why conceal in an open carry state?

[lawnboy]

As a CC proponent, I choose to CC because I don't want the fact that I have a gun to be noticed. I have the gun. I know I have the gun. Until it is time to use the gun I'm the only one who needs to know.

In my opinion, and that's all it is, unless you are in a place where OC is normal and accepted, you are a poser and a wannabe if you OC. I'm being honest here. If I see you walking down the street in Seattle OCing thats the thought going thru my mind. If I see the same thing in Wenatchee or Omak I'm barely noticing.

Civilians who OC in places where OC is abnormal are attention hogs (again, my opinion). I judge them the exact same way I judge people with unnaturally colored hair, multiple piercings, excessive tattoos, neon colored cars and other "hey look at me" displays.

I support the right to OC. I also support discretion. Legal and right are not the same thing. The law decides legal. I decide right. And so do you.

[dburkhead]

"The thought going through my mind" says more about you than about anything else. That's true for anybody, anywhere.

One thing I do notice, however. The proponents of OC tend to be accepting of CC proponents reasons and decisions. They may disagree with them but, generally don't denigrate the individuals for making choices different from their own. The same cannot be said for many of the CC proponents.

Oh, and saying "my opinion" doesn't make an insult any less insulting.

[lawnboy]

I accept full responsibility for what I think. And say. You can rest assured that I've considered every possible way in which any comments I make can be interpreted and have worded those comments in a way intended to make my point. I'm very proud of what runs through my mind. As an adult I consider it my solemn duty to judge people. Accepting everyone for what they are is for kindergarten.

I've noticed the exact opposite tendency in the OC/CC argument. CC'ers support the right to OC even when we choose not to exercise it. OC'ers tend to challenge our commitment to the cause.

[dburkhead]

Right, right, right. Calling people "attention hogs" and the like is so accepting of people coming to different conclusions than you.

It's not your choice to CC that causes people to question, but your choice to denigrate those who OC that leads to the questioning.

[lawnboy]

Right, right, right. Calling people "attention hogs" and the like is so accepting of people coming to different conclusions than you.

It's not your choice to CC that causes people to question, but your choice to denigrate those who OC that leads to the questioning.

I did not at any point say that I'm accepting of people coming to different conclusions than me. I do not accept any such thing. If I come to a conclusion it is because I have thought it out and have decided that the conclusion is the correct one. I do not come to such conclusions until I'm satisfied that I've considered it properly. If you come to another conclusion I think you are wrong.

You are entitled to come to different conclusions. I can think you are wrong without trying to take away your right to do so. But I'm under no obligation to keep my mouth shut about it. Nor to sugar coat what I think.

In the end, if the subject of OC comes up in my state I'll vote to keep it legal. But this does not change my conclusions the next time I see someone OCing in an inappropriate setting.

[dburkhead]

There is a difference between making a reasoned adult judgement and making assumptions based on ones own prejudices. People have given a number of reasons why they or others OC. You dismiss all of that and simply assume that your claimed reason "they are attention hogs" is correct.

As I said the "thought going through [your] mind" says more about you than about the people you are thinking about.

And, I have also found that there is no strong correlation between the certainty that someone is that he or she is right and he or she actually being right, at least not on anything more complicated than 2+2=4.

If anything, the certainty of ones position is a problem since the first step in learning is acknowledgment that one might actually be mistaken.

[lawnboy]

There is a difference between making a reasoned adult judgement and making assumptions based on ones own prejudices. People have given a number of reasons why they or others OC. You dismiss all of that and simply assume that your claimed reason "they are attention hogs" is correct.

Who elses prejudices should I base my judgements on? My contention is that I am obligated to judge. My judgement is as stated. Your contention that I should base my judgements on the prejudices of you or someone else besides me is just silly.

As I said the "thought going through [your] mind" says more about you than about the people you are thinking about.

Yes it does. Thank you for noticing. Intellectual honesty wasn't easy to achieve. I hope I'm able to hang on to it.

And, I have also found that there is no strong correlation between the certainty that someone is that he or she is right and he or she actually being right, at least not on anything more complicated than 2+2=4.

If anything, the certainty of ones position is a problem since the first step in learning is acknowledgment that one might actually be mistaken.

I have found the same thing. Unfortunately, in our diseased society the solution to this problem is for no one to THINK anything. There is plenty of "belief" but little thought. Denial of even the possibility that a mere human can actually determine right and wrong for themselves seems to me to be just another symptom of this. If people like Jefferson and Hamilton had suffered this delusion there would be no 2nd Amendment to begin with.

I see the following bumpersticker about once a week: "Don't believe everything you think". What am I supposed to believe? What someone else thinks? Yeah, that's gonna happen.

[dburkhead]

Who elses prejudices should I base my judgements on? My contention is that I am obligated to judge. My judgement is as stated. Your contention that I should base my judgements on the prejudices of you or someone else besides me is just silly.

You know, there are things other than prejudices on which to base judgements. You might consider listening to other folks arguments and reasons and actually considering them rather than just blanket tossing them out in order to cling to your prejudice.

A number of reasons for people open carrying have been presented. You just blithely dismiss all of them and claim, with no evidence but your assertion that the "real" reason is that they are attention hogs.

[lawnboy]

Not at all. I've considered the stated reasons. I just find them unconvincing. I'm doing the same thing you are. I just realize it. And am fine with it.

[Dashunde]

Originally Posted by deburkhead

If "someone might target you for it" is sufficient reason to not OC then what else are you willing to give up to avoid being a target? Dress like a bum so no one thinks you have money? Live in a dump? Drive a POS car all the time that nobody wants to jack? Where else does this approach extend?

At a glance that all makes sense, except that firearms, particularly stolen pistols, are highly sought by the scum, mostly because they a cant buy one at the store unlike everything else you mentioned.
Firearms are the one thing that no matter how much money you have if you have a felony you cant buy it legally, therefore pistols are top prize items on the street, bring good money, and are likely worth the risk to take from you.
Yes, a OC'er could easily be targeted because of his gun. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by lawnboy

There is plenty of "belief" but little thought

Amen.

[dburkhead]

Not at all. I've considered the stated reasons. I just find them unconvincing. I'm doing the same thing you are. I just realize it. And am fine with it.

Whether you find them convincing or not has nothing to do with whether someone else finds them convincing or not. If someone considers OC a better deterrent than CC then that can well be the reason they carry, whether or not you also believe it. That would be the reason that they carry and not because they are "an attention hound." Likewise, if someone believes that OC is beneficial in terms of desensitizing people to the idea of people carrying, then that too is their reason regardless of whether you happen to agree with the belief.

You are assuming a reason for OC not only in absence of evidence of that being the reason but in flat contradiction to the reasons people are telling you.

Just because you disagree with their reasons doesn't mean they're not their reasons. It's the mind-reading, psychoanalyzing, and insisting that the reasons are not the ones they state to which people object, not your choice to CC instead of OC.

[Dashunde]

Originally Posted by dburkhead

Likewise, if someone believes that OC is beneficial in terms of desensitizing people to the idea of people carrying, then that too is their reason regardless of whether you happen to agree with the belief.

Naa. That may be their "reason", but its a lousy one thats far more likely to generate a negative response than positive.
Sitting in Olive Garden with a CZ97 strapped on in plain sight? Oh that'll desensitize them alright, just enough to vote against the "crazy gun people" the next time CC is challenged.

[dburkhead]

At a glance that all makes sense, except that firearms, particularly stolen pistols, are highly sought by the scum, mostly because they a cant buy one at the store unlike everything else you mentioned.
Firearms are the one thing that no matter how much money you have if you have a felony you cant buy it legally, therefore pistols are top prize items on the street, bring good money, and are likely worth the risk to take from you.
Yes, a OC'er could easily be targeted because of his gun. Simple as that.

That sounds good but, if that were the case proponents of the "you'll be targeted" theory should be able to come up with long lists of examples of people being targeted specifically for their firearms. So far we've got two.

It may be difficult for a felon to obtain firearms from a legal source (a little bit different from the "cant buy it legally" which is impossible by definition) but that's why there's a booming trade in illegal guns.

Back in the 80's NBC (I think it was) did a "special report" tracing one gun from crime to crime over a number of years and several states. They were using it in an attempt to show how bad guns were and we needed to get them off the street. What the report showed to me was how few guns are really needed to "serve" criminal uses of them as one gun gets sold/passed from criminal to criminal to criminal and used again and again and again.

As for the "good money", how much? Source please. I have: More than half of arrestees say guns easy to obtain illegally: (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf) Specific prices for Glocks: $300-500 (http://richmondconfidential.org/2010...n-has-a-story/) not too far from their legal price (last time I checked, which has been a while, so stipulated), much less than a nice rolex will bring on ebay and less than one can net from jacking a car to be stripped.

And so the "you'll be targeted for your gun" argument really seems to be one of those theoretical things that just doesn't seem to be happening.

Yes, if somebody does pull of a successful robbery, they'll take your gun too. But they'll almost certainly do that whether you OC or CC. It's the targeting specifically because they see you carrying that I question.

[dburkhead]

[quote]Naa. That may be their "reason", but its a lousy one thats far more likely to generate a negative response than positive.
Sitting in Olive Garden with a CZ97 strapped on in plain sight? Oh that'll desensitize them alright, just enough to vote against the "crazy gun people" the next time CC is challenged. [quote]

In much the same way that the Stonewall riots led to a backlash against gays and a legal crackdown restricting even the rights they had then? In much the way that "gay pride" parades and other visible activism has been far less successful than the decades of "go along to get along" approach that "gay leaders" advocated before Stonewall?

Caution is one thing. Taking counsel of ones fears is something entirely different.

What you're doing is assuming your conclusion.

[lawnboy]

Whether you find them convincing or not has nothing to do with whether someone else finds them convincing or not. If someone considers OC a better deterrent than CC then that can well be the reason they carry, whether or not you also believe it. That would be the reason that they carry and not because they are "an attention hound." Likewise, if someone believes that OC is beneficial in terms of desensitizing people to the idea of people carrying, then that too is their reason regardless of whether you happen to agree with the belief.

You are assuming a reason for OC not only in absence of evidence of that being the reason but in flat contradiction to the reasons people are telling you.

Just because you disagree with their reasons doesn't mean they're not their reasons. It's the mind-reading, psychoanalyzing, and insisting that the reasons are not the ones they state to which people object, not your choice to CC instead of OC.

Still unconvincing.

[dburkhead]

Still unconvincing.

So? That you are unconvinced by their reasons still does not give you license to substitute your reasons for theirs.

It's no more valid than were I to say that the reason you CC is that you're secretly ashamed of your gun.

[lawnboy]

I wrote:

Quote:
Still unconvincing.

dburkhead wrote:

So? That you are unconvinced by their reasons still does not give you license to substitute your reasons for theirs.

Do I require license to have thoughts and draw conclusions? I do not. That's my point. I get to decide what I think.

dburkhead wrote:

It's no more valid than were I to say that the reason you CC is that you're secretly ashamed of your gun

You are perfectly justified to say just that if that is what you think. That is also my point. And I'm justified in disputing it. We don't have to agree. We don't even have to agree to disagree. We can just disagree. You are perfectly within your purview to think that all of us who CC in OC states are soft on gun issues. You're just wrong.

[Dashunde]

Originally Posted by dburkhead

..if that were the case proponents of the "you'll be targeted" theory should be able to come up with long lists of examples of people being targeted specifically for their firearms. So far we've got two.

Because there is very little open carry going on, increase the rate and spread of OC and watch what happens.
Go do it in North St Louis, East St Louis or South Chicago... none of you OC'er wannabe's really have the guts to go into those areas with a gun exposed and no badge, go try to "desensitize" them or try to "deter" them with your exposed peice.

Originally Posted by dburkhead

Source please. I have: More than half of arrestees say guns easy to obtain illegally: (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf) Specific prices for Glocks: $300-500

I dont see your point. We seem to be in agreement that a stolen gun on the street is worth the same as a legally purchased gun.
Agree or not, its pretty clear that a hot gun in the hood will sell for about the same as a legal one - therein lies the motive to steal the OC'ers weapon if presented the opportunity.
As I've said before, it only takes a $3 claw hammer, a small amount of wits.

[dburkhead]

Do I require license to have thoughts and draw conclusions? I do not. That's my point. I get to decide what I think.

Well, if you want to claim the "right" to make unsupported and unsupportable conclusions in direct contravention of available evidence and present them as "facts" I won't argue.

[dburkhead]

Because there is very little open carry going on, increase the rate and spread of OC and watch what happens.

Ah, the old assuming your conclusion gambit.

Two cases presented so far. OC isn't that rare.

Go do it in North St Louis, East St Louis or South Chicago... none of you OC'er wannabe's really have the guts to go into those areas with a gun exposed and no badge, go try to "desensitize" them or try to "deter" them with your exposed peice.

Right after you walk down the streets of Riyadh with a "I'll see your Jihad and raise you one crusade" T-shirt and rely on "surprise" from your concealed handgun to give you an "advantage."

Don't know about East St. Louis, but carrying at all is illegal in Chicago so I'd be more worried about the cops than about the criminal element.

And even ignoring all that just because a tactic doesn't work one place that means it doesn't work any place? That's a pretty broad brush you're using there.

I dont see your point. We seem to be in agreement that a stolen gun on the street is worth the same as a legally purchased gun.
Agree or not, its pretty clear that a hot gun in the hood will sell for about the same as a legal one - therein lies the motive to steal the OC'ers weapon if presented the opportunity.
As I've said before, it only takes a $3 claw hammer, a small amount of wits.

And that applies to anything that indicates you might have something of value. So never wear those nice clothes. Never drive that nice car. Never wear a nice wristwatch. Live a life of poverty because someone might try to rob you for anything more.

The credit cards I carry generally have more value to them than my gun. And someone can reasonably expect that kind of return for that $3 claw hammer and a small amount of wits _without_ the risk of making a mistake and ending up getting a 230 grain JHP Darwin Delivery (or a 95% chance of not having that risk since only about 5% of Indiana's population has a LTCH).

Even with that supposed motive it remains only two cases presented so far. And that's not a case of two this year but two period.

[lawnboy]

Well, if you want to claim the "right" to make unsupported and unsupportable conclusions in direct contravention of available evidence and present them as "facts" I won't argue

I presented nothing as fact except my own thoughts. I said:

In my opinion, and that's all it is, unless you are in a place where OC is normal and accepted, you are a poser and a wannabe if you OC. I'm being honest here. If I see you walking down the street in Seattle OCing thats the thought going thru my mind. If I see the same thing in Wenatchee or Omak I'm barely noticing.

The available evidence is a guy walking down the street with a clearly visible firearm in a place where such a thing is just not done. I draw a conclusion. My conclusion is based on the information I have. If I see the same thing in a place where it is more common I draw a different conclusion. In fact, I've OC'd myself in those circumstances. Conclusions drawn from available evidence and supported by the situation. In my mind, which is what really matters. To me.

As to whether you will argue or not; you've been arguing exactly what you say you are not arguing. You have been doing it for a few hours now. In repeated posts.

Right after you walk down the streets of Riyadh with a "I'll see your Jihad and raise you one crusade" T-shirt and rely on "surprise" from your concealed handgun to give you an "advantage.

I'll have to defer to others on this but I don't know if OC is legal in Riyadh. Once again though you're making the opposite point you're trying to make. Islamists don't seem deterred even by Abrams tanks. They attack anyway. Where is the deterrence?

[dburkhead]

In my opinion, and that's all it is, unless you are in a place where OC is normal and accepted, you are a poser and a wannabe if you OC. I'm being honest here. If I see you walking down the street in Seattle OCing thats the thought going thru my mind. If I see the same thing in Wenatchee or Omak I'm barely noticing.

Saying "you are a poser and a wannabe" is claiming a matter of fact. It's no different from saying on the flip side "if you are walking down the street of X and are concealing your gun you are ashamed of your gun and halfway to being an anti".

Both are cases of assuming the other person's motives in the absence of evidence.

The available evidence is a guy walking down the street with a clearly visible firearm in a place where such a thing is just not done.

That is only evidence that a person is carrying openly. It is not evidence of motive. You assume the motive.

As to whether you will argue or not; you've been arguing exactly what you say you are not arguing. You have been doing it for a few hours now. In repeated posts.

Not quite. I thought you had some interest in having a valid position and not just making derogatory statements about people who disagree with you.

If you have any interest in discussing the actual issue and dealing with people's real motives (rather than what you just assume, despite being told otherwise, are their motives) we can do that. If instead, you're "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with anything that doesn't fit my comfortable world view" then, yeah, it's time to end this.

[lawnboy]

Is it the "you" you're having a problem with? In my original post? This was before I had engaged YOU specifically. I would not advise you to logically insert "dburkhead" in my scenario. It is a fictional "you" in a theoretical setting. If I see a random, unknown person walking down the street with a visible firearm in Seattle I draw a conclusion about him in the same way I draw a conclusion about a guy with a pink mohawk. If you choose to put yourself in my scenario, given the fact that I don't know you by sight, unfortunately I'll think this about you too. Sorry.

I cannot see any way around this. I draw the conclusion I draw. You must see by now that I have clearly given this some thought and I'm not pulling it from my behind. I present it as fact that it is my opinion. Attempting to convince me that this is not my opinion is a losing game.

I wrote:

Quote:
The available evidence is a guy walking down the street with a clearly visible firearm in a place where such a thing is just not done.

You responded:

That is only evidence that a person is carrying openly. It is not evidence of motive. You assume the motive.

Exactly. An unknown person with a gun is something to take note of. If this person is openly carrying the gun in a place where such things aren't normally done he attracts my attention. Am I to ignore this? I think not. I assign him to a category. What category is my decision.

Not quite. I thought you had some interest in having a valid position and not just making derogatory statements about people who disagree with you.

If you have any interest in discussing the actual issue and dealing with people's real motives (rather than what you just assume, despite being told otherwise, are their motives) we can do that. If instead, you're "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with anything that doesn't fit my comfortable world view" then, yeah, it's time to end this.

Further up in this thread, or possibly in another thread I gave my reasons for disliking OC in places where OC is not common. Basically these echo the thoughts of those that say "you're scaring people", or "you're giving ammo to the rabid anti's" and the "you're giving up tactial advantage" arguments. There are others too but that covers several bases. I've discussed motives with others before. I'm sorry, but I remain convinced that OC in a non standard OC area is a bad idea. I'm not going to try to stop anyone, except by argument in places like this. Which is the proper forum. I think they are doing more harm than good.

I ask you to think of it this way: is there any way anyone could convince you that owning a firearm is wrong? Does this make you closed minded or unwilling to listen to reason? It does not. It just means your mind is made up. As mine is on where OC is kosher and where it is not.

[Dashunde]

Ugh... again, this one is still trudging along powered by literary semantics and endless philosophical wordsmithing.
State your own opinions on the subject, stop toiling around with other peoples words without any additional point to make.
Tired. :barf:

Yes, I think OC should be legal.
It should be done in a polite manner, in the right environment, with the right motives.
And dont fling any more crap about who am I to say whats polite, where is the right environment and who picks the motives - We're all American's with the same basic standards of decency and common sense - find a better argument, to pick that nit puts you on the fringe.

OC is not a public enlightenment tool, the gun is the tool, its your tool to defend yourself with, if you think showing it off will sway people into thinking its all A-OK then your probably the tool.

I think OC is silly in a suburban/urban environment, is tactically dumbfounding and fails all critical self-defense scrutiny as far as I'm concerned.
I can imagine many reasons to OC including hiking, riding, working, sweating, or patrolling just to name a few... but none of them involve going out to dinner or to a kids recital.

[WhiskeyTango]

Naa. That may be their "reason", but its a lousy one thats far more likely to generate a negative response than positive.
Sitting in Olive Garden with a CZ97 strapped on in plain sight? Oh that'll desensitize them alright, just enough to vote against the "crazy gun people" the next time CC is challenged.

Actually, you can't OC at an Olive Garden because they serve alcohol at the bar, you can't CC there for the same reason. Most of us that OC pay very close attention to the laws in our State. (this next comment is not a jeer to CCer's!) I can't say I see the same trend with CCer's. I all to often have to educate a CC permit holder on where he?she can legally carry a gun, most seem to think that because they have the CCW, they can carry anywhere they please.