carrying guns

[topper]

What do you all think about a society that allows it's citizens to openly carry firearms at anytime, anywhere, without permits? I mean NO RESTRICTIONS on carrying at all. It used to be the norm in america in days long ago, and now our crime is rampant and guns are restricted, so something is amiss. Opinions are welcome.

[ampaterry]

When I was a kid, you were not supposed to carry a conceiled firearm, but open carry was fine. When I was too young for a drivers license, my buddy and I used to ride our bicycles across town with our .22 pistols strapped on our hips, and no one thought anything about it.

It was a better world then, and as Bill Jordon said in "No Second Place Winner", people were much more polite to each other when everyone wore a gun.

All of this hogwash is supposedly aimed at the BAD GUYS, trying to disarm them. But the effect is that only the GOOD GUYS get disarmed and become helpless victoms. When EVERYONE was armed, the bad guys had a habit of ceasing to exist.

It is an example of good intentions gone wrong, similar to our welfare system.

[mcw120566]

The following is an excerpt from an essay that I have to submit for one of my college classes, I got a poor grade finding out the hard way that my instructor was PC. Doesn’t change my feelings a bit!
Disarming America, or not being prepared to defend your self is not the answer. The answer lies in both better education, and proper instruction. There will always be violent crimes, which is a fact will never change. However, I believe that we as a nation, would see a drastic decline in the “crimes of opportunity,” if the criminals knew that most of the population was armed with a gun and ready to defend them selves.

[hogger129]

-

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by topper

What do you all think about a society that allows it's citizens to openly carry firearms at anytime, anywhere, without permits? I mean NO RESTRICTIONS on carrying at all. It used to be the norm in america in days long ago, and now our crime is rampant and guns are restricted, so something is amiss. Opinions are welcome.

Well there ya go. Crime is rampant and guns are restricted. The question is how much restriction do you need? I draw the line at a background check. If you can pass a background check, you should be legally allowed to possess a firearm, concealed or not. If people are worried that it will be like the Old West, then they should carry too in order to protect themselves. Look at it this way. A criminal is not going to buy a gun legally because the background check won't let them. Now, if criminals are able to get a gun on the black market, or by some other means, why should we tighten up the grip on people that have no criminal record and can legally own a firearm? Some people seem to think that disarming everyone would create a peaceful society. But you know what? The world isn't like a good neighbor that is always going to say hello with a smile on their face. What do you do when you're out with your girlfriend, and some raving lunatic that's 6'5" and 350 lbs comes and tries to fight, or rape or something? We're not all 6'5" and 350 so we can't just fight the guy off. No, if it were me, I would draw the 1911 and take care of business. Police are not always around either. So what do you do? We should not be licensing rights. Rights are rights. If a government has the power to license a right, they also have the power to suppress it or take it away all together.
Who are we hurting by carrying a gun anyway? I myself would rather conceal carry if I was armed in public because I just would rather avoid someone getting frightened and making a big deal out of it. But if people want to open or conceal carry, let them. Until someone commits a crime with their weapon, they are well within their Constitutional rights.

Another situation I get upset by is conceal carry laws here in Wisconsin. I know it's the billionth time I've brought it up, but who wouldn't be outraged by it. Our governor allows police and retired police to conceal carry if they apply for a license, yet law abiding citizens cannot. He doesn't not look at the fact that states that have passed shall-issue conceal carry have seen lower crime rates. Yet, no, he doesn't feel we should be concerned with that right now. He's allowed to protect himself. Why are we left out in the cold?

[obxned]

Over the last couple of years, the number of firearms in our country and the number of citizens with permits to carry have increased by leaps and bounds. Violent crime is down 10%. It would appear that rape, robbery, murder, and car-jacking just aren't as much fun when it could get you dead.

[the morning light]

Michigan has open carry, at least they did ten years ago when I checked the law. Never see anyone carrying lately.

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by the morning light

Michigan has open carry, at least they did ten years ago when I checked the law. Never see anyone carrying lately.

Wisconsin also has open carry and I am the only person that I have seen open carrying in Pepin, buffalo, Trempealeau or La Crosse counties.

I know I am not the only one because I have heard of others both on forums such as Open Carry dot Org. and others and from folks I have encountered while open carrying.

For many it is fear that prevents them from carrying and, that fear is justified with the advent of police harassment. Click here.

I have yet to hear a negative comment. Many have offered their hand to me as an endorsement of their approval and many, many have verbalized their approval in no uncertain terms.

If one person carries, he or she can be harassed but if ten million carry, that puts an entirely different spin on things.

I have carried a full sized 1911 for many years and still do. Condition one is the only way I have ever carried. Cocked, locked and. . . . Well. . . you know. . .

I occasionally carry a small, inexpensive nine if I am going where the odds of harassment are high. They can keep it as long as they like in the evidence locker if it goes that way. They are a dime a dozen. Hi-Point C-9 for anyone who wants to know.

I make my own holsters. Leather/Kydex hybrids. Along the lines of a Yaqui or Galco belt slide or I also make an IWB holster like the Tucker "The Answer". I use the FBI cant. The Tucker is by and far the best concealment holster I have ever worn.

The belt slide I wear now is sandwiched between the belt and pants. Either holster keeps the gun tucked in nice and tight but accords a very fast draw.

Originally Posted by topper

What do you all think about a society that allows it's citizens to openly carry firearms at anytime, anywhere, without permits? I mean NO RESTRICTIONS on carrying at all. It used to be the norm in america in days long ago, and now our crime is rampant and guns are restricted, so something is amiss. Opinions are welcome.

I wholeheartedly advocate open carry and concealed carry. The only thing I don't like about concealed carry is the fact that you must register both you and your handgun as well as jumping through a number of hoops.

This is the "infringed" part. So I guess I am all for "NO RESTRICTIONS on carrying at all."

[Lotsdragon]

You have to remember that the "old west" wasnt as open as hollywood makes it seem. Most towns had gun restrictions, as in you got to town you had to check your gun. Was as simple as that, though. If you were just passing through and not stopping there was no need to check your guns and all travelers were just assumed to be armed.We take the idea of everyone in the old west as a semi pro gunfighter from hollywood, that just sint true. A gun was a tool and as such was carried by those that had a need for it. But not everyone carried a firearm. The idea of "gunslingers" is another invention of hollywood as well. There were psychopaths as well in the old west and some of them did carry a gun, but many times a whole town would ban together and hang them.
Also not everything was better in the "old days" we tend to wax poetic when thinking about it. Myself i wouldnt mind going back to the part of open carry, but many towns would just enact check your gun laws, and bg's would still exist. Because bg's dont care what any law says.

[Maximilian II]

I think the restrictions on firearms ownership and carry should ONLY apply to those CITIZENS who have shown themselves to not deserve their rights. That's actually more restrictive than the Constitution. Call me a liberal...

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by Maximilian II

I think the restrictions on firearms ownership and carry should ONLY apply to those CITIZENS who have shown themselves to not deserve their rights. That's actually more restrictive than the Constitution. Call me a liberal...

Liberal!

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by Maximilian II

I think the restrictions on firearms ownership and carry should ONLY apply to those CITIZENS who have shown themselves to not deserve their rights. That's actually more restrictive than the Constitution. Call me a liberal...

Ya Liberal! Oh, Merry Christmas too. . .

[Slabsides]

Call me crazy, but I do NOT believe in open carry. Why? You give away the element of surprise. Being concealed, the other guy does not know if you are carrying or what kind of equipment you have. If a criminal sees that you are armed, he will alter his tactics (like blindside or kill you right off).

It also opens you up to get your weapon taken from you. The criminal would make it his first order of business to get your weapon (again, blindside or kill you). To a crackhead, you would be dangling a nice, shiney piece of machinery worth a hand full of rocks right there off of your hip.

As for deterence, it would likely deter petty thiefs, but it would only make the real criminals that much more violent in their attacks for reasons mentioned above.

I could be off in my views of this, but I like to blend in with the rest of the sheep knowing that I can tear off the outer covering and expose the wolf in an instant.

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by ampaterry

When I was a kid, you were not supposed to carry a conceiled firearm, but open carry was fine. When I was too young for a drivers license, my buddy and I used to ride our bicycles across town with our .22 pistols strapped on our hips, and no one thought anything about it.

It was a better world then, and as Bill Jordon said in "No Second Place Winner", people were much more polite to each other when everyone wore a gun.

All of this hogwash is supposedly aimed at the BAD GUYS, trying to disarm them. But the effect is that only the GOOD GUYS get disarmed and become helpless victoms. When EVERYONE was armed, the bad guys had a habit of ceasing to exist.

It is an example of good intentions gone wrong, similar to our welfare system.

I'm all for it!!!
My friends and I used to do the same around Memphis and Northern MS. We never had a cop or civilian give us a second glance.

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by Slabsides

Call me crazy, but I do NOT believe in open carry. Why? You give away the element of surprise. Being concealed, the other guy does not know if you are carrying or what kind of equipment you have. If a criminal sees that you are armed, he will alter his tactics (like blindside or kill you right off).

It also opens you up to get your weapon taken from you. The criminal would make it his first order of business to get your weapon (again, blindside or kill you). To a crackhead, you would be dangling a nice, shiney piece of machinery worth a hand full of rocks right there off of your hip.

As for deterence, it would likely deter petty thiefs, but it would only make the real criminals that much more violent in their attacks for reasons mentioned above.

I could be off in my views of this, but I like to blend in with the rest of the sheep knowing that I can tear off the outer covering and expose the wolf in an instant.

I'm sorry all those arguments have been beaten to death; AND proven NOT to hold water.

#1- BG's always have the advantage of surprise. They are the only ones who "KNOW" an attack is coming!

#2- BG's are also cowards and lazy by nature. If they know you will be a hard target and WILL fight back, they move on to "easier" prey. (I know this 1st hand and heard it from a lot of BG's.)

#3- Name some published instances when a BG "randomly" chose an OCer as a victim AND won!

#4- The only reason my family's store was ever robbed, was because they thought we know longer were armed because we did NOT OC in the store anymore.

[tcox4freedom]

I got this from another forum:

I encourage everyone to check it out. It's better presented than my software can do by the cut & paste feature.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/newre...wreply&p=68167

Originally Posted by Mainsail

The Open Carry Argument

My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.

Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.

Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.

The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction

I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.

First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.

Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.

Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.

[pinecone70]

Heh. In my county, citizens do call the cops if they see guns on citizens. The cops don't like having to come and check permits, so they recommend we conceal.

[topper]

When I was a youngster of about 14 or so, a friend and I would ride our motorscooters out to the creek to shoot at old junk cars that were abandoned there. I had a .22 single shot rifle and my friend had a 16 gauge shotgun. We would put the guns across the handlebars and take off for the creek. We had a few city streets and mostly open rural roads, but sometimes there was a bit of traffic. No one ever bothered either of us. Of course the guns were unloaded while transporting, the shotgun broke open and the rifle bolt out of my rifle. Sure could not do that today!

[Terry_P]

I think criminals should not be allowed to carry or own. There are degrees of crime, for example if some kid smoked a joint and got caught I don't think that should haunt him for the rest of his life. If someone commits a violent act then they have lost their right by their actions. That way if they are checked by authorities and are carrying then they should go to jail for it. They have no intentions of following the law and should be caged.

As to open carry I personally don't as I have CCL's that are valid in 30 states. I think a Fed law should be passed to require all states to recognize the CC permits of all other states as they do drivers licenses. If IL and WI don't want to issue permits then under this law out of state CCL's must be honored while their own citizens can't conceal. With the current bunch in Washington it has zero chance of passing.

[Slabsides]

Originally Posted by tcox4freedom

I'm sorry all those arguments have been beaten to death; AND proven NOT to hold water.

#1- BG's always have the advantage of surprise. They are the only ones who "KNOW" an attack is coming!

#2- BG's are also cowards and lazy by nature. If they know you will be a hard target and WILL fight back, they move on to "easier" prey. (I know this 1st hand and heard it from a lot of BG's.)

#3- Name some published instances when a BG "randomly" chose an OCer as a victim AND won!

#4- The only reason my family's store was ever robbed, was because they thought we know longer were armed because we did NOT OC in the store anymore.

#1- Applies if you are unarmed, concealed or open carry. It's a fact of any confrontation. It's where SA comes in to play.

The OP suggested everyone be able to OC. #2 and #3 cannot be compared to a totally OC society because they do not exist.

#4-By that logic you are saying no OC establisment has ever been targeted? Look how many banks get knocked over with armed guards.....who are, no surprise, the FIRST to get neutralized.

There are valid arguments for both methods, you choose yours and I'll choose mine. I choose to focus on CC because mass OC will never happen in this country. I'll say that again....mass OC will NEVER happen in this country. With what we have running this country, we are lucky to even still HAVE guns, much less ever be able to carry them in public openly. Get used to it....it's only going to get worse.

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by Slabsides

Get used to it....it's only going to get worse.

Sadly, I have to agree with your last statement.

Originally Posted by Slabsides

I choose to focus on CC

It's great to have a purpose and goals.

Originally Posted by Slabsides

OC will never happen in this country. I'll say that again....mass OC will NEVER happen in this country. With what we have running this country, we are lucky to even still HAVE guns, much less ever be able to carry them in public openly.

Many states are open carry:

Open carry states:
Wisconsin
Alaska
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
South Dakota
Vermont
Kentucky
Virginia

Open carry–with restrictions (eg. permit requirements):

Utah
North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
Indiana
Maryland
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts

Many other states have their own versions of open carry–eg. it is allowed in some rural areas of California.

I think negative thought and action hold back progress. Using a term with the finality of "never" does not help any cause.

Luck has nothing to do with our having the right to keep and bear arms. We have an inalienable right, a natural right if you will. It is in our genetic code to defend ourselves and protect our loved ones. Thank goodness the founders; just a bunch of guys like us, took a stand. You should have heard the throngs of people shouting at the top of their lungs that we will "NEVER" escape the East India Trading Company or the kings rule. Ooops.

[Bobitis]

Washighton State is also open carry, and no retreat.

Our problem is our elected officials think they are above law and the State Constitution.

[Slabsides]

So, in these states that allow open carry, do people routinely en-masse carry openly? Like to the movies, Wal-Mart, walking down the town sidewalks, etc.? Or is it "it's allowed, but discouraged" because people call the cops on a regular basis to check it out?

Just wondering, because it is not allowed in my state (or any of the several that I have lived in), so I've never dealt with it. Frankly, there are certain people that I would not care to see wearing a gun openly. I'm probably one of them. I would think in any state, if I were seen riding my Harley and wearing my colors, leathered out with with hair and beard blowing in the breeze and a .45 hanging in the open, it would seem a bit un-nerving to the average citizen.

[Hardballer]

Originally Posted by Slabsides

So, in these states that allow open carry, do people routinely en-masse carry openly? Like to the movies, Wal-Mart, walking down the town sidewalks, etc.? Or is it "it's allowed, but discouraged" because people call the cops on a regular basis to check it out?

Just wondering, because it is not allowed in my state (or any of the several that I have lived in), so I've never dealt with it. Frankly, there are certain people that I would not care to see wearing a gun openly. I'm probably one of them. I would think in any state, if I were seen riding my Harley and wearing my colors, leathered out with with hair and beard blowing in the breeze and a .45 hanging in the open, it would seem a bit un-nerving to the average citizen.

In my state, it has been law for about 15 years but up until a couple of high profile arrests (One fella was arrested on his own property while planting a tree.) for disturbing the peace or reckless endangerment, in which the citizen was charged but was exonerated, harassment was common place.

Maybe in a liberal strongholds like Milwaukee or Madison but not in my experience. After a couple of municipalities lost a significant amount of money over some gung ho cop's ill advised, unconstitutional behavior, things all of a sudden changed here in Wisconsin.

I wouldn't call it commonplace yet but I open carry every day. To the grocery, to the pharmacy, to the convenience store, to Walmart, Shopko, Kmart, Target, Home Depot, etc. On the street, I have long hair and a big beard, wear camo hunting clothes, and a Stetson. I am 6' 330lbs. and can appear intimidating at times.

My last experience was the hand shake from a local grocery store owner who supported my decision to carry and he allowed that his son, a sand pile veteran, also open carried.

I have talked to young and old alike and no one has run screaming. Some eyeball my iron and one journalist made a half hearted attempt at a joke. He asked if I had killed anyone with that and I replied that dead Ted and killed more people with his car than I with my .45. If you are afraid of that, well. . . that's your deal.

In my state, there are laws on the books that prohibit carry in a vehicle. I assume that means cycle too. That is being challenged as well. Other asinine laws about no carry zones are being challenged too.

Things stay the same because good folk do nothing. Personally, I speak, write, do.

[Hells Toy Master]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

Washighton State is also open carry, and no retreat.

Our problem is our elected officials think they are above law and the State Constitution.

Indeed... and are alot worse than that... every last one of them!

Remember... in Washington state, it is legal, until someone else that sees you is offended.