The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 25, 2018, 08:50 PM   #51
Reloadron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs
Posts: 1,423
The linked article Friends Don’t Let Friends Open Carry was a good read and thank you for sharing it.

My thinking runs pretty much with that of the author. I live in the lovely Cleveland, Ohio suburbs and Ohio in general has pretty good laws concerning both concealed and open carry with open carry permitted less any permit for anyone who can legally purchase a gun. We have recently had demonstrations at Kent State University, you know the Four Dead in Ohio place where anti-gun sentiment runs strong.

Like many I open carry in the field when hunting carrying a S&W Model 29 to accompany my little Ruger 44 Carbine. I see no reason to strap on a handgun or rifle to walk up the block calling attention to myself. This will only lead to a collection of scared but well intention citizens calling 911 about a man with a gun. The police will be obligated to respond and I will explain I am carrying a gun simply because I can. While I am burning up city resources some poor guy across town might actually need the police whose time I am wasting. The police are fine with it and "get-it" but still have better things to do with their time and frankly so do I. Just my opinion based on my little corner of the world.

Ron
Reloadron is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 07:01 AM   #52
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Okinawa JP
Posts: 1,028
The handful of people I have seen open carrying in the past few years (my last 5 years were split between Colorado and Virginia, no one really carries much unless it is for work where I am now) have been carrying cheap handguns in cheap holsters. As soon as I see something sitting cocked off to the side in an Uncle Mikes velcro special I can get a sense for the level of training they have committed themselves to. I don't judge people by the quality of their firearms, but I do by the quality of their holsters.


I can recall two occasions where I have open carried, and both involved natural disasters and me on my own property.

Since Grossman has been mentioned: He has some good points, but I lost a lot of respect for him when I saw him speak in 2006, shortly after my third tour to Iraq when he said that the reason we were ineffective was due to people coming off of a mission and not sleeping due to playing video games. My question of "what about coming off of a three day operation only to being kept awake by a few out of control 1stSgts insisting that I police call someone else's cigarette butts at 0500 even though I am on a reverse schedule because I work at night outside the wire" was not well received.
Rob228 is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 11:25 AM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
While I am burning up city resources...
The way I see it, you aren't the one burning up city resources.

two stories about resource "wasting"...

A while back, we had a horse "founder" (a condition where the horse basically eats too much of the wrong stuff and gets sick, it can be fatal!) We followed the vet's instructions, which were to pen the horse, and only feed it a small amount until it recovered. Some concerned citizen, who could see the pen as they drove by, called the Sheriff, saying we were mistreating the horse. (Because they couldn't see any hay bales in the pen, they were sure we were starving the horse.) We met the deputy when he came to check it out, and explained things. Yes, there was no feed in the pen, it was Doctors orders..etc.

The next week, SAME thing, different deputy. And again the week after. Different deputy each time. After the 3rd time, the word was put out in the dept, that the horse was being cared for, properly, and that further complaints on this matter were not to be responded to. Also that the person making the complaint was being looked at for filing false reports...

WE weren't wasting the Sheriff's time, but somebody was...

other story, resource waste, avoided!...
(I heard this on the scanner..)

Police dispatcher: All units! respond to man with a gun, on the roof of "ABC" motel!"

Other voice on radio: "All units, STAND DOWN, it's a drill!"
Dispatch: All units, respond! there is no drill scheduled!
Voice: All units, stand down, it's a DRILL!!"
Dispatch: All units, respond, there is no drill scheduled!"

Voice: All units, this is Sgt XXXXX, do not respond, it is a drill. The guy is installing a satellite antenna, he does NOT have a gun, he has a DRILL!!!!

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 12:37 PM   #54
lordvader
Member
 
Join Date: September 30, 2015
Posts: 50
I don't open carry for the simple reason that I don't want anyone to know that I am carrying. There are bad people that also walk amongst the good folks. If a criminal wants to commit a crime and they know you are an armed citizen, you will be the first they are going to deal with/take out.
lordvader is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 03:51 PM   #55
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
If a criminal wants to commit a crime and they know you are an armed citizen, you will be the first they are going to deal with/take out.
I hear this all the time and its not invalid, but I wonder why no one ever seems to mention the other side of the coin. IF concealed carry means that criminals aren't certain, and therefore sometimes don't commit crimes due to that, (the evidence seems to support that idea), then there are also criminals who won't commit a crime (or commit it near you) when they ARE certain you are armed.

Also hear constantly about how they bad guys are going to bushwack you and get your gun, never seem to hear the odds on their being shot, trying to get someone's gun.

I do agree, concealed carry is a better choice, when you are in our urban jungles, BUT we need open carry allowed as well, because everyone doesn't live where there are hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 04:50 PM   #56
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
I hear this all the time and its not invalid, but I wonder why no one ever seems to mention the other side of the coin. IF concealed carry means that criminals aren't certain, and therefore sometimes don't commit crimes due to that, (the evidence seems to support that idea), then there are also criminals who won't commit a crime (or commit it near you) when they ARE certain you are armed.

Also hear constantly about how they bad guys are going to bushwack you and get your gun, never seem to hear the odds on their being shot, trying to get someone's gun.

I do agree, concealed carry is a better choice, when you are in our urban jungles, BUT we need open carry allowed as well, because everyone doesn't live where there are hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.
I don't just carry concealed because of "hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.". That seems like a bit of a strawman. I do believe open carry should remain a right.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 05:58 PM   #57
Reloadron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs
Posts: 1,423
TunnelRat:
Quote:
I don't just carry concealed because of "hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.". That seems like a bit of a strawman. I do believe open carry should remain a right.
I agree and here in my State of Ohio I have that right to openly carry a gun. However, I choose not to exercise my right of open carry simply for the reasons I mentioned. While 44 Amp makes a very good point in his post #53 and he is right on target it doesn't change the fact that if I decide to exercise my right of open carry and stroll through downtown of any major or even small Ohio city I will constantly be approached by law enforcement responding to people calling about a man with a gun. Each time I respond with a "because I can" and they leave me alone. That does not make my problem of constantly being stopped go away. Yes, people should know I have a right to walk through downtown Cleveland, Ohio with an AR on my back or a handgun on my hip but unfortunately they don't know any better and their lack of understanding of the law and my rights somehow becomes my problem when it shouldn't be.

44Amp was well within his rights on his property to have his horse in a paddock less any oats but that right did not stop multiple visits from the sheriff department wasting his time explaining why the horse was in a paddock less any oats. This as a result of passers by calling the sheriff with concerns of animal abuse. Unfortunately 44Amp didn't have much choice as he followed veterinarian orders in the best interest of the horse.

So while here in my state I have a right to open carry it is not always in my best interest to do so and unfortunately those calling 911 are not held responsible for screwing up my day.

Ron
Reloadron is offline  
Old October 26, 2018, 09:10 PM   #58
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reloadron
This will only lead to a collection of scared but well intention citizens calling 911 about a man with a gun. The police will be obligated to respond ...
I have some question about the legal basis for "The police will be obligated to respond." I know that the S.O.P for probably every department in the country is that they WILL respond to a call about a man with a gun, but are they actually "obligated" to do so? I respectfully submit that they are not obligated to do so, and that we need to do a better job of educating the police, the media, and the populace to eradicate what I believe to be a false belief.

To look at it logically, why would the police be obligated to respond to a call about a man wearing a gun ... in a jurisdiction that allows citizens to legally carry a firearm? Since when, in the absence of some indication or report of UNlawful activity, is a police officer "obligated" to investigate apparently lawful activity? What is the officer investigating? Lawful behavior.

The corollary is driving a car. If you argue that, "In my state a permit is required to carry, so without investigating there's no way to know whether or not the person has a permit." Okay, but in every state in this country a license is required to operate a motor vehicle on public streets and roads. If you follow the "How do you know he has a permit ..." logic, the obvious conclusion is that the police should be stopping every car they see to verify that the driver has a license. But if they did that, the outcry would be deafening, and the ACLU would have a field day.

Why is wearing a gun -- concealed or openly -- any different? If carry is legal, then an officer should not be entitled/authorized to stop the bearer and ask to see his/her permit (in states that require them) unless there is some genuine indication of unlawful activity by the bearer. Just as the police don't stop drivers and ask for their license unless they commit some sort of infraction, like speeding, running a red light, driving with defective equipment, etc.

So, IMHO, the proper response to a man with a gun call should begin with the dispatcher. The call comes in from a breathless citizen excitedly reporting a "man with a gun." The first question should be:

D: What is the person doing with the gun?

C: He's ... he's .. he has this BIG GUN in a BLACK holster on his belt!!!!!

D: Okay, but is he doing anything illegal with the gun, like waving it around or pointing at people?

C: Well, no, not yet. But, but ... it's a GUN! Please send the SWAT team as quick as you can!

D: M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in this state. Unless he's doing something illegal, we have no reason to waste our officers' time investigating. Have a nice day.

That's in an ideal world ... which we almost certainly will not see within my lifetime. Despite the legal requirements established in Terry v. Ohio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 07:55 AM   #59
jmorris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,073
Quote:
My friend Spencer Keepers summed up the issue of open carry in the best way that I’ve heard: “I support the right, not the practice.” I agree with him 100%.
I said the same thing before it became legal in my State. Since it has become legal, I have only seen a hand full of folks do so.
jmorris is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 10:40 AM   #60
Reloadron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs
Posts: 1,423
Originally Posted by: Aguila_Blanca
Quote:
I have some question about the legal basis for "The police will be obligated to respond." I know that the S.O.P for probably every department in the country is that they WILL respond to a call about a man with a gun, but are they actually "obligated" to do so? I respectfully submit that they are not obligated to do so, and that we need to do a better job of educating the police, the media, and the populace to eradicate what I believe to be a false belief.
As to the law it beats the heck out of me. I have no clue as to if they have a legal binding responsibility to respond. What I can tell you is that they will respond to a complaint of a man with a gun and I can pretty much tell you the dispatcher will ask a few questions but not in any great detail.

It also works this way. Let's say a dispatcher applies your line of questioning and let's say it goes exactly as you covered.

Quote:
D: What is the person doing with the gun?

C: He's ... he's .. he has this BIG GUN in a BLACK holster on his belt!!!!!

D: Okay, but is he doing anything illegal with the gun, like waving it around or pointing at people?

C: Well, no, not yet. But, but ... it's a GUN! Please send the SWAT team as quick as you can!

D: M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in this state. Unless he's doing something illegal, we have no reason to waste our officers' time investigating. Have a nice day.
Now we all know that all 911 calls are recorded. Let's say the man with a gun is out to settle a score with another neighbor. Following the phone call by the good Samaritan the man with a gun draws that gun and blows away a neighbor.

I think we all know how that will play out in the courts and before it ever gets to court the media will hold court and the involved police department will be condemned. The family of the deceased will get a large cash settlement and as quick as it began it's over. Sadly that is how it will play out and we have seen it before.

Locally here is a classic: The shooting of Tamir Rice.

Keep in mind all of the images of the kid were kindergarten pictures. When he was shot and killed he was over 200 Lbs and very adult looking. The gun was very real looking and the orange tip had been painted black. The dispatcher failed to pass along that the 911 caller thought it was just possibly a kid. Talk about a mess?

Anyway, as I mentioned, I have a right which I simply choose not to exercise and I mentioned why I choose not to exercise that right. Additionally in my decision making I choose to keep my gun concealed simply because I see that as a more prudent solution to carry where I am and for my conditions.

Ron
Reloadron is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 02:38 PM   #61
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,324
Quote:
I have no clue as to if they have a legal binding responsibility to respond.
No lawyer here, either, but my understanding is that this is a kind of yes, and no thing.

According to the results of various court cases (and here, you'll have to do your own research, sorry) my understanding that the Police Dept (the government) has a legal responsibility to protect the public, in general, but not you, the individual, specifically. In a nutshell, if you call the cops and nobody responds, you might have a case against the police dept., you might not.

If some cops show up, do nothing then leave, you don't have a case against the polict dept. You might have a case against the individual officers. Of course every case is different, details matter, and I'm not a lawyer.

If I'm mistaken, please do correct me.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 03:05 PM   #62
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reloadron
It also works this way. Let's say a dispatcher applies your line of questioning and let's say it goes exactly as you covered.

Quote:
D: What is the person doing with the gun?

C: He's ... he's .. he has this BIG GUN in a BLACK holster on his belt!!!!!

D: Okay, but is he doing anything illegal with the gun, like waving it around or pointing at people?

C: Well, no, not yet. But, but ... it's a GUN! Please send the SWAT team as quick as you can!

D: M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in this state. Unless he's doing something illegal, we have no reason to waste our officers' time investigating. Have a nice day.
Now we all know that all 911 calls are recorded. Let's say the man with a gun is out to settle a score with another neighbor. Following the phone call by the good Samaritan the man with a gun draws that gun and blows away a neighbor.
To follow your example, suppose when the call is made the guy with the gun isn't doing anything, he just has a gun in a holster on his belt. So Officer Friendly responds, chats the guy up, the guy has a permit and doesn't make any bones about showing the officer the permit. The guy is perfectly legal and hasn't done anything wrong, so Officer Friendly terminates the "interview" and departs the scene.

Fifteen minutes later the guy uses the same gun to blow away his neighbor.

Exactly what was accomplished by dispatching an officer to investigate an incident of [at the moment] legal activity?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 03:28 PM   #63
Reloadron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs
Posts: 1,423
Aguila_Blanca:
Quote:
Exactly what was accomplished by dispatching an officer to investigate an incident of [at the moment] legal activity?
Exactly nothing was accomplished but the police department won't come under the same scrutiny as if they did nothing.

This is really pretty simple in that here in Ohio I have a right to open carry and there is no permit required. Any citizen who can legally purchase a gun can openly carry a gun. It's a right I choose not to exercise. I choose not to exercise that right to open carry based on the reasons I mentioned. I am not looking to argue the point and it's nice to know that in my state of residence the right exist. I also have a right to bay at the moon but choose not to exercise that right. Simply because the US Constitution or a State Law guarantees me a right does not mean I have some need to exercise that right. Maybe your location of CONUS allows open carry and maybe not. if it does then if you choose have at it. The Continental US is a pretty large area but if it's a right in your one of 48 then by all means have at it.

Ron
Reloadron is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 07:52 PM   #64
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reloadron
Exactly nothing was accomplished but the police department won't come under the same scrutiny as if they did nothing.
Precisely. And that's what's wrong with the current status quo. Police departments won't send officers to investigate other reports of "persons engaging in apparently lawful activity," but they always send officers to investigate man with a gun reports -- usually without even asking if the man with a gun is doing anything threatening with the aforementioned gun. I recognize that this is status quo probably everywhere in the country. That doesn't make it right. We can't change it overnight -- we may never be able to change it -- but I respectfully submit that we should NOT -- ever -- discuss it as though it's the way things ought to be. Because it is NOT the way things ought to be.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 27, 2018, 08:21 PM   #65
Reloadron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio Suburbs
Posts: 1,423
I can certainly agree with that. I also figure that you are correct in that at 68 years old I don't expect to see change before I am gone. No, not the way it ought to be but the way it is.

Ron
Reloadron is offline  
Old October 28, 2018, 10:52 AM   #66
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,447
I'm rather surprised at the number of people who are saying that the bystander who sees an armed man at the mall should just put on his big girl panties and shut up, that nobody in the world has any reason to be bothered, frightened, worried, etc, if they see a person with a weapon, regardless of the circumstances, whether it's a crazy looking guy in rags, or a guy who is obviously on his way to deer camp.

Let's reframe that just a bit. In san francisco, it is legal to be naked in public. In any part of the city, a bus, a park, even outside of an elementary school, in any public space, people can choose to bare their skin. We're not talking about just mowing your lawn, on your own property, naked, a person can legally go anywhere, on any public land, strip down, and throw everything they have out for the public.

I can't take that. If I visited the bridge and ran into a roaming band of seventy year old men with rainbow ribbons wrapped around their wrinklies, it would cause me palpitations, maybe even cause such a blood pressure spike that I'd hit the ground. If I saw a naked woman wearing nothing but a pair of pasties with her phone number on them it would be really hard for this old prude to avoid serious discomfiture. In this one, and only one major city, people have the right to do that, and I have no right to visit a park without seeing naked ninety year old women doing cheer exercises.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11613510/t...isco-uncovered

I apparently have no right to be free of the mechanical quake boxes that drive past my house at least four times a day, nor do I have the right to not listen to the foul screaming coming from the car in the next lane.

there are plenty of people with PTSD or phobias, or for that matter, just a strong fear or dislike of firearms who should have a right to go to a park without seeing an armed vigilante in combat gear providing his own private security service.

No. The second amendment does not say anything about having the right to intimidate other members of the public. That 'right' does not exist. many people want to open carry for only that reason.

I have one important point to make. Brandishing a weapon occurs when a person brings undue attention to it, such as by handling it in a suggestive way. even giving someone a hard stare and touching it is technically brandishment.

While states pass laws allowing open carry, private organizations are going to increase efforts to ban them on their premises, cities will ban them in certain sections. Laws will spring up around the country banning the 'flaunting' of a weapon. A step down from brandishing it, but there will be another level added to the brandishment ordinances that involves less overt ways of showing the public that one is a badass with a gun, and implying danger without threatening danger.

For every right we have, or believe that we have as gun owners, we have a thousand times as many responsibilities.

For every right that we have or assume that we have, every member of the public has many rights that run contrary to ours, and our rights are not always more important than the other guy's rights. It's hard for people to accept that, but it's a fact. No matter what I believe, it's legal to walk naked down the street, or walk down the street carrying a battle rifle. I would, however, be a real jerk to do so under many circumstances.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old October 28, 2018, 11:10 AM   #67
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by briandg
I have one important point to make. Brandishing a weapon occurs when a person brings undue attention to it, such as by handling it in a suggestive way. even giving someone a hard stare and touching it is technically brandishment.
Technically, "brandishing" is what the laws in the jurisdiction say brandishing is ... nothing less, nothing more. And that's not the same everywhere in the U.S. To me, personally, "brandishing" means (or should mean) holding the thing (gun, knife, club, whatever) in your hand and waving it around in a threatening manner. Some jurisdictions define "brandishing" such that simply placing a hand on the grip of a holstered firearm is "brandishing." As far as I have been able to determine, my state doesn't have any statutory definition of "brandishing."

When speaking of the law, it's dangerous to generalize.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 28, 2018, 09:06 PM   #68
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,823
The idea that all manner of criminals are going to magically be aware of every OC citizen is just silly. Maybe they see you and maybe they don't.. and if they don't and only become aware of the OCer after overt action has commenced, they are left with very few options. Flee, Fight or Surrender is about the most plausible options. Most events have a before, during and after.. its not always going to be "before" overt action that the badguy first becomes aware of the OC citizen. Crime is not always so easily aborted, especially if the crime is driven by addiction, mental illness, gang influences or other perceived dire needs.

If proponents of OC want to think that criminals will flee at the sight of their holstered weapon, they are welcome to feel that way. I am no expert in anything but I have had near 30 years of experience dealing with violent predatory criminals and I am not inclined to believe that the armed criminal who sets out purposefully to commit violent crime is likely going to respond to a perceived threat by passive means. nah.. I don't buy it and wouldn't bet on it.

Any benefit that OC can offer is likely contingent upon exactly when the criminal becomes aware of the OCer ( if at all). I see the odds as being against it being a benefit but will concede that it can in some very narrow circumstance, be a deterrent.

There are many good reasons why many professionals and others with substantial experience refrain from OCing in public. Each of us have to simply choose a mode of carry based on what we consider important. Speaking just for myself, I consider OC to work against my methodology and general beliefs about keeping myself safe in public spaces.

Take it for what its worth but you don't see people writing articles about the perils of concealed carry.

I have lived in a Open Carry State all my life and have seen no more than half a dozen OCers in all that time.

No matter what mode of carry you happen to choose, good luck to you and safe travels
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; October 28, 2018 at 09:18 PM.
FireForged is offline  
Old October 28, 2018, 09:34 PM   #69
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,220
I prefer the element of surprise and tactical advantage if I ever need to draw my weapon. I also have seen countless people walking around my state ( Maine), open carrying, that could EASILY have been subdued and disarmed, had a desperate and dangerous man possessed the inclination to due so. Out of sight, out of mind. Walk softly and carry that big stick... concealed. Egos and guns don't mix well.
shurshot is offline  
Old October 29, 2018, 11:05 AM   #70
adamBomb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2015
Location: coastal NC
Posts: 596
Quote:
http://www.activeresponsetraining.ne...nds-open-carry

Greg E. lays out the risks and disadvantages of open carry. The issue not be the 'right' but the pragmatics.

No insults of anyone please. This is for your information. If you disagree or agree don't call anyone a name or enemy of the 2nd Amend
I agree with this 100%.
adamBomb is offline  
Old October 29, 2018, 12:08 PM   #71
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
All depends on where you live and what you do. I retired 2 years ago so I don't spend any more time in cities than I have to. I spend most of my time on the farm or riding in National Forest land. The rare times I have to go to the city I do conceal so nobody get their panties in a knot wand wets themselves over the sight of a gun. My pistol is there to protect me and my horses from vermin, no legged( rattlers and copperheads) 4 legged( feral dos, coyotes, cats) and two legged.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old October 29, 2018, 05:39 PM   #72
ManyMag
Member
 
Join Date: September 17, 2018
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Posts: 53
I couldn't care less about concealment or the lack thereof so if you conceal for tactical reasons, cool.
If you conceal because you aren't mentally prepared for a confrontation you should leave it at home.
All that really matters is what's between your ears and in your heart.
A little muscle memory can't hurt either.
ManyMag is offline  
Old October 30, 2018, 02:06 PM   #73
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,823
Quote:
I couldn't care less about concealment or the lack thereof
so are you simply carrying a gun without any consideration or thoughtful direction regarding the mission to keep yourself safe?



I can accept that some people consider OC a better tactic and others may consider CC a better tactic but to say that you don't care either way.. seems rather deficient. We are not talking about pizza toppings, we are talking about mode of carrying a weapon.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old October 30, 2018, 08:08 PM   #74
Dano4734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 6, 2014
Posts: 716
It really depends on the state like I said my state requires concealed carry but I would submit if open carry was legal 7 out of 10 people who don’t live in the country like myself would be calling the police about a guy carrying a gun and I don’t want to have to keep explaining to the police how I am legally allowed to own and carry it. Now a state like Alaska nobody cares open or concealed as everyone has a firearm
Dano4734 is offline  
Old October 30, 2018, 10:28 PM   #75
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,157
One aspect I think many here may be overlooking...your reality and experience is not the same as mine. My experience is unique, as is yours. I live in the county that I grew up in. I have seen some fairly drastic changes the past 30ish years I actually remember. While originally a staunch agriculture community, my county is adjacent to Raleigh, NC. It is a growing area. My county has doubled in population in the past 20 years. All that said, there is still a thriving farm community in parts of the county. I could go nearly anywhere in this county OCing without fear of having the police called on me. There are a lot of transplants that may have culture shock their first year or so here, but they learn quickly.

The point... choosing not to OC for fear of constant police contact due to calls of ignorant, yet well meaning, citizens doesn't enter many peoples thought process. Just because it may happen in your area, doenst mean it will happen in mine. I choose to CC the majority of the time because I personally believe it is a tactical advantage. I also dress in the predominant local attire for the same reason. That aside, I do not bat an eye at OCing to the local hardware store running a quick errend. No one else does either.

And I agree with the conclusion of the article... CC is better than OC. I do not agree that the reasoning that the author uses to come to this conclusion is significant enough to bear much relevance to the conversation. If there were a magic way to know for sure, I would wager that many more violent crimes are prevented by the knowledge that the potential victim has a weapon, than violent crimes that are committed for the purpose of obtaining the victims weapon. This would be an informed wager based on experience.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13256 seconds with 8 queries