Open Carry - In Your Face!

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Edward429451:

I think a lot of you guys are taking your own fears (propaganda born) and projecting them onto everyone. AN oc weapon intimidates YOU in line at McD's so you spout that others are intimidated.

"Fear", "intimidation" and "propaganda" are the only sources you can think of? I know they are very long, but reading my posts and understanding what I tried to say might educate you better in where I'm coming from. But if you aren't into thinking about what I wrote, if your conclusions are drawn and written in stone and all you care to know is that they're different from mine, then it really doesn't matter what you think because you aren't much of a thinker. I think my responses are prudent precautions that came from my training and my experiences of maybe 60 years of being around guns and people with guns in a multitude of situations and places, a multitude of different sorts of people, with a lot of different outcomes. YMMV, and recognizing that others have legit reasons for what they take as truth might make you less apt to misjudge those you differ with.

What happens in Colorado is almost certainly going to be different in nature and degree than what happens elsewhere because there's no place in the US that defines the cultural climate for every other place. Some are close, some are wide apart in social paradigms. That's obvious, isn't it? If the people in Colorado are OK with OC and no one will be energized against gun rights because of it, good for them and for us. But it's foolish to assume the entire rest of the country, urban, suburban and rural will react exactly like that.

A WalMart in Colorado hardly defines the entire US population's response to OC, CC or guns in general. I point that out in case your horizons stop at the state line.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Uncle Billy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv:
You're taking a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to anyone you see OCing (which is probably very rare to non-existant in New York). You assume that they have questionable intentions and/or judgement until they prove otherwise.
You see things in binary- either it's one or the other, when nothing is that simple. I assume nothing at all; I've not said that clear enough I guess. I see a gun (OC or flawed CC) and I see a device that could kill me- that's not an assumption, it's a simple truth. I have no reason or evidence to conclude anything about the skills and intentions of who's carrying it; I assume nothing about them because there's no concrete evidence to draw conclusions from.

In one post you say that OCers are "untrained and inexperienced wannabe cowboys" and now you say that you assume nothing. So which is it?

But their possession of something that could kill me makes who they are, what they know and what they are up to - the evidence the lack of which precludes forming a conclusion about them- very important. My reaction is to alert on the person with the gun because of its presence in the hands of someone with unknown skills and intentions close to me. "Situational awareness", pure and simple. Those not used to having guns close to them also have a reaction, and it's my contention that it won't be one that's positive about OC since they didn't agree to be in the situation they are in. Your assumption that it's all taken up with preoccupation with an OCer, and your inability to see the difference between the known presence of a gun and no presence of a gun indicates your understanding of "situational awareness" needs work.

You're still missing my point. Why should I give the OCer any more attention than the guy standing next to him who might also have a gun and might also have bad intentions. If you're going to go on high alert about an openly carried gun, you'd better go on high alert about everyone you meet because any one of them could have a deadly weapon. Also, I've yet to see evidence that the reactions of non-gun people will be so overwhelming negative as you suggest. I just can't buy that the population in general is that afraid of guns.

Quote:
In Phoenix, AZ where open carry is legal and fairly common the violent crime rate is 7.17 per 1,000 residents. In Chicago, IL where open (or any type of carry) is illegal, the violent crime rate is 12.12 per 1,000 residents. In Dallas, TX where concealed carry is legal but open carry is not the violent crime rate is 13.61 per 1,000 residents. In Indianapolis, IN where open carry is legal but not particularly common, the violent crime rate is 7.71 per 1,000 residents.
Gun laws are not the only way those cities are very different from each other, by far- how many ways is Phoenix different from Chicago? The difference in their crime rates has many more causes than just the difference in their gun laws.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. The point is that criminals are not hiding behind open carry and that a comparison of violent crime rates supports this.

Quote:
There is also an absence of evidence to suggest that the majority or even a large percentage is so inherently fearful of guns that they will suddenly have such a negative reaction to the sight of an open carrier.
Is there evidence that a large percentage of non-gun people are in favor of OC?

Well, the majority of those who have posted their OC experiences here haven't reported negative reactions and the waning support for gun control over the past sixteen years doesn't support the idea that most people are inherently afraid of guns. Also, there is no evidence that they are as opposed to OC as you suggest.

Quote:
The antis and the media will demonize any type of carry at all, and responsible open carry visibly proves them wrong.
OC of any sort frightens and mobilizes a lot of otherwise disinterested people, because guns intimidate them and gun violence frightens them, and they resent having to deal with guns and thus that fear and intimidation so overtly and aggressively injected into their presence. Nothing else matters a damn to them. Another detestable "what if": "OH, look! There's someone with a pistol on their belt, sitting here in the mall with a Coke. That's a pistol that could kill us if they wanted to. Why did they bring a deadly weapon here? What do they have in mind? If something happens, will they take it out and begin shooting? What if we get in the way? What if they are insane? What if they want to be like the guy in Texas that shot up a McDonald's and do that here in the mall? How come I have to deal with this danger? It's legal?? Well, that does it- where to I sign up to stop this cowboy stuff? That's a nice suit, though, which guarantees the gun couldn't hurt us. Never mind"- yeah, right.

"OC is bad because it scares people and turns them into antis", that has been pretty much your only argument throughout this thread, but you've yet to provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any proof that the majority of the American Public is as frightened of guns as you claim they are? I am beginning to wonder if OC scares most people, or if OC simply scares you.

Quote:
The whole point behind the open carry movement is to say "look at me, I can be armed and still be a safe, responsible citizen," this is a message that concealed carry cannot deliver. It isn't about trying to be macho, flashy, or intimidating, it's about setting a good example.
I see, guns as political statements, as teaching tools, as props in a theater drama, as part of a costume. That's like the kid who does burnouts in front of your house telling you that his real purpose in doing that in your face is to make you like the smell of tire smoke and the sound of a red-lined small block and Cherry Bombs. That's what handguns and OC are for- they are tools of persuasion and intimidation, holstered or not. All that stuff about killing and such isn't really what they are about. Yeah, right.

This doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting that anyone who carries a gun must be doing so because they intend to kill someone? If OC is about intimidation, then a lot of OCers must not be very good at it because many times their guns aren't even noticed. Is it so hard to understand that the message OC hopes to get across is "look, just because I have a gun does not mean that I'm a violent criminal."

Quote:
Well, I guess I'm just a lot more confident in my situational awareness skills than you are because I am not going to revolve my hobby around when someone unsafe might be at the range. Instead, I rely on my powers of observation to determine if the others at the range are being unsafe or irresponsible. If they are, then I will say something or leave. If I observe no such behavior, then I will enjoy an afternoon at the range.
Give them a glance, and see at that moment what they are doing is okay with you, and then ignore them from then on? Your confidence in your situational awareness skills is misplaced.

Give the guy who might be carrying concealed a glance. Just because he doesn't have a visible weapon and doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual at the moment you ignore him from then on? Are you sure it is my awareness skills that are misplaced?

Quote:
...they might also observe that the OCer appears to be a responsible adult and ponder upon the fact that the mayhem and carnage that the antis told them follows guns did not come to pass..."
"Oh, look! There's a well-dressed guy with a big pistol on his belt. He's just sitting there with his coffee. Must be all the gun violence I read about was a lie, all the stuff I've seen in movies and on TV about how guns can really mess you up were fictions, those times when someone with a pistol killed folks in churches, Burger King, college classrooms, high schools and shopping centers like this one must have been phony, the presidents and political leaders that were assassinated must have died some other way than by guns, because there's this guy just sitting there with a pistol, and his calm, well-dressed persona is all there is to know about guns and me". Yeah, right.

"Look, there's a respectable looking guy with a gun on his belt sipping a coffee and minding his own business. No one's getting shot or even seems scared. Maybe not everyone who has a gun is some sort of psycho like they said on TV." You're taking one out of many possible reactions and assuming that it is the one everyone will have.

Quote:
... Ask those same people about their thoughts on CC. I doubt they are in favor of it.
They won't have any reaction to a CCW if they don't see it and thus don't have to react to a gun close by that intimidates them like they would to an OCW. The only responsible purpose for carrying a weapon is to protect one's self and the people he or she is responsible for. Carrying a gun for any other reason, especially as a waving red flag for gun rights among the otherwise disinterested, will backfire more than it won't in most of the places I've been, and in my opinion is an irresponsible misuse of our gun rights. Period.

Why wouldn't they have a reaction to CC when the Brady Bunch is constantly trying to fear monger about it. The antis screaming about CC is no less shrill than it is about OC, but the fence sitters only get one side of the argument about CC. You don't think that someone who is frightened at the mere sight of a gun wouldn't also be frightened by the "insidious concealed weapons" that the antis and the media have wailed about?

This argument is quickly becoming circular and I find myself growing tired of it. It's obvious that you don't like open carry, and because you don't like it, then it must not be the right thing to do. I see no point in further trying to contest such "a priori" beliefs as your mind is obviously already made up and nothing I can say will move you. Have a nice day sir.

[Tom Servo]

In Dallas, TX where concealed carry is legal but open carry is not the violent crime rate is 13.61 per 1,000 residents. In Indianapolis, IN where open carry is legal but not particularly common, the violent crime rate is 7.71 per 1,000 residents

With all due respect, there are many other factors that cause those disparities in crime rate. Attributing open carry directly to lower crime rates in one place over another is a bit disingenuous.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tom Servo

Quote:
In Dallas, TX where concealed carry is legal but open carry is not the violent crime rate is 13.61 per 1,000 residents. In Indianapolis, IN where open carry is legal but not particularly common, the violent crime rate is 7.71 per 1,000 residents
With all due respect, there are many other factors that cause those disparities in crime rate. Attributing open carry directly to lower crime rates in one place over another is a bit disingenuous.

My point was not to attribute lower crime rates directly to open carry, but rather to illustrate that there is no evidence that criminals are hiding behind open carry laws.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by Edward429451

I think a lot of you guys are taking your own fears (propaganda born) and projecting them onto everyone. AN oc weapon intimidates YOU in line at McD's so you spout that others are intimidated.

I was in line at walmart about a month ago and I see an older guy OC a weapon on his belt. I stepped back to let the hoardes of screaming get through and run for the door but they didn't run and scream.

+1 to the red comment!

Hmmm.... too bad..... you could have gotten through your line faster!

[Old Grump]

I'm afraid of anybody who fears my gun. I do not want to live in their world of nameless fears and paranoia. Their fears are based on what exactly, and why should I care? Let them get used to it and let the bad guys beware. There are people out there who are not going to lay down and let you take what is theirs just because you want it.

Drug users who go off the track and become a danger to your fellow citizens beware, there may be a cure for your drug addiction and unsociable behavior. Road ragers beware, that little old lady you are trying to intimidate with your crowbar may have to answer you with a 88 grain JHP.

Wife beaters, beware, your little woman you have been battering for 10 years in spite of court orders prohibiting you from doing so might be using her constitutionally protected right to defend herself with a 125 gr SJHP .357 bullet today. I see no down side.

You are afraid of my open carry gun. To bad, get over it. You don't want to invite me over to your house for pink gin and sweet cheese, fine. I'll stay home and eat apple fritters and drink my coffee hot black and strong the way men like it. If you need protecting because some mope is beating the bejesus out of you for your engraved Rolex don't worry, if I am there I'll protect you even if you are a pantywaist and are afraid of my gun. Don't bother thanking me, I don't need it. Just be polite and call me sir when you tell me my gun is scary. I know it and I don't care.

[TMUSCLE1]

Old Grump Wrote:You are afraid of my open carry gun. To bad, get over it. You don't want to invite me over to your house for pink gin and sweet cheese, fine. I'll stay home and eat apple fritters and drink my coffee hot black and strong the way men like it. If you need protecting because some mope is beating the bejesus out of you for your engraved Rolex don't worry, if I am there I'll protect you even if you are a pantywaist and are afraid of my gun. Don't bother thanking me, I don't need it. Just be polite and call me sir when you tell me my gun is scary. I know it and I don't care.

Hahahahaha! That was pretty good! Thank for that!

I'm going to start being afraid of everybody because they might have a concealed gun.

I've made my point in another thread on this very same subject...good job NavyLT and Weblymkv

[crashm1]

I live in Wisconsin and work in Minneapolis so I open carry on the Wisconsin side of the border as that is the only legal way to carry and most of the time casually conceal on the MN side. Casual concealment means I have a cover garment but it's rarely more than an untucked shirt over an OWB holster. Almost no one notices when I open carry let alone when I cover up.
Having been to several open carry events the past couple years including one at a very popular Minneapolis lake I find the vast majority of folk don't notice, those that do notice pay very little attention and a very, very small minority look nervous and then leave the area. Then there is my friend Andrew who likes to OC at the local supermarkets while displaying his weapons of cute (his kids) rarely does he get more than a cursory glance by anyone.
Oddly enough I went to lunch today and saw a woman in jeans, t shirt and button down sweater rather casually concealing a full sized gun. I paid more attention to her figure than the gun.
Recent figures show that the fastest growing and most active segment of shooters are the people who are shooting with a view towards self defense. Which makes some sense as hunting is more complicated for most of us than it used to be. The AR is quickly becoming a popular hunting rifle in some alternate calibers as well as a very popular target gun. The number of people with carry permits has gone from under a million to approximately 6 million with now three states that allow constitutional carry. Every news piece I've seen on open carry has been neutral to positive depending on location hell even the ones done for foreign TV have failed to get very hysterical about the crazy Americans.
We won Heller, it looks like we won McDonald, there are half a dozen cases lined up to go in CA and NY after McDonald is announced as well as Palmer v DC. The Brady Campaign and VPC's funding is drying up there really is no reason to back off or give the anti's any breathing room. Let them keep freaking out, let us keep showing the public nothing bad happens when the average gun owner carries.

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv:

In one post you say that OCers are "untrained and inexperienced wannabe cowboys" and now you say that you assume nothing. So which is it?

I've discovered our problem! You can't read all that well! What I wrote was this: "I and many others think you look like a bunch of wannabe cowboys, and in most of your untrained, inexperienced hands I think guns are dangerous indeed, as do a lot of people much less in favor of gun rights than I am." I said you LOOK LIKE a bunch of wannabe cowboys and MOST of those that OC aren't trained, which hurts the image of gun people like me because you've asserted yourself, by OCing, as the identity of gun people for those who don't have any other reference. I assume nothing; there's a lot of people who assume some pretty negative and scary stuff when they see someone not in a police uniform with a gun.

Why should I give the OCer any more attention than the guy standing next to him who might also have a gun and might also have bad intentions.

Because there's a huge difference which you can't see between MIGHT have a gun, and DEFINITELY DOES have a gun.

I just can't buy that the population in general is that afraid of guns.

So the Brady Bunch and all those with the same thrust are really just a small minority? There is no organized, sizable effort to disarm us all? Then why should we bother donating to the NRA? What do we need a gun lobby for? Geez.

The point is that criminals are not hiding behind open carry and that a comparison of violent crime rates supports this.

No, the point is that the reasons and causes for violent crime go way beyond the local gun laws, and a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument is a fallacy.

Well, the majority of those who have posted their OC experiences here haven't reported negative reactions and the waning support for gun control over the past sixteen years doesn't support the idea that most people are inherently afraid of guns.

What simpleton mentality tells you that someone who is afraid of guns would start an argument about guns with someone who's carrying one? The waning support for gun control isn't clearly waning support for OC to be legal. Again, it isn't so simple as "I'm in favor of gun rights so everything ought to be okay" OR "I'm against gun rights so NOTHING is okay". There's a lot of people in the middle on this, and jamming gun rights in their face will turn them away, in my estimation.

"OC is bad because it scares people and turns them into antis", that has been pretty much your only argument throughout this thread, but you've yet to provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any proof that the majority of the American Public is as frightened of guns as you claim they are? I am beginning to wonder if OC scares most people, or if OC simply scares you.

I'm getting tired of writing stuff you don't read, or worse, you don't understand. Read all that I've written and see if you can find a quote that supports your suggestion that I'm afraid of OCers. I'm skeptical of them; I'm not at all ready to assume they're benevolent, peaceful, sane types because if they aren't I'm in deep do-do and so is everyone else nearby and there's no way of knowing for sure; I can handle that because I've got training and experience that backs up the accuracy of that training that tells me your approach, while comfortable, easy and supportive of gun people who OC, is really pretty uninformed, dangerous, risky, and is what someone who's more into the politics than the tactics of personal protection with a handgun would espouse, to his and our detriment. I'd bet the farm that about 90% of those who shout about the benefits of OC are similarly uninformed, vulnerable and damaging of those of us who get how one responds to guns in the hands of strangers nearby, which usually goes against the gun people when those who aren't otherwise convinced either way have to deal with OC- those that are awake enough and aware enough of the implications to engage with the presence of a gun nearby in places where guns have no purpose other than to shoot people. There's fewer of those in some places than others; there are a lot of them, actually and hypothetically (ask someone where OC is illegal what they think about OC) that are as I describe.

..Are you suggesting that anyone who carries a gun must be doing so because they intend to kill someone?

I'm stating firmly that by carrying a gun THEY've stated firmly that they will shoot to kill someone when they think that's the thing to do: They've equipped themselves to do so, that's what guns do as everyone pro or con understands. That clear statement by the OCer and the presence of the hardware he has that is capable of doing that scares the crap out of those who haven't had to deal with deadly force and the willingness to use it by "civilians" so close to them in places they don't expect it- WalMart, Starbucks, et al- and see no historical need for the presence of the guns in the hands of people willing to shoot at people, with unknown, unproven accuracy, justification, and mental discipline to legitimately apply deadly force. And even if all those criteria are met, they STILL don't want to stand around while a gun fight goes on- not at Starbucks, et al.

Give the guy who might be carrying concealed a glance. Just because he doesn't have a visible weapon and doesn't appear to be doing anything unusual at the moment you ignore him from then on? Are you sure it is my awareness skills that are misplaced?

Yes. There's nothing in the "situational awareness" training that I learned that tells me I ought to ignore ANYone. ALL are observed and assessed; those that present a visible threat (and the presence of a deadly weapon is considered a threat until it's proven otherwise) are given more scrutiny, but in the final analysis no one ought to be able to get very far with a harmful action no matter how the scrutiny assets are applied, if they are applied in some accurate hierarchy of threat analysis. We aren't playing tiddley-winks when loaded, deadly weapons are in the mix- talk to the combat vets of Iraq about threat analysis.

...You're taking one out of many possible reactions and assuming that it is the one everyone will have.

No, I'm talking about the reaction that people who haven't had a gun brought to them to deal with, in a place where guns aren't common and have no purpose but to kill people. What would be the purpose, to someone who isn't into arming themselves for protection, of a gun in an otherwise unthreatening place?

You don't think that someone who is frightened at the mere sight of a gun wouldn't also be frightened by the "insidious concealed weapons" that the antis and the media have wailed about?

Such people are frightened by ALL guns, ESPECIALLY those that are on the belts of the people around them in places where there's no need for being armed, so they think- they don't get the paranoia that has people arming themselves against violence in places where violence is very rare.

It's obvious that you don't like open carry, and because you don't like it, then it must not be the right thing to do.

I don't like it because it isn't the right thing to do. It isn't the right thing to do because it damages the image of gun rights and the people who engage in using them.

I see no point in further trying to contest such "a priori" beliefs as your mind is obviously already made up and nothing I can say will move you.

I can be dissuaded from a conclusion I have taken when a better argument is presented that indicates where mine was flawed, because my first dedication is to the tenets and process of critical thinking (look it up) and not to my conclusions. Said differently, if you present a supported argument that negates mine I am bound to accept yours over mine if I claim to aspire to the tenets that demand that the truth be paramount- that's an "oath" I've taken with myself. You have yet to supply any evidence or logic that negates my position that OC is too often done by those who aren't trained and experienced enough to do it sensibly and the non-gun public that's awake knows that; that many people that are otherwise uninvolved with gun rights find enough impetus when encountering someone OCing to join the efforts against us out of fear and reasonable fear that the OCer is incompetent and unjustified to have brought a deadly weapon into their proximity. Anything jammed in one's face will be rejected at first; my contention is that such rejection will often become a reaction more permanent.

I'm not the only one here whose mind is made up. I formed my conclusions from what I know and have experienced. I'm sticking with it because it's kept me alive and served me and my family well for 4 or more decades. You believe what makes you feel the best, I'll believe what my life has taught me, sometimes with a very costly tuition.

Have a nice day yourself, sir.

[Olibobwa]

You are afraid of my open carry gun. To bad, get over it. You don't want to invite me over to your house for pink gin and sweet cheese, fine. I'll stay home and eat apple fritters and drink my coffee hot black and strong the way men like it. If you need protecting because some mope is beating the bejesus out of you for your engraved Rolex don't worry, if I am there I'll protect you even if you are a pantywaist and are afraid of my gun. Don't bother thanking me, I don't need it. Just be polite and call me sir when you tell me my gun is scary. I know it and I don't care.

+1 for in your face. Most of the open carry proponents I've met IRL seem to be out to fulfill a hero's fantasy or tryin to add inches. Not exactly the kind of people I want to get caught up with in a Starbucks robbery. People like that will get you killed.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Because there's a huge difference which you can't see between MIGHT have a gun, and DEFINITELY DOES have a gun.

So, once again, it comes back to the gun. This is the exact propaganda that the anti-gun groups push. That it is the gun that causes the situation to change and not the person holding the gun. It's not your fault Billy, I am sure you have been taught this way since nursery school.

And you are absolutely 100% correct - I can't see a huge difference between MIGHT have a gun, and DEFINITELY DOES have a gun.

To put it simply, I am no more dangerous or "of interest" or "noteworthy" if I have my shirt tucked in behind my gun or over my gun and neither do I consider anyone else to be.

If I am going to consider a person to be dangerous, "of interest" or "noteworthy" it is going to be because of the way they are acting, not because of what they are carrying.

[Uncle Billy]

You need to expand your thinking past bumper-sticker tenets. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" ought to read "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people", but that's too accurate and not simple enough, and won't fit as easily on the bumper of whatever it is you drive, if it has bumpers.

You're anxious to disregard guns entirely and you expect that everyone else will do the same, when it's certain they won't. You want people to believe the fraud that guns themselves aren't hazardous and deserve no special attention, just pretend they're an iPod or a cell phone, and you haven't the integrity to see that seeking to convince them of that is contrary to all the good-sense training and learning gun people ought to have gotten about guns and so seeks to do them a huge disservice and make them vulnerable to the hazards of guns.

But who cares- certainly not you. It would serve your interests and that's all you care about. You like guns, use guns and have become familiar with guns, so much that they've been reduced to trivial in your mind- gun or not, it's all the same. Seeing a gun or not seeing a gun (where shirt tails are) the difference doesn't mean anything to you. But others who are previously indifferent or afraid of guns, who you don't give a damn about, see it more sensibly than that, ironically in concert with the training and good sense of gun people who haven't lost respect for what their guns can do.

In short, trying to sell the public on the convenient mendacity that guns aren't dangerous or potentially harmful and so ought to be disregarded in the hands of strangers in public is not only a dangerous disservice to those who buy it, it is revulsive to those who know and respect what guns are capable of on both sides of the gun rights line and see your sham and dishonest efforts for the snake-oil they are.

In your rush to "educate the public", to "exercise your rights", to "show people that you're a good guy with a gun" you've forgotten what guns are, what they can do, and that when guns are present, so are the hazards connected to them. Some day that indifference and lack of respect for guns has a good chance of getting you shot, by accident or on purpose. But "educating the public" that "guns aren't dangerous, people are dangerous" instead of "guns are dangerous, unfamiliar people with guns or guns with people who are unfamiliar with them are more dangerous" is the better, more credible "lesson", is less a lie and less a distortion of truth.

You have no respect for those who have different views than yours; their reactions aren't of any interest to you. How people who haven't forgotten that guns are dangerous killers, on both sides of the gun rights debate, react to guns near them in situations they didn't choose and would otherwise avoid is beneath your consideration. "I got my gun, eff you" is close to your OP, I'll bet.

When guns are forced on people in their everyday lives, when guns cease to be an abstraction that they could easily avoid and become present in their everyday activities usually free of guns, they have reasons to get mad and/or afraid, and are nudged toward removing guns from their presence.

But you're insensitive to that; your horizons are limited to those like yourself with guns, and are insensitive and dismissive of those who differ and have enough political clout if there's enough of them, to shut you down. As one who supposedly values our 2A rights and claims to act in support of them, your actions with guns that upset people act entirely in the opposite direction. Nice going.

[ZeSpectre]

You want people to believe the fraud that guns themselves aren't hazardous and deserve no special attention

NavyLT is right Uncle Billy, you've been trained and programmed so hard you can't even see past what you write. Compare deaths and injuries from carelessly operated automobiles to the number of deaths and injuries from firearms and automobiles have the overwhelmingly higher risk level and mortality rate, but somehow the millions of cars on the road are perceived as "just cars, no big deal".

You may want to say that guns are "dangerous killers" but I find it telling that in my lifetime which has been spent almost entirely in/around "firearms folk" and law enforcement, I've personally known only one person who was killed with a firearm, but I've known SEVEN killed in vehicle collisions and at least a dozen more injured and/or crippled by carelessly operated automobiles.

Someone with a firearm deserves the same, realistic, threat assessment that should be given to any person getting behind the wheel in a Wal-Mart parking lot, no more, no less.

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

[TMUSCLE1]

Or that the question isn't about the legality of OC or not to OC, but rather that he disagrees with it.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again, if that person isn't infringing on your rights while enjoying and practicing theirs, then go about your business. This judgemental attitude of someone open carrying is a little out of place.

[Tom Servo]

Compare deaths and injuries from carelessly operated automobiles to the number of deaths and injuries from firearms and automobiles have the overwhelmingly higher risk level and mortality rate, but somehow the millions of cars on the road are perceived as "just cars, no big deal".

True, but there hasn't been a steady, decades-long campaign to outlaw cars, or to demonize drivers. I've never seen a television commercial claiming that cars (as opposed to the people driving them) are responsible for killing children. I've never heard an argument that, by having more cars, we'll see an increase in murder and other crimes.

I hear it all the time about guns. Is it right? Is it fair? No. But that's where we are.

There's a clash between the way things should be and the way they currently are.

[ZeSpectre]

True, but there hasn't been a steady, decades-long campaign to outlaw cars, or to demonize drivers. I've never seen a television commercial claiming that cars (as opposed to the people driving them) are responsible for killing children. I've never heard an argument that, by having more cars, we'll see an increase in murder and other crimes.

I hear it all the time about guns. Is it right? Is it fair? No. But that's where we are.

There's a clash between the way things should be and the way they currently are.

Agreed. And by the same token, if nobody pushes there will never be change.

[crashm1]

I'm siding with Ze, Navy LT, Webley and the rest of the people who are pushing back on the meme Uncle Billy and the antis put forth. I will note again that here in blue MN and WI hardly anyone notices when I carry and when they do it's exceedingly rare for anyone to freak out like UB and the Brady bunch do. On the other hand what else can we expect from someone raised in a may issue state that has been restricting the 2nd amendment since 1912?
The statistics don't support fear of open carriers, the statistics don't support the fear that criminals will start open carrying at least here in Wisconsin where again it is the only legal way to carry. In the last year and a bit there have been no examples of prohibited persons open carrying, there have been no examples of an open carrier being a danger to those around him, except for a couple cops who have killed ex girlfriends and the people around her. Uncle Billy do you watch cops with the same level of paranoia you give the ordinary citizen? Why not as they seem to be the only open carriers who tend to get into major trouble?

[Old Grump]

Lets go bumper sticker for a minute. Open Carry doesn't mean a wannabe cowboy or fantasy hero but a citizen who chooses to exercise his right. There are those who go out of their way to help people and those who stand by and wait for others to help. Some will let you bleed on the sidewalk rather than render aid and some who will allow a bus driver to get beaten rather than render aid and some who think people should hide their guns because its scary.

Are all oc people or cc people good guys? I'm going to go out on this nice sturdy limb here and say that the vast majority of them are. What makes me think so? Crime rate is lower among them is why. Can't say that about police, firemen, soldiers, teachers, doctors. Most of them are good guys too, yet the crime rate while not high among them is higher than that of the average carrier who isn't a criminal.

How many oc people have been indicted for writing fraudulent prescriptions for their patients so they can acquire narcotics. How many oc people have been accused and convicted of burglarizing the houses they are charged with protecting or shaking down drug dealers and prostitutes? How many oc people have been accused of having inappropriate relations with their students? Are we going to tar all police, teachers, doctors, or military because of the actions of a few?

Doing so makes as much sense as saying a man with a 4" Glock on his belt must be compensating for his lack of a horse, a hat, a cow and 6" of genitalia. Paranoia doesn't make you stupid but it does make you say stupid things and that is why I don[t care what you think of my gun. Your fears are your business and not mine and I will not let your fears govern how I dress, walk or comport myself in public.

A gun is my choice not yours. Hero complex, no but my daddy did raise me to give people a helping hand when needed and sometimes its just good to have a friendly face with a gun in the crowd. I'll worry about my skill with it, you worry about the intentions of the shooter who is threatening or hurting people with his gun that he shouldn't have to begin with. I never heard anybody complain about the lack of the bad guys skill and whether or not they might inadvertently hurt you or your family. That question only seems to come up when you talk about your fellow good guys when they carry.

You people crack me up, its sad and I shouldn't laugh at your unreasonableness but face it, you are funny in a sad pathos kind of way.

[NavyLT]

Let's say you are in a courtroom... One man grabs the gun from the baliff who isn't paying attention and another man grabs one of the lawyers expensive fountain pens and you are in the audience in the courtroom. Which man is to be feared the most?

Now.... what if it was the criminal defendant who grabbed the pen and is holding it at his lawyers throat saying he will kill him if he isn't let go, and it was the judge who grabbed the baliff's gun? Now who is more dangerous?

Now.... what if instead of a member of the audience observing this, you are the lawyer with the expensive, and sharp pen being jabbed in your neck?

All I am trying to say is that the gun is an inaminate object. It is only as dangerous as the person carrying it. And there is nothing about whether my shirt is behind my gun or over my gun that changes how much danger I pose.

And if two guys are standing in line at Wal Mart, the fact that one is wearing a gun with a shirt tucked in behind it and the other guy isn't does not make the guy with the gun any more dangerous than the guy who isn't showing it, because you have no idea what the guy who isn't showing it has under his shirt or what his intentions are.

[Tom Servo]

I'm siding with Ze, Navy LT, Webley and the rest of the people who are pushing back on the meme Uncle Billy and the antis put forth.

Perhaps if folks were a little more temperate and respectful in their rhetoric, this wouldn't be such a contentious debate.

Just because someone doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of open carry doesn't mean they're sellouts to the Brady Campaign. Many old-timers (including semi-old-timers like myself) have a few reservations about it, and trust me, ad hominem attacks won't do much to prove the point.

If this is the language we're using on an internet forum, what is being communicated to the general populace in person?

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
I'm siding with Ze, Navy LT, Webley and the rest of the people who are pushing back on the meme Uncle Billy and the antis put forth.
Perhaps if folks were a little more temperate and respectful in their rhetoric, this wouldn't be such a contentious debate.

Just because someone doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of open carry doesn't mean they're sellouts to the Brady Campaign. Many old-timers (including semi-old-timers like myself) have a few reservations about it, and trust me, ad hominem attacks won't do much to prove the point.

When one refers to any who disagree with him as "untrained and inexperienced" and tells them that they "look like wannabe cowboys," then that person really shouldn't be surprised if they get a negative response.

[markj]

After thinking on this for awhile, I say go for it OCerws, maybe by doing this it will get others on the good side of gun debates. It is in the news and people are taking notice.

Now if it backfires and these folks band up and go after all gun owners, well it wont be pretty.

[NavyLT]

Quote:
I'm siding with Ze, Navy LT, Webley and the rest of the people who are pushing back on the meme Uncle Billy and the antis put forth.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Perhaps if folks were a little more temperate and respectful in their rhetoric, this wouldn't be such a contentious debate.

Just because someone doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of open carry doesn't mean they're sellouts to the Brady Campaign. Many old-timers (including semi-old-timers like myself) have a few reservations about it, and trust me, ad hominem attacks won't do much to prove the point.

If this is the language we're using on an internet forum, what is being communicated to the general populace in person?

Why do you have such a problem with the truth? When Uncle Billy says the same things that the anti-gun groups say, what is the harm in declaring that they are saying the same things? The anti-gun groups proclaim that the presence of a gun makes a person scary and worthy of increased vigilence. Uncle Billy says that the presence of a gun makes a person scary and worthy of increased vigilence. If the two are saying the same thing, then what is so wrong about declaring here that the two are saying the same thing? It's only the truth.

And, if I might add, why is it any more true when Uncle Billy says it than when the Brady Campaign says it?

[Tom Servo]

Why do you have such a problem with the truth?

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

That sort of mentality excludes 99% of the population, gang. 1% is a pretty lonely and vulnerable place.

I'm not adamantly opposed to open carry, but I'm not convinced that it works as activism. It may have positive effects in some cases, and negative consequences in others.

So, does that put me in bed with Josh Sugarmann?

And, if I might add, why is it any more true when Uncle Billy says it than when the Brady Campaign says it?

I don't know Uncle Billy, nor do I agree with him on a few things, but I'm willing to guess he's a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Would you rather have him asking those things than someone with ill intent doing so in a public political forum?

Some folks will play devil's advocate, and others will be unsure. Does that make them The Enemy? If so, what does that say about us?

[NavyLT]

I think all that a lot of us are saying is this:

1. In the situation of feeling uncomfortable, or yellow alert, because a person is visibly carrying a gun, and when that feeling would not be there if that exact same person were not visibly carrying a gun - that uneasiness is obviously centered around the presence of the gun itself and has nothing to do with the person carrying it. That is fear of an inanimate object. To a lot of us that fear is indicative of the propaganda that is pushed by the anti-s that says guns are bad.

2. In the situation of the person that comes on here and says open carriers are trying to compensate for something, or trying to be a hero, or have some sort of attitude problem that they express by open carrying. To me, they are just as much an "enemy" as the anti. Like the anti, they are labeling a person based on their chosen method of defending themselves. You will find very few open carry proponents who engage in such personal attacks. I really couldn't care less if you conceal carry or not and I am not going attack you for choosing to conceal carry.

Neither method of carrying is THE right answer all the time in every situation. There are times I choose to conceal carry. But I think a lack of ability to see advantages and disadvantages of both methods of carry shows someone who is extremely closed minded and unwilling to see past their own prejudices.