much more ergonomically friendly.
I was a little freaked when I was a student in Nebraska and saw bikers with .44 hogleg strapped to their hip…but it was perfectly legal. Every now and then I see a “regular citizen” openly carrying a gun (usually a revolver). I always scope out the type of gun but beyond that I…like everybody else…just ignore them.
Dr. Dave asks, “But why shouldn’t legal citizens openly carry firearms?”
As a practical matter, the primary reason I can think of is that it makes them the first target of any criminal. rexrs says it best, “They turn a blind eye to the tactical advantage of surprise when carrying concealed and prefer the public political statement of attention seeking gadflys.” You are simply in a much better situation if potential criminals don’t know who is armed, and just as importantly, society at large is under more protection (at least theoretically) when felons don’t know who may have concealed guns.
You’ll notice he also touched on the commonly accepted sociology/psychology of open carry advocates, which is where I really have a problem with those who insist on carrying weapons this way. While I cannot and will not say the following generalization applies to everyone, quite a few in the movement seem more motivated by a desire for personal attention than anything else, and it appears that they are merely abusing their right to bear arms in order to get that attention.
So then why do police open carry? To make themselves the first targets?
Your argument sounds logical but it’s not based in reality.
Though don’t think law enforcement would put it quite that way. I do think they consider themselves as a part of a line between the good guys and that the bad. And if that makes them the focus of the bad guys, I suspect they’d consider that a feature and not a bug.
[quote="Peter"]So then why do police open carry? To make themselves the first targets?
Your argument sounds logical but it’s not based in reality.
[/quote]
I’m sorry but it’s your argument that isn’t based in reality. A police officer is a duly appointed, and deputized officiator of the law. They have the force of the state, and of other cops behind them. And there are tougher and increased number of penalties for attacking a cop.
A person walking about with his firearm showing doesn’t not have this force of law behind him. He is just Joe Blow, and attacking him bears no more penalty than attacking an unarmed person.
More importantly, showing that you have a firearm is stupid. Ever heard of an ambush? If a crook, or numbers of crooks, know you are carrying, then they will ambush you, and you’ll never get your gun out. You’ll likely be killed, but at the very least, will be putting your no doubt expensive firearms into the hands of criminals who will use it for other nefarious purposes. Its far better to surprise a crook who thinks you are soft target.
You don’t scare criminals with you gun. You scare non-criminals. As was said above, and I agree, many of these people open carry for personal recognition. They are media whores, and they are doing damage to the movement. I say walk softly, and conceal your boomstick. Even if you win the confrontation with an attacker, some liberal judge might find that you provoked the engagement by flashing your firearm. There is no reason to risk it.
I have to disagree with you on much of your comment. I am an Honorably Discharged Combat Veteran Of The US Army and also the Area Coordinator for my local “USA ON WATCH Block Watch” Org.. I open carry on a regular basis in my community. My neighbors who vary widely in personality, income level, and Nationality, have spoken of a comfort in seeing me walk through the neighbor hood. The establishments which I frequent offer the same sentiment. I know this because as a responsible gun owner and open carry supporter I have made the effort to speak with everyone as to what level of comfort Though more than one person was admittedly uncomfortable with weapons the sight of trained and armed individual was not itself frightening as the concept of the criminals not being the only armed civilians out there was pleasant. I am fully aware that in a situation involving any criminal armed conflict I as an openly armed individual flag myself for a first hit scenario. While that is not my intention (My intention being self defense as AC for The USA ON WATCH I have received not a few death threats.) I would prefer that be the situation. I am highly trained in close quarters unarmed as well as armed combat. I stand a better chance at not only surviving but preventing innocent casualties than the average citizen. Personally I feel that it is a responsibility one must bear if they wish to carry in this capacity. Also because of this fact as well as the threats I generally wear concealed body. I have found that a responsible citizen who is openly armed in a community setting is a deterrent to the average criminal not as much as a uniformed officer. ( a moment to acknowledge the Exemplary Performance of the Kannapolis Police Dept. an average response time to incident of less than three minutes, armed or not your best weapon is still your cell phone ) . As to the claim earlier that the open carry class are responsible for the highest rate per capita of incidental discharge. That is in correct as well. You have never been on a US Military range during training. The Unbridled safety measures taken by the instructors to protect the students preventing a higher injury rate. I do believe however not mentioned that any individual that wishes to purchase and carry should be required to take a state or federally recognized fire arms safety course as one does to obtain a concealed carry permit. I would also recommend to any individual inexperienced in the use of a fire arm to go beyond that and take one of the many offered practical and or tactical fire arms classes to be effective in the use and safe discharge of your weapon. To end I can happily say that after serving my community in this capacity for over a year, and having found myself in not a few physical confrontations, I have not had to discharge my hand gun outside of the range at this time. Has it’s presence as a deterrent saved my life? Of this there is no doubt. The crack dealers in my district are armed. The reality that both sides are armed has kept everyone’s pistol in its holster.
I have to disagree with you on much of your comment. I am an Honorably Discharged Combat Veteran Of The US Army and also the Area Coordinator for my local “USA ON WATCH Block Watch” Org.. I open carry on a regular basis in my community. My neighbors who vary widely in personality, income level, and Nationality, have spoken of a comfort in seeing me walk through the neighbor hood. The establishments which I frequent offer the same sentiment. I know this because as a responsible gun owner and open carry supporter I have made the effort to speak with everyone as to what level of comfort Though more than one person was admittedly uncomfortable with weapons the sight of trained and armed individual was not itself frightening as the concept of the criminals not being the only armed civilians out there was pleasant. I am fully aware that in a situation involving any criminal armed conflict I as an openly armed individual flag myself for a first hit scenario. While that is not my intention (My intention being self defense as AC for The USA ON WATCH I have received not a few death threats.) I would prefer that be the situation. I am highly trained in close quarters unarmed as well as armed combat. I stand a better chance at not only surviving but preventing innocent casualties than the average citizen. Personally I feel that it is a responsibility one must bear if they wish to carry in this capacity. Also because of this fact as well as the threats I generally wear concealed body. I have found that a responsible citizen who is openly armed in a community setting is a deterrent to the average criminal not as much as a uniformed officer. ( a moment to acknowledge the Exemplary Performance of the Kannapolis Police Dept. an average response time to incident of less than three minutes, armed or not your best weapon is still your cell phone ) . As to the claim earlier that the open carry class are responsible for the highest rate per capita of incidental discharge. That is in correct as well. You have never been on a US Military range during training. The Unbridled safety measures taken by the instructors to protect the students preventing a higher injury rate. I do believe however not mentioned that any individual that wishes to purchase and carry should be required to take a state or federally recognized fire arms safety course as one does to obtain a concealed carry permit. I would also recommend to any individual inexperienced in the use of a fire arm to go beyond that and take one of the many offered practical and or tactical fire arms classes to be effective in the use and safe discharge of your weapon. To end I can happily say that after serving my community in this capacity for over a year, and having found myself in not a few physical confrontations, I have not had to discharge my hand gun outside of the range at this time. Has it’s presence as a deterrent saved my life? Of this there is no doubt. The crack dealers in my district are armed. The reality that both sides are armed has kept everyone’s pistol in its holster.
On a larger scale, as spread thin as our active forces currently are what exactly does everyone think is keeping us from being invaded by any of the abundance of other countries that would love to do so. Thats right, the 100 million silent majority. 100 million registered gun owners in the United States. We have never before in history been in a position where 95% of our active duty soldiers and 85% of our Guard and Reserve Forces are deployed over seas. If not for the right granted us when this country began this, fact alone would put us in jeopardy of facing an enemy on our own soil. Those of you who have never witnessed or been in a combat situation I promise you do not want to see that in your back yard. I have seen the remains of a city after combat. If you wish to get an idea I suggest you sign on to google maps and take a satellite view of Mogadishu. I respect the right of every American to like or dislike hand guns as they wish, I fought to defend that right as I did every other. I only ask that these same Americans respect my right and choice to maintain and bare arms. As I am a responsible citizen of good moral character of the United States of America such as the law requires. I also swore an oath that did not end with my military career to defend this land. I do hope that as my wife, who is also slightly afraid of fire arms, you gain some comfort in knowing that should the worst ever occur. You not only have your local and state Law Enforcement Officials but an armed citizenship whom have had to prove their standing as a citizen of upstanding moral character to become such, defending you as well. I do not believe everyone should choose to be armed no more than I believe everyone should enter the military. I do believe that everyone should have the right pending they accept the responsibility. I do not see it as any difference than someone seeking training in one or another forms of martial arts. I assure you that there are many more ways to harm the human body unarmed than armed.
Much more likely, the upon seeing that his victims are armed, the criminal will leave and find a more tempting victim.
Concealed carry may be the best strategy if your goal is to win a shoot-out with a criminal. If your goal is for the criminal to leave you alone in the first place, open carry is a better bet.
I live in an area popularly known as the West Bank, and I like all of my neighbors, openly carry an semiautomatic pistol and a couple of extra magazines of bullets whenever I leave my house. I openly wear this gun everywhere I go, to Jerusalem, to work, to go shopping at the mall. I notice that the Arabs keep well away from me and if I have contact with them, they are courteous and well behaved. Even loud and uncouth individuals who might feel the desire to bother me somehow manage to find some other victim.
Thus I do not and cannot understand your claim that by wearing a weapon openly you attract individuals who might wish to do you harm, indeed logic would tend to indicate the exact opposite. That is, if a person looks capable of defending himself with lethal force, then a lawbreaker would likely look for a less dangerous and easier victim.
Does your employer allow you to carry in the work place?
In addition, the threat level in your country is far higher then in the US and if there are a lot of other open carry folks around, attempting to take your firearm would be met with others providing back up.
I feel the situation is quite a different set of circumstances in your country. Israel is pretty much a war zone, and open carry is probably pretty common. In the US, those that seek open carry will tire of it quickly as do those who are licensed for concealed carry, they soon find that packing a pistol around is a pain. I carry two pistols because I decided long ago that having a bunch of guns in my gun safe and at major risk of being mugged in my own neighborhood was not acceptable. My neighborhood had gone all black and my neighbors did know I had guns as I used to go to the range and would load up a bunch and they would see this so some merit to the bad guys knowing.
Of course my employer lets me carry a gun. There may be individuals who would attack someone to steal their gun, but they would think twice or three times and then decide to attack someone else because if you attack someone who is armed you stand a real good chance of becoming dead.
Most criminals want to get away with their crime, and they act just like the predators they are. That is, they actively seek out victims who are weak, sick, old, unarmed, and otherwise unable to defend themselves.
In terms of terrorists, even here in the Middle East, they prefer to attack defenceless women, old men, and people who have very little chance to defend themselves.
In terms we can all understand, if you are attacked by someone with a knife and you are unarmed, you should run away. If you are attacked by someone with a pistol and you have a knife, you should run away. If you are attacked by someone with a rifle and you have a pistol, you should run away. But if you are carrying a pistol or a rifle and someone attacks you with a knife, just shoot the SOB.
Interesting. So you admit that you don’t live by the advice that you are giving everybody else.
He is correct, if you carry openly you become a target and probably a real easy target. Getting killed with your own gun would be seriously annoying.
The police receive training on weapons retention yet many are killed every year with their own weapon, so open carry will just produce easier targets for the criminals and let the bad guys know who is armed and who is not, makes their work safer for the criminal.
Their is also the negative response of the populace. If people I meet and talk to knew I was armed, the liberal sensibilities would be incensed beyond belief.
And last but not least, not knowing who is armed has a major impact on violent crime, their minds, left to its own devices sees an armed citizen behind every set of civilian cloths, the deterrent effect is way beyond the actually number of people carrying, the impact is vastly expanded, compared to the actually numbers.
The crook would only get your gun if he decided to fight with you, and you let him get close enough.
Who said that only open carry was permitted? The crook would know that certain people are obviously carrying. Everyone else he still has to wonder about.
How quick can you draw and fire? If he is real close to you, you are his if he has the will. In addition, he is not going to play to your version of how it will play out, you will probably be jumped from behind and their will be at least two attackers.
Life is never what it seems.
The same goes for anyone with concealed carry. The only difference is your insistance that the bad guys will deliberately choose to attack someone they know is carrying a gun.
Regardless of whether you start off with your gun concealed or open, if you let the bad guy close enough, he has a chance to take your gun.
“Getting killed with your own gun would be seriously annoying.”
And preciely how many times has this been documented to happen?
Am looking forward to a citation of valid numbers, thanks in advance.
The police receive training on weapons retention yet many are killed every year with their own weapon, so open carry will just produce easier targets for the criminals and let the bad guys know who is armed and who is not, makes their work safer for the criminal.
*************
It is obvious you don’t know your fact, because I have the 2009 officer memorial list in front of mepublished by the American Federation of police and concerned citizen, and not a single officer was killed with his own firearm in 2009.in the Memorial a listing of110 officers were killed in the line of duty, 42 by assailants firearms.
Since I know these reported facts it is obvious you’re pulling your opinion out of thin air. It is disingenuous on your part to spread such inaccurate information.
An excellent post, thank you very much!
You make a lot of assumptions not in evidence. How can you say that many will stop carrying because it’s a pain, yet you continue to? Everyone I personally know that has a CCL has continued to carry. I have carried for over a year now and not grown tired of it as I see that it is my first line of defense. Someone else mentioned that your best weapon is still the cell phone. With a 3 minute response time, that obviously is the wrong answer. Most encounters are over in a minute and I seriously doubt you are going to have time to call the police while you are being raped, mugged, or murdered.
The police carry weapons for a reason.
As for carrying openly makes you a target. That is sheer conjecture. There has been no proof of that. Please show me *one* recorded incident of a person being shot because they were open carrying. If you can’t, stop publishing this nonsense. Until a criminal is psychotic and truly doesn’t care what could happen to him, he’s not going to bother to do his business there if he sees something that is going to cause him friction. He’s out to make a buck and there are far easier ways to doing it than killing you. Killing you also raises the chance to get him caught. As being armed while committing a crime increases punishment automatically, how many criminals are caught armed?
When you need to earn a certificate to engage in dangerous talk or when the state needs to certify you for which church you go to, come back and talk to me about state registered carry (open or concealed).
“Backward,” a good insight into the collective mind of open carry advocates you find in Delaware. Most are new to firearms and display the evangelic fervor reserved for recent “converts.”
They turn a blind eye to the tactical advantage of surprise when carrying concealed and prefer the public political statement of attention seeking gadflys.
The experienced voices of long time concealed carriers are ignored and vilified on their open carry forums.
A better crusade would be mandatory reciprocity of permits in all states.
Agreed. I think open carry should be a right but subject to municipal ordinance and business owners postings. But nobody likes having an agenda forced down their throat, not a gay agenda, and not an open carry agenda. The whole point should be to prove that open carry is not disruptive to society and in fact would have a calming effect on lawlessness. Open carry should be so common as to not be news worthy, not out making a scene to attract the press.
I couldn’t agree more. Property rights are just as basic as the right to bear arms and if a business posts ‘no firearms’ then that’s their prerogative. Likewise municipalities. Many towns even in Arizona had laws against open carry, and in those Federalist days, it was no Federal matter. I have a holster and pistol that I wear when I’m out hiking but I don’t generally carry into stores from courtesy, legal or not. A lot of goof-balls these days are terrified of guns largely due to brain-washing, and I prefer not to terrorize the poor darlings.
The problem is that a lot of laws that worked in times past are no longer relevant. Lots of suburban cities are larger than almost every great metropolis of the 19th century, and a lot of ‘small towns’ have over 50,000 inhabitants, which was a vast city once upon a time. As population has grown federalism hasn’t grown with it. I live in AZ, which has twice as many inhabitants as the original United States. We don’t need a new federal constitution, but we do need to reorder states and counties and municipalities and diffuse power at every level. That way you could have Phoenix-Deer Valley Ward where open carry was not permitted, and Mesa-Red Mountain Ward where it was. Pick your ‘town,’ and its laws.
It’s certainly stupid though to carry weapons to a political rally, even toy weapons. I won’t say ‘there oughtta be a law but rights carry responsibilities, and if you want to keep your rights, you must be responsible, and that includes respecting the rights and even the feelings of others. Terrorizing people is always a bad idea, especially when you gain nothing else from doing it. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that a lot of these purported bubbas are plants. If I were an amoral Democrat, that’s what I’d do. Two doofuses with replica M4s are enough to discredit 100,000 protesters and pull away all the media coverage.
I live in Arizona where open carry is a right. Lots of ranchers reflexively carry. The only people who pay it any attention are tourists and the news media who try to make a big deal out of it. I am a lot more observant of my surroundings since I carry. It is not likely I will be taken by surprise by thugs.
You are suggesting that a Constitutionally acknowledged right is subject to whose property you are on. By your argument then, can one enslave you and your children if you come onto another’s property?
Does the Constitution apply to all the country, or can property owners declare their own laws that apply within their own kingdoms? Is this a ‘country bound by the Constitution’, or anarchy, county by county, city, state, neighborhood, parking lot, mall, lawn?
So your advice to a woman being raped is to sit back and enjoy the ride? Let me remind you what the Supes said in Heller as to the definition of the word “bear” in the 2nd Amendment. “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).” Heller v. DC. There is just no way to square the Constitution with the idea that Americans can be legally prohibited from open carry in most places. State laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. Period.
I’d like to bring back the poll tax, so that the tax eating parasites can’t vote money from my wallet to theirs. Unfortunately, the 24th Amendment conclusively disallows that possibility, at least on the Federal level. I accept the Constitution on that issue. Americans should on this issue, as well.
I will say that I have uniformly enjoyed your pieces both here and on your blog.
I do not always agree, such as here, but when there is disagreement you lay it out well and are thought provoking.
I’m not sure the open carry movement is quite so self-destructive on the optics.
It is definitely provocative, which is the intent, and that can easily backfire.
It can easily be too in your face and turn off people who may be sympathetic.
There is also the counter argument that Open Carry is a way of exercising a right, but again there’s the question of which gains more ground politically.
However, one part of your piece stuck out at me. This would be the California Assembly pondering banning Open Carry.
So group A exercises Aspect B of Right C in a very public way.
Government D sees this and decides to ban B.
Is the banning the fault of A?
If a part of a right is so fragile that dimwitted, but not criminal, conduct is enough to get it banned, is it a right?
I realize that gun rights does require walking on eggshells, but what kind of a right becomes more at risk of ban the more you exercise it?
Where is the line? If surge in handgun/black rifle purchases leads to more talk of a handgun/black rifle ban, is it the purchasers’ fault?
Still all in all, an interesting piece. The politics of 2nd Amend protesting is something that must be considered.
I agree with rexrs at #3. There has got to be a perhaps crucial second or two advantage to the potential victim, mild-mannered Clark Kent or Lois Lane looking citizen vs the bad guy. To get ready to pounce on or start to threaten Mr. Kent or Ms. Lane and then find yourself starring into the gaping muzzle of a little 45cal Warthawg just has to give the biggest and baddest a pause that will cost him. Sorry guys and gals, concealed is better tactically, and that is what matters.
Most criminals, when seeing that their intended victims are armed, will choose new victims.
I wouldn’t count on that, it does not work out that way for the police.
Criminals actively seek out policemen to rob?
Strange world you live in there.
SARGE!!!! The police are activily seeking criminals for the express purpose of capturing and charging them with the final result being years in prison. This is the reason police officers are killed by criminals as often as they are. Citizens are NOT looking for trouble but if trouble appears it is more likely to be adequately handled by a displayed fireearm then by a 911 call on your cellphone.
Oh, of course you are correct. Clark Kent was a big guy. Change my example to Woody Allen, please. “We’ll get you, you hep cat.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgOxqwVd5Z8
The Fools you have always with you, and by definition,
rational arguments are wasted on fools; Live with it.
A rational person would make a political statement by
carrying a sign, with a picture of their piece, and a
message such as: ‘I am not carrying a Piece’
The problem with concealed carry, is that you are assuming that the criminal will be inattentive enough to allow you to access and draw your weapon. If you are in the situation where you are already staring down the barrel of his weapon, trying to draw yours is a good way to end up dead.
“If you are in the situation where you are already staring down the barrel of his weapon, trying to draw yours is a good way to end up dead.”
As opposed to already being on the floor, dead, because you open carry and the criminal took you out immediately.
Perhaps a criminal will move on if he sees someone open carrying. That’s great if he does, but you overestimate the rationality of many criminals and underestimate the psychology of those most prone to violence.
If our hypothetical violent criminal decides to act, who do you think he’ll gun down first, without warning? Obviously, the person open carrying. The criminal will likely walk up in the victim’s blind, spot, if possible, pull his weapon and gun down the open carry victim before he touches his weapon.
On the other hand, if you have a CCH and use it, you get to decide how to respond if a criminal makes his move, and have the option of not acting at all if you think they situation will not end violently. If you open carry, you are a a great tactical disadvantage, and may be more or less committed by circumstance to conflict.
I can dedicate an entire article to why open carry is a bad idea, but Pajamas Media isn’t the forum for tactical pistol discussions. I will note the following in closing, however.
When off duty, most law enforcement officers carry weapons concealed, even if they have the option of open carry. Why do you suppose they make that choice?
Have fun on the thread, folks. I’ve had my say, and then some.
As opposed to already being on the floor, dead, because you open carry and the criminal took you out immediately.
—
If that were the case, criminals would just shoot all of their victims first thing. A dead victim can’t fight back.
A mugger is looking for money, and only money. He doesn’t want a fight. He especially doesn’t want the police looking for him because he killed somebody.
Most criminals are quite rational.
Maybe if you put down the comic book and spent some time in the real world, you would know that.
Mark, I generally like the way you think. But this statement is a laugh-getter: “Most criminals are quite rational.”
The truth is a laugher?
While criminals have a different moral system than most of us, they are quite rational.
The simple fact remains that cities with the most stringent gun laws have the highest gun crime rates in the nation, as well as highest general crime rates: LA, New York, DC, whereas cities with more lenient gun laws have the lowest gun crime rates, as well as lowest general crime rates. This is an inarguable statistical fact, and red herring arguments, or hypothetical situations that haven’t occured are not leegitimate arguments agaisnt anything.
Many European nations enjoy boasting about their supposedly low crime rates due to gun control. Yet most of these countries have the nasty tendancy of falsifying data: stabbings in nations such as Great Britain and the Netherlands are more common than violent crimes in the US combined, sometimes by twice as much. European police agencies in places such as the Netherlands also completely dismiss illegal alien and immigrant crime in order to disguise their crime rates.
Why do some off duty officers often carry concealed?
Probably because there are a lot of morons who freak out every time they see a gun.
Because 90% of the time it’s department policy that you do not carry openly unless you are in uniform.
Another point in favor of reality. Check the statistics on crime.
95% of the time, when a gun is used to protect a person from a crime, the gun is not fired. Merely showing the gun is enough to cause the bad guy to leave the scene. Usually post haste.
Try talking to guys who have some experience in the real world for once.
MarkTG,
This last commment seems to subvert your earlier assertion that open carry makes you less safe instead of dissuading the crime.
While I agree that carrying openly could make one the first target for mischief, that would assume that that individual is the *only* open carry in an area. I would guess (no statistics to back me up, though) that in places where there are multiple open carry individuals that the overall effect would be to depress criminal activity since would be criminals cannot ‘take out’ everyone.
Honestly, I’ve not made up my mind. I live in Colorado, which is both open carry and concealed carry friendly. I don’t put my NRA window sticker on my truck or house, though, because I don’t want my weapons to be the specific target of theft.
You’re mixing me up with others. I have been consistently arguing against the notion that open carry makes you less safe.
MarkTG,
You’re right, I confused your position after looking at a specific entry where you quoted someone else. I was responding to that quote and not to you. Mea Culpa.
After thinking about it some more, I think a mix of both OC and CC would go a long way in preventing a good deal of the more pedestrian types of crime, like muggings, some armed robberies, etc. Knowing that a portion of the populace has CC’s, with the continual visual reminder of the OC’s in the midst, seems like it could not help but deter many criminals.
Prior to coming to Baghdad, my combat trainers drilled into us the need to look sharp, keep your head on a swivel, maintain awareness of surroundings, and give everyone the impression that you have the ability and predispostin to respond violently to any attack on your person. Timidity invites attack, both here and in civilian life. But, don’t go begging for trouble by going to the wrong neighborhoods at the wrong times. Be smart.
Open carry should be on the table, after all banning handguns is on the table. I think mortars and artillery pieces should also be on the table. I’m not saying everyone should own a mortar but is should be part of the discussion when places like Chicago and New York ban hand guns.When anti-gun nuts propose bans I think the first response should be open carry of sub-machine guns if for no other reason to open a lot of middle ground, and who knows a MP-5 might be cool.
Both open and concealed carry have pros and cons tactically. The whole idea of informing the public (and thus potential threats) versus not informing them. Prevention versus surprise.
Though these arguments show the effect of government intrusion.
Because it many states becomes a matter of law and thus policy whether or not you can open or conceal carry.
What should be a personal choice becomes a matter of politics and thus “consensus”.
The state where I live both conceal and open carry are legal (and covered by the same Shall-Issue) so the choice is up to the individual.
Isn’t that what we should be aiming for? More liberty, more freedom? More choice
#10 But Mark, if he has already drawn on you, it is probably over whether you are openly carrying or concealed. Too bad. But if he doesn’t know you are carrying there may arise another chance to draw if he gets careless.
#11. Jack, who doesn’t like more choice and freedom? But I have to ask you, why do the left and right eventually get kicked out of office? I think the reason is most clear concerning libruls. They always overreach. They always push for more and more ridiculous gov. giveaways. They go too far. I believe that is the argument Owens is making. Concealed is a very good option that most of the public has little problem with. Rubbing their noses in it with open carry may be a bridge too far.
Most robberies are over in a matter of seconds. There is no time for him to “get careless”.
You almost sound as if you are actually looking forward to the chance to kill a robber?
Do you think that real life is like Hollywood, shoot the bad guy, he goes down, incapable of fighting back?
That might happen with a 50 caliber. Much smaller than that, and the guy will live long enough to fire back. Quite probably have time to empty his clip and reload.
Even if you do manage to wound the bad guy fatally, it’s going to take him several minutes to die. Is he more likely to run, or now that he’s in a fire fight, shoot back?
Mark, I’m glad you put the “almost” in this sentence: “You almost sound as if you are actually looking forward to the chance to kill a robber?”
You seem almost to be trying to dis, insult, and indite me. Cut it out…please. We are trying to have a discussion with friends here over reasonable tactics and policies.
Imagine a scenario, your being robbed, the bad guy has the drop on you, but he turns his head for a second.
1) You move your arm to reach into your jacket.
2) You unsnap the holster.
3) You pull the gun and aim it at the bad guy.
4) You fire.
Oops, you forgot to release the safety. Too bad. You’re dead.
And that’s assuming you can get the gun clear of the holster before the bad guy sees you moving and shoots you.
Add to this your adrenaline levels are through the roof, which is going to make you clumsy.
Unless this kind of quick draw is something you have practiced hundreds and hundreds of times, you would be a fool to try and take on a criminal who already has the drop on you.
And don’t think about shooting the bad guy in the back as he leaves. In most states, that would be murder, because the bad guy is no longer, legally, considered a threat.
MarktheGreat,
Never draw to a gun, if he has you covered, one can’t outdraw him.
A Springfield XD45 has two external safeties, but you don’t not have to change any mechanical settings, it has a grip safety and the Glock style trigger safety. You draw and fire. Aiming is optional, depending on the circumstances. I also have night sights and a laser red dot sight, the red dot makes aiming quick and easy and hopefully intimidates the bad guy such that he does not want to play and we all go home alive.
As to a holster snap, don’t buy holsters with one, I am using a Crossbreed brand holster, inside the pants, it uses a Kydex holster which uses the trigger guard to provide pistol retention.
As to adrenalin, if you have some level of practice, it is an aid, at least it has saved my bacon once. Certainly enhances the speed of the draw, after that, it will depend on how familiar one is with his gear.
Never draw to a gun, if he has you covered, one can’t outdraw him.
—
Which entirely negates the point that Beloit was trying to make.
you are afraid of people with guns so lets ban guns. i am afraid of scary looking people with muscles who look like they could kick my butt, so lets ban fitness centers and weightlifting equipment.
An afterthought. If one did, for whatever reason, decide to attack an open-carry person, one would most certainly draw first.
They generally draw first when attacking someone who appears unarmed. That’s the purpose of having a gun, to scare the victim into cooperating.
Very few criminals attack a person they know is armed. Too much risk, especially when there is probably an easier mark right around the corner.
Criminals often seem to rob liquor stores. They are often shot at by liquor store owners who have a weapon concealed under the counter or elsewhere.
Once again, you make it sound like shooting the criminal is the best possible outcome.
In these shootouts, how many times are the store owners shot or killed?
Most of the time.
Wouldn’t it be better for the gun to not be concealed and for the criminal to go somewhere else?
“Once again, you[Fred Beloit] make it sound like shooting the criminal is the best possible outcome.”
There you go again, Mark. No I don’t. But you seem to be going for poster boy of Owen’s title for this piece. Bet that hole in your instep hurts, don’t it.
That you don’t know how you sound is not surprising.
Now do you care to deal with the point about how people who get into shoot-outs with criminals often get hurt or killed?
Is this the point you are trying to make, Mark? the Toledo Blade can help you. From opencarry blog:
Posted: Wed Mar 24th, 2010 12:45 am
Quote Reply
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7189
“The Ohio media’s opposition stance on changing laws to protect innocent people was inexplicable, until now. In the wake of two separate incidents recently where Toledo retail store workers used firearms to defend against armed robbers, The Toledo Blade has finally come right out and said that society would be a better place if criminals, not honest people, had the upper hand in an armed encounter.”
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100319/OPINION02/3190305
“Twice in just the past few days, seemingly bad guys were shot while allegedly attempting to rob Toledo stores. Although we’re glad the robberies were thwarted and thankful no innocents were injured, we’re not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.”
Do you know the difference between anecdote and data.
Given the quality of your posts, it’s quite obvious that you don’t.
Ohhhhh, you’ve found two articles about clerks who shot criminals and didn’t get hurt.
And you actually believe that this proves that getting into a shootout with crooks is the best strategy?
The most dangerous activity that American citizens engage in is not the open carry of pistols. It is the routine operation of any motor vehicle anywhere in this country. Every year, we slaughter 40000 plus men, woman, and children.
So clearly, the occurrence of “negligent discharge” is not the real concern of the author. If it were, he would go try to fry bigger fish, on in other words, he would be shocked! Shocked, I say! about the highway death toll per annum.
Open carry queasiness is a function of where you grew up and what your local nanny state index is. In Washington (state), where I was born, open carry was not remarkable, and at some times of the year, was normal.
Chicago, Illinois has some of the most draconian pistol carry laws in the country, yet state legislators are calling for activation of National Guard units to restore law and order to Obama’s old community organizer fiefdom. That is because, the thugs and the criminal element of Chicago ignore the law and because, after 50 years of Democrat party rule, Chicago has devolved into a hellish place populated by entitled and misunderstood serfs of the Democrat machine.
Personally, I don’t favor a pistol as a primary weapon. You can’t win a war with one, but you can sure as hell start a war (just ask the Austrians about that one). A number of folks do, however and there is a special provision in the charter under which we live that says it is their absolute, unchallengable right to carry open or concealed as they see fit.
Tyrants always fear free men who have the means to resist, with deadly force. So, all of you potential tyrants out there, feel free to be afraid, very afraid.
“That is because, the thugs and the criminal element of Chicago ignore the law ….”
===================================
Holy cow! That’s the same thing the criminals do here in Gary. It’s spreading! We’re doomed!
Mainstream democrats will like totally tell you that like they too have a fringe that they would rather like totally disown. Totally.
Your words will perhaps produce an influence that will do some good. But regardless of PR skills of some, I stand for freedom for all. I’m an NRA life member, and I see the sense in what you say.
The other point made by this activity is that you can trust these people with firearms. Nobody got shot, nobody got threatened. That’s also a good point for most to note, although we can trust that the MSM would never point this out to us.
Given a choice, I would prefer concealed carry. I want the bad guys to wonder “is he carrying or is he not carrying?”. But living in Illinois, I am not permitted to carry. So, in this state, only the bad guys are carrying.
There used to be rifle and shooting clubs in schools. When I was a kid it was not unusual to see gun racks in trucks. My relatives used to hunt. Every family I knew had guns and no one was killed or harmed. Criminals uses guns to kill and frighten people; deal effectively with them and you don’t have a problem. The rights of the law-abiding should not be limited by silly and all-encompassing bans and rules.
Every movement has its share of fundamentalists.
“fundamentalists” Yeah those guys who happen to believe that what a law says, is actually what the law means. And if they happen to insist, then they are “fanatics.”
There used to be a local fair called the “Clemonts Stampede”, in Clements, California just outside Stockton. The Hell’s Angels stopped by during the 60′s, but the fair was peaceful and pleasent, because about half the cowboys and farmers there were carrying handguns for participation in fast draw contests and target shooting.
The Hell’s Angels stopped by again during the 70′s, and it was very unpleasent. The difference? No more shooting contests and open carry was banned at the fair.
Most people in the US do not have an unreasonable fear of guns. This “backlash” is manufactured by the News Media and the gun control crowd, and Bob Owens is buying into the hoplophobia.
Bautsch Allee and Joe Brown would almost certainly not have been seriously injured by leftist thugs, or attacked at all, had they been openly carrying.
That openly carrying a firearm has become necessary for protection from physical assault by leftist thugs is regretable, but it is not at all the fault of those who openly carry firearms.
Stop blaming the victim.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-a-horrific-politically-motivated-beating-newsworthy/
“Bautsch Allee and Joe Brown would almost certainly not have been seriously injured by leftist thugs, or attacked at all, had they been openly carrying.”
No, they would have been arrested for violating RS 14:95.5 §95.5. “Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet” for carrying a loaded gun into an establishment that serves alcohol, if the weren’t first picked up under RS 14:95.4 §95.4. “Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet” which authorizes the search of people for weapons when entering establishments that serve alcohol.
The weapon you carry on your belt is expensive, tough to come by and an object of desire for the criminally inclined. My state allows open carry but I go to great lengths to conceal my weapon. If you are in the midst of those who would hurt or kill you for your proudly displayed weapon, you can be assured you will never see their attack coming. It will be swift, disabling and possibly fatal.
Contrast this to the concealed carry confrontation where they discover you are armed only after confronting you. There will be no time to plan a stealth attack and they will depart – most likely with no shots fired. And you will still have your life and your weapon.
1) Cheap firearms are easy to get, even for criminals.
2) If you wait until you have already been assaulted by the bad guys to draw, then you waited too long. Either he already has the drop on you, or he is close enough to take your gun away from you before you can get it fully drawn.
Going into the debate of Open versus Concealed carry from a tactical standpoint seems to really be missing the forest for the trees.
It’s like watching people arguing whether or not someone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle for home defense when a shotgun would do… in a thread about the Assault Weapons Ban.
There’s also the dubious issue of the very people exercising a right being the ones at fault for it being banned.
Open carry seems like a good policy. Armed law abiding citizens prevent many crimes, stop many crimes in progress, and discourage many assaults. Places where guns are permitted always have lower crime rates than similar places that do not. Open carry would just make it that much more safe, some people would be concealed carry and those with open carry would remind would be lawbreakers that people have guns, people know how to use those guns, and he is very likely out manned and out gunned should he try anything. Open carry people will have easier access to their weapon for speedy responses, while those with concealed would have ambush surprise surprise surprise. Open carry would also acclimatise children to the fact that guns are good things, and who can argue with an idea of letting kids know that they are going to be safe, because a law abiding citizen is nearby who will protect them with deadly force if need be. All in all, open carry just seems to be good with very little on the down side, other than the fact that progressive liberals like this author disapprove, there just is no real argument against it.
Police open carry, are they the ONLY people who are allowed to learn weapon retention training? Would prior military backgrounds like myself not have this training and any gun shop can have on site trainers that could include this.
Surprise, surprise, the element of surprise invoked by presenting a concealed weapon in a threat situation has nothing whatsoever to do with an ambush. Rather than reactive response, an ambush is a premeditated act.
Police in uniform open carry, police in street clothes carry concealed.
So called progressive liberals are the anti-gun establishment. Please cite any statement by Mr. Owens or any commenters here that you feel reflects that view.
Thank you for your honorable service to the United States.
I can’t help but laugh at the stance that one should refrain from exercising their rights because it makes people uncomfortable.
Where are all the documented cases of OCer’s having their guns taken away and used against them? This is a strawman arguement unless you can show cases of it happening.
All this talk about tactical avantage of CCing sounds like a bunch of mall ninjas. I live in Virginia and have my CHP. I probably OC 50% of the time when I leave home. No big deal. If I encounter private property that doesn’t want me to enter I don’t…if it’s a business I just take my money elsewhere.
This whole OC vs. CC arguement is stupid. Either way is exercizing your 2A right and neither is the right or wrong choice. If you don’t want to OC then don’t. As someone stated, cops are more likely to have to wrestle for their gun because they go looking for bad guys. If a criminal sees someone OCing, given the chance they will most likely move on to an easier target.
If you can’t document OCer’s being disarmed by the bad guy then you are just making stuff up because it sounds good to you or it fits you preconcieved notion of life.
Some will try to bring up the case of cops being killed with their own weapons. But there is a big difference. By the nature of their jobs, police are required to get close to bad guys, in order to arrest and cuff them. This means getting close enough for the bad guy to try and grab the officers weapon.
For the civilian, staying as far away as possible from the bad guy is the name of the game.
Sitting here this evening reading this, I am amazed at just how screwed up people’s thought processes are. It seems that we have far less to worry about from anti-gun people,”there’s a hell of alot more of us than there are of them”, than we do from our own community. All this bickerin back and forth about whether or not concealed is “tactically” better than OC. Personally, shut the hell up. Who the hell cares what you think about which is better in the real world. If you don’t like or want to OC, fine DON”T. If you don’t like or want to carry concealed, fine DON”T. PERIOD. Who are you carrying a gun for, yourself and your family, OR other people that don’t make a damn bit of difference to you & yours. Don’t like that TOUGH SHIT. Get over yourselves. Nobody has the RIGHT to tell me or my wife, how to carry our guns. You ain’t my father. Both sides of the same issue make valid points and reasons behind them. If you care about your safety and since the police & deputies can’t be every where at once as hard as they try, carry a gun. Point is “AT LEAST YOU ARE ARMED”. Stop this pissin contest so many get into. It ain’t about bein cool and followin the crowd,
stand on your own two feet.
My family and I are from southern Missouri where owning guns and carrying guns, OPEN or CONCEALED is no big deal. It’s just part of life. So many people talk about how the police and sheriff’s deputies freak out about citizens open carrying guns, maybe in bigger towns here where you gotta alot of transplants from anti-areas. We have NEVER had any problems with LEO ourselves. We have talked to several that don’t have a problem with it, most encourage us to. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen of good character they don’t mind. My wife and I have both been a foot from them armed and the only thing that they asked about was make and caliber.
I don’t know of any instances where any open carriers have actually shot themselves but I just haven’t heard of any. Once people start to wake up to the fact that their way, isn’t the only way, and stop trying to shove it down the other sides throat, we might actually be able to help others see that just because they see someone wearing a gun they don’t have to freak and OMG….MWAG.
Right now people see this civil war and not sure they want any part of it.
Okay just my 2 cents.
On the issue of gun negligence – I was discussing this with a friend last night. I’m Australian so guns are much rarer here, but I was taught the basics of gun safety by my grandfather – never take someone’s word whether it’s loaded, never point the barrel at anyone whether it is or not, check what’s behind your target, etc. My friend grew up on a farm which are about the only places left in Aust where people own guns, and he knew several people who had managed to shoot themselves – in the most memorable incident, by pulling a loaded rifle out of the back seat of a truck by the barrel…at which point the trigger caught on something…
It seems to me that in places where guns are rare people are much less well educated about them and are far more likely to have accidents through negligence.
OC or CC…
Never go alone.
1 ) Don’t live in a bad area.
2 ) Don’t travel in a bad area.
3 ) Don’t travel after dark,especially in a bad area.
4 ) Convenience stores are called a “Stop and Rob” for a good reason.
5 ) Buy your gas in the daytime or out beyond the city.
6 ) Ask yourself:” Is going out at 3am for chips and soda really a good idea?”
7 ) Walking alone is bad, in any neighborhood.
8 ) Criminals watch when you park your car,look you over to see if you are a target worth the effort,they plan ahead.You should too.
9 ) Sometimes people don’t die when shot,you might live through it,and the bad guys too,have a plan for that too.
10 ) The police are not your friend,anyone who is not a cop and has a gun,is viewed as a “Bad Guy” by cops.
When a cop shoots, he might get a week off with pay and not have to cover the legal fees, when civilians get treated the same…let me know.
I’ve never heard of a person getting shot because they forgot to take their finger off the trigger when holstering their weapon.
Mark, it does happen. I work in a crime lab and we have seen a couple of guns that have gone off in just this manner. Actually this seems to happen (even to police) when the person gets a new holster.
All the above is not the point of course. The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans just as the 1st does, even those of us who are racist because we disagree with the Democrats partisan policies.
#31
Mark, roughly how many reports of self-inflicted gunshots have you studied?
Since you feel yourself to be an expert, why don’t you provide us all with the answer.
OK, Mark. None.
Self delusion is the greatest vice.
Why don’t you try to free yourself from it?
MarkTheGreat: “The truth is a laugher? While criminals have a different moral system than most of us, they are quite rational.
April 30, 2010 – 9:30 am”
Yeah, risking 10 years in the pen for $229.50 in cash is a real rational move.
Given how few are caught, it can be.
Prisons filled to capacity and then some, Mark. Waking is better than insisting.
Most people in jail are there on drug possession charges.
Please learn how to find and present data, you are embarrassing yourself.
I have a CCW permit for Colorado and have yet to carry concealed. I can’t imagine a scenario when I would want to carry openly on my hip. I think those that do unnecessarily are trying to make a point, and that is not why we fought so hard to get ‘the several states’ to pass CCW laws.
Your gun is for self defense. It is not for deliberately shocking others, showing off, or being politically confrontational. That shows immaturity, and means maybe one shouldn’t carry.
Thanks for calling the gun supporters on this. Anyone with firearms training knows it is far wiser to conceal. The “in your face” I have a gun strapped to my hip can scare people, inflame, certainly get law enforcement asking you questions and although it provides self defense with stealth you won’t be the first target acquisition.
Hahaha. So, no armed robbers are in prisons, huh, Mark. Or maybe 10 or 12? Keep in mind, these facts are for federal prisons only. Even for a local type of crime, there are a significant number.
http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp#4
Why do you feel the need to lie about what I have written?
Are you truely that hard up for facts?
I never said that there are no armed robbers in prision.
If you are so desperate that you have to invent lies to propagate this myth that you are so desperate to believe, then go ahead. You aren’t worth my time.
BTW, when do you graduate from middle school?
I must add that just showing that there are some armed robbers in jail does not constitute proof that most armed robbers are caught.
Maybe when you get to high school you can take some basic logic classes.
Mark say: “Please learn how to find and present data, you are embarrassing yourself.”
Others here will decide whether I am embarrassing myself, not you, Mark my friend.
Actually ever single argument against “open carry” is one of the false arguments against “concealed carry” or even against just owning a firearm.
The arguments are just as erroneous and lacking in evidence when applied to open carry.
This especially includes the idea that avoiding exercising a right is somehow going to protect that right.
A right you cannot use is worthless.
Showing the flag is a necessary exercise whether that is a warship sailing to the International limit or a single individual wearing a legal firearm responsibly and calmly.
There is not one single gun control law that can be shown to work. There is no evidence that law-abidign gun owners, including those who open carry, are part of the problem.
I salute you HerbM. The best post of the thread.
Since there are many States that do have legal Open Carry if you want to present reasons not to have it based on negligent discharge, theft of arms from legally armed owners Open Carrying and so on, then this is the place to do it. So far I do not see one piece of evidence to back up the claims, although the idea that you should wear in and get used to your holster is a good one… which is why surplus and used holsters can be a good deal, especially leather ones. As for the argument that new carriers, especially first time owners, are more likely to make mistakes… well, yes… same for cars, riding a bicycle, or using a power tool you have never used before. Practice may not make perfect, but it is a great teacher and once you’ve put a few thousand rounds through your firearms, done the cleaning and maintenance, and gotten used to them then you are learning that there are responsibilities that go along with the right. Just like any other positive right.
If there is a case to be made beyond the emotional part of it, say on how many people who Open Carry are shot down by criminals as taken as a percentage of all firearms deaths in a State (and then comparing that to multiple other States or variation from the national average), then do make it. Otherwise it is trying to reason based on emotional content only, which is not the best of all possible ways to reason things out. Reason is never divorced from emotion, but finding the evidence to back up claims then sheds light on the emotion being relevent or not. Being able to defend oneself is a positive liberty we retain not only from Nature but through our application of other liberties to improve our life, thus it is both a Natural and synthetic right that is derived from our liberty. When you exercise any right you take up the responsibility for its proper use and remain accountable to your use of it. I may not care for the yahoos who don’t exercise their rights responsibly, but the answer to that is to use my rights responsibly, not attempt to take them from me when I demonstrate responsible use of same. That is how you build society: the responsible exercise of your rights to ensure your free exercise of your positive liberties.
Sorry if this was touched upon. I didn’t read all the comments. It is interesting that you brought up Arizona and then Virginia, only to finish with what California is doing.
See California is *really* different in that unless you can get a CCW (which most but the rich can), you *must* carry open and unloaded. You can have a magazine on your belt, but unloaded it must be. That must be *real* terrifying to the normal citizens, what with the firearm not even being loaded and all. Now California seeks to take that away as well.
Concerning open carry, I did a pretty good piece (at least in my mind) of open carry versus concealed carry at http://wp.me/pQSH5-12. My stance is that criminals are cowards and not willing to put it all on the line when they can simply move on. Remember, this is not a life or death thing for them. Criminals are generally going after their bread and butter. They don’t want to die. And as I did read some of the comments, I have not been shown one story of a civilian open carrying and being shot for doing so. I’ve not seen one story of a civilian wrestling with a criminal for his open weapon. Not one. It is a theory but it is only a theory. There are reasons for it and reasons not to do it but none are really good or bad. It is personal preference.
Any fear or intimidation speaks more about the person who is scared than what scared him. And that really isn’t my problem to make sure that you aren’t scared of the bogeyman.