Hand Guns Carried Open - - - - >>

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: spidey07
If anything it makes me feel ever MORE safe and secure.

as long as it aint this guy

Jeese, talk about 'walking it off'.

 

[meltdown75]

i don't know, the only people that can do it here are law enforcement and stuff. so yeah it would be kinda weird if Yosemite Sam strolled in to McD's packin heat. i'd be like... holy shit... this ain't the US of A put your penis away dicksmack.

 

[CountZero]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CountZero

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: ICRS
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

1. Already done in most states.
2. Unfair costs, Unfair frequency, lack of defined standards for 'sound mind' - all of which contribute to undue burden and infringement on a guaranteed right. Requiring a new mental health background check at the time of license renewal is a viable alternative, and already done in many states.
3. Already required in most states.
4. Already required in almost all states.
5. Already law in most states, and under severe restrictions even when allowed.

Now, let me counter:

Without these rules and with a drastic increase in concealed carry licensing not only has crime gone down significantly, but multiple studies confirm that permit holders are more law abiding than even law enforcement officers.

Moreover, in a state with none of those requirements, where any 16 year old can carry just about any gun they want, almost anywhere they want, with no oversight whatsoever, the crime and accident rates are the just about the lowest in the nation.

In other words, none of the things you suggest are ACTUALLY the problem. I'm not arguing against them, just reminding you that they're feel good platitudes with next to no positive effects in the real world.

Crime going down significantly really shouldn't have anything to do with concealed carry, it isn't a deterrent and should only be used once a crime is committed. I would also venture to guess that areas where 16 year olds can carry were already areas with low crime rates.

In addition it wouldn't be a stretch to say the reduced crime rate is due to increased gun control, I wouldn't agree with this statement either.

And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

As I said before, I believe strongly in lots of freedoms with strong penalties for abuse of those freedoms rather than restrictions of freedoms.

No, concealed carry wasn't responsible for lowering the crime rate (in my opinion, though there is no clinching proof). However, people carrying doesn't in any way increase crime/accident rates, and that much IS proven.

Yes, Vermont has always been relatively low crime. The point, again, is that even when 16 year olds carry guns it doesn't CAUSE crime or accidents. This is a significant disconnect between the gun and the events. It establishes that they are in no way a problem. Not saying they're necessarily a solution either, but they have no negatives.

Why scary? It's been going on for forty years now, and before that it was going on with open carry instead of concealed. Before that it was swords, and so on. People have ALWAYS carried weapons. While the results of that carrying have varied over the centuries, it's never ended society, or even harmed a majority of the populace (except in rare instances like wars/genocide). Meanwhile it has afforded those persons the opportunity to defend themselves. I just don't see how being scared of every human being is rational, given the overall low chance of harm from them.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I don't follow gun control issues at all so if saying that concealed carry increases crime is an argument used for gun control I wouldn't believe it. I think we both agree on this but I misinterpreted what you had said as a cause and effect type of thing.

I don't think its scary in a 'run away' type of scary I think it's scary in a 'that many people feel it is necessary to carry on them at all times a weapon'. In addition the irrational fear of harm from others is frequently the drive to carry a gun. You have basically said I shouldn't fear people carrying guns because the risk of harm is low but that same argument invalidates carrying the gun.

In either case it doesn't really matter what I feel (except that that was the point of this particular thread). I don't carry a gun because I don't feel it is necessary. If you feel carrying a gun is necessary (or if you just want to do it, necessity aside) then do it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CountZero

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CountZero

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: ICRS
I am a big supporter of the second amendment, BUT I do think we need some reform in who can carry a gun.

1. People with criminal records or those not of sound mind should NOT be allowed to have a gun.

2. There should be YEARLY psychiatric evaluations of those who do carry a gun. To make sure they remain of sound mind.

3. People should be required to take a course on gun safety, and they should be required to take gun safety courses every few years to maintain their license.

4. For civilian purposes people should be over the age of 21 to carry a gun.

5. Weapons such as fully automatic guns should not be allowed for civilians.

1. Already done in most states.
2. Unfair costs, Unfair frequency, lack of defined standards for 'sound mind' - all of which contribute to undue burden and infringement on a guaranteed right. Requiring a new mental health background check at the time of license renewal is a viable alternative, and already done in many states.
3. Already required in most states.
4. Already required in almost all states.
5. Already law in most states, and under severe restrictions even when allowed.

Now, let me counter:

Without these rules and with a drastic increase in concealed carry licensing not only has crime gone down significantly, but multiple studies confirm that permit holders are more law abiding than even law enforcement officers.

Moreover, in a state with none of those requirements, where any 16 year old can carry just about any gun they want, almost anywhere they want, with no oversight whatsoever, the crime and accident rates are the just about the lowest in the nation.

In other words, none of the things you suggest are ACTUALLY the problem. I'm not arguing against them, just reminding you that they're feel good platitudes with next to no positive effects in the real world.

Crime going down significantly really shouldn't have anything to do with concealed carry, it isn't a deterrent and should only be used once a crime is committed. I would also venture to guess that areas where 16 year olds can carry were already areas with low crime rates.

In addition it wouldn't be a stretch to say the reduced crime rate is due to increased gun control, I wouldn't agree with this statement either.

And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

As I said before, I believe strongly in lots of freedoms with strong penalties for abuse of those freedoms rather than restrictions of freedoms.

No, concealed carry wasn't responsible for lowering the crime rate (in my opinion, though there is no clinching proof). However, people carrying doesn't in any way increase crime/accident rates, and that much IS proven.

Yes, Vermont has always been relatively low crime. The point, again, is that even when 16 year olds carry guns it doesn't CAUSE crime or accidents. This is a significant disconnect between the gun and the events. It establishes that they are in no way a problem. Not saying they're necessarily a solution either, but they have no negatives.

Why scary? It's been going on for forty years now, and before that it was going on with open carry instead of concealed. Before that it was swords, and so on. People have ALWAYS carried weapons. While the results of that carrying have varied over the centuries, it's never ended society, or even harmed a majority of the populace (except in rare instances like wars/genocide). Meanwhile it has afforded those persons the opportunity to defend themselves. I just don't see how being scared of every human being is rational, given the overall low chance of harm from them.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I don't follow gun control issues at all so if saying that concealed carry increases crime is an argument used for gun control I wouldn't believe it. I think we both agree on this but I misinterpreted what you had said as a cause and effect type of thing.

I don't think its scary in a 'run away' type of scary I think it's scary in a 'that many people feel it is necessary to carry on them at all times a weapon'. In addition the irrational fear of harm from others is frequently the drive to carry a gun. You have basically said I shouldn't fear people carrying guns because the risk of harm is low but that same argument invalidates carrying the gun.

In either case it doesn't really matter what I feel (except that that was the point of this particular thread). I don't carry a gun because I don't feel it is necessary. If you feel carrying a gun is necessary (or if you just want to do it, necessity aside) then do it.

*nod* I was just tossing stuff out for consideration.

Personally I don't carry a gun out of fear, I carry a gun out of a sense of responsibility and a tendency to be prepared for any contingency (likely or otherwise).

 

[xSauronx]

it wouldnt bother me, but NC has some relatively strict handgun laws and while i may be incorrect, i dont think you can openly carry. even a CCW permit is pretty restrictive. as one officer put it "if youre not on your personal property or on the highway, its illegal to carry in most places in this state"

i checked the law...and he was exaggerating, but not by much. oh well

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CountZero
And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

50% of the people around you at any given time are carrying an item built to rape, should women be fearful every second of the day?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CountZero
And I'm sorry but to say that 5% of the people around me at any given time are carrying an item explicitly made to kill is scary.

50% of the people around you at any given time are carrying an item built to rape, should women be fearful every second of the day?

and 100% of people around you are carrying several items built to strangle or beat the crap out of you (and kill you).

 

[HaiBiss]

I have a friend that was a cop, he let me try to take his gun from the holster and he wasn't fighting me on it and it didn't come loose very easily it took me 6 good yanks for the snap to come loose and still it was ackward coming out.

And the gun was not loaded when we tired.......

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
i don't know, the only people that can do it here are law enforcement and stuff. so yeah it would be kinda weird if Yosemite Sam strolled in to McD's packin heat. i'd be like... holy shit... this ain't the US of A put your penis away dicksmack.

This. Only people I see carrying are hunters with their guns locked up on their gun racks in their trucks. Or the odd person from Scarlem that wants to be busted.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: HaiBiss
I have a friend that was a cop, he let me try to take his gun from the holster and he wasn't fighting me on it and it didn't come loose very easily it took me 6 good yanks for the snap to come loose and still it was ackward coming out.

And the gun was not loaded when we tired.......

Not only that, most officers today use retention holsters...they are VERY difficult to draw from unless you know how they work, and even then they're hard if you're not the one wearing it.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Triumph
It's quite simple. People fear what they do not understand. People do not understand firearms. Therefore they fear it.

No I think it is the opposite. People understand that guns can kill them.

Which is, of course, a misunderstanding. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice.

Concealed carry is only the best tactical choice if you are being targeted specifically and the attack is NOT an attack of opportunity. This, however, is not the tactical situation in which a civilian is likely to find himself. More likely is that the victim is chosen randomly as someone who appears to present a low risk to the criminal. Open carry has the potential to prevent an attack from even starting; concealed carry does not.

The element of surprise is an advantage only after an altercation has already begun (or if you are the one who will be initiating the altercation, which is emphatically not the case for responsible gun owners). It is entirely reactive.

ZV

hmmm... can't say i agree... opportunistic attack on a open carry means that if i hit from behind i can probably liberate the weapon before the liberatee can get to it... and, as a real bad guy, seeing a weapon is just like seeing any other bling - it's $$$ at the pawnshop... with concealed the target, if conscious after the inital attack, has a chance to retalliate... but then i'm the kind of bad guy who would slug first, not ask nicely for your posessions...

being a large kind of guy, i don't tend to be the bad guy's first choice in any case... but it's kind of how i look at lady cops: if me, a 250 lb 6'5'' guy, am a real bad guy who doesn't want to go to jail, she'd better have that gun out because i'm going to fight otherwise... having the gun on her hip is like not having a gun...

not trying to be sizeist or anything, but a little person with an open carry is still a target in my eyes...

Naturally carrying a weapon is not a panacea. And I agree that there do exist bad guys with the mentality that you describe. However, I think that they are the minority of criminals and that the way they would strike is likely to negate even concealed carry (that is, they aren't likely to give a victim time to draw from concealment). I certainly believe that a gun, whether carried openly or concealed, is no substitute for situational awareness.

As far as taking the gun away easily, two words: "Retention Holster". The thumb-break on my revolver's holster and the SERPA mechanism on my M&P's would make it difficult for someone to just lift the gun out of the holster. Neither appreciably affects my own draw time however. I would definitely agree with the statement that if someone is going to carry openly he or she should use a retention holster as that will very effectively mitigate one of the potential risks of open carry.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: skipcoryell

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: skipcoryell
Obviously, concealed carry is still the best tactical choice.

Concealed carry is only the best tactical choice if you are being targeted specifically and the attack is NOT an attack of opportunity. This, however, is not the tactical situation in which a civilian is likely to find himself. More likely is that the victim is chosen randomly as someone who appears to present a low risk to the criminal. Open carry has the potential to prevent an attack from even starting; concealed carry does not.

The element of surprise is an advantage only after an altercation has already begun (or if you are the one who will be initiating the altercation, which is emphatically not the case for responsible gun owners). It is entirely reactive.

ZV

Zenmervolt,

You may be correct, but unfortunately there's no way for us to know since it's impossible to document an assault that was deterred. My gut feeling and my studies lead me to believe that open carry deters most "sane" criminals, i.e., those without a death wish.

My personal feeling is that with the continuing degradation of our social fabric, we're seeing more and more criminals out there who aren't of sound mind e.g., those with drug and alcohol addictions and mental illness.

Bottom line for me is that self protection is a right endowed to us by our creator. It's our birthright that can't be taken away. So we have a choice to either not carry at all, carry open, or carry concealed. I always tell my students that they live or die based on decisions they make. So make good decisions.

Skip Coryell
www.mwtac.com
www.skipcoryell.com

:thumbsup:

100% agreed.

I carry concealed most of the time for the reasons you mention; the only times I carry openly are when hiking since a .357 with a 6" barrel is difficult (and uncomfortable) for me to conceal. Still, I can see the argument in favor of open carry, and it's definitely more comfortable in the summer.

ZV

 

[Finalnight]

I am uncomfortable with people open-carrying as I think it is silly and dangerous to give up such a big tactical advantage in carrying concealed.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
It doesn't scare me they have a gun, what scares me is the fact at how easy it would be for somebody to take their weapon and use it. Everybody thinks about "could I get that police offers gun out of his holster?", and most likely thats no because they are trained to stop you from stealing their weapon.

I honestly doubt 99% of them have ever had any kind of training to prevent somebody stealing their weapon, and that is what scares me about it.

Uhh...dude...there was a thread about this a while, an old lady tried to steal a police officers' gun, and...well...I hope she wasn't too badly hurt, but that's what training does...it becomes a reflex.

Originally posted by: 43st
Anyone who self appoints themselves with the right to take another persons life is a problem, regardless if they flaunt it in public or not.

:roll: I think that's the only way to interpret your post.

 

[Atrail]

I wonder how uncomfortable people were back in medieval times. Everyone carrying a sword or dagger in the open. It must have been horrible!