at least you guys admit you are scared and have to carry a guns all the time- hell, I thought were just nostalgic to B&W TV: wyatt earp, gunsmoke.

You're just afraid, OK

BOoooo!

quick duck
:elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3:


none of you will be around me or my family open carrying.

I don't see a need for OC

at least you guys admit you are scared and have to carry a guns all the time- hell, I thought were just nostalgic to B&W TV: wyatt earp, gunsmoke.

You're just afraid, OK

BOoooo!

quick duck
:elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3::elmer3:



Its revealing that your only argument now is to try to call people scared. What's will your next juvenile attempt be, a hearty "neener neener"?

Grow up.


none of you will be around me or my family open carrying.
That's your choice, but I guarantee there will be people around you that conceal-carry. Unless, of course, you never stray out of your home. At least if (when) this bill passes, your ability to create needless hassle by crying to a cop about seeing a big, scary piece of metal on somebody's hip is much lessened.

what kind of psychos would make use of this new law?
As a small female, I'm a fan! Concealing a handgun suitable for self-defense is far easier for people with larger bodies and for men. A lot of holsters don't handle curves very well, and as a result the weapon doesn't lie nice and flat against the body like they're designed to do. Also, the fact that our wardrobe is comprised of a greater variety of styles from skirts to shorts to pants to dresses makes it very difficult to carry consistently unless you have an arsenal of different types of holsters to coordinate with your entire wardrobe.

An average 6' 180 lb man in an average men's t-shirt and jeans can conceal a 1911 without issue. In the same (women's) outfit, it's very difficult for me to conceal my subcompact .380. I'd like to get into IPSC (http://www.ipsc.org/), but that requires at least a 9mm. Rather than dividing my rounds and range time between the gun I can conceal and the gun I can compete with, I'd prefer to consistently use the same weapon so that if I encounter that life-or-death situation, I'm as prepared for it and my response is as automatic and trained as it can possibly be.

Which part of that makes me a psycho? :pg_bubble

PS: I find it surprising that so many posters seem to feel safe with people carrying guns around them as long as they're ignorant about it, but the moment this is made apparent it's scary. Knowledge is power, folks - embrace it.

sid- my argument was that open-carry is provocative and intimidating. See my post where I point out that how a single parent might feel when their children encounter folks wearing guns. yes it's provocative.

regarding my insurance. I changed insurance carriers this year. I have one truck, one SUV, 4 cars, two motorcycles & and an RV. The paper work on the car in question was in error. I was very concerned about loosing aprx $12k. I would also like to get the culprit. So if you think I am stupid, you have a right to your opinion. I can say that's reciprocal.

I think its crazy as hell to see people carry guns around. really crazy.

Now I've learned many of you are scared. So now you can scare everyone else.

Now I've learned many of you are scared. So now you can scare everyone else.
Says the person who gets quivery whenever they spot a police officer's weapon on his/her hip.

In an effort to end your juvenile taunts, allow me to clarify in as simple a way as possible. Its not about being scared, its about being prepared. I can assure you that I don't walk around in fear of the world with or without my weapon, but its reassuring to know that its there if I need it. You don't live in fear of driving your car do you? But you wear a seat belt, right? Same concept.

prepared? so you have to intimidate everyone by displaying your gun.

I don't need to provide a juvenile taunt, I am not the one that wants to carry. res ipsa loquitur

prepared? so you have to intimidate everyone by displaying your gun.
Yes, prepared. Si vis pacem para bellum (in the personal sense). Its not about intimidation, its about being able to carry without the threat of fine or imprisonment over an accidental display of a weapon I'm carrying. I don't know how I can be any plainer than that, but you keep clinging to this ridiculous fantasy that our state is going to return to the wild west days so you don't seem to be understanding.



I don't need to provide a juvenile taunt, I am not the one that wants to carry. res ipsa loquitur
In reference to the following:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=518673#post518673
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=518678#post518678
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=519061#post519061
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=519136#post519136

Apparently you do.

Yes, prepared. Si vis pacem para bellum (in the personal sense). Its not about intimidation, its about being able to carry without the threat of fine or imprisonment over an accidental display of a weapon I'm carrying. I don't know how I can be any plainer than that, but you keep clinging to this ridiculous fantasy that our state is going to return to the wild west days so you don't seem to be understanding.


In reference to the following:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=518673#post518673
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=518678#post518678
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=519061#post519061
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=29015&p=519136#post519136

Apparently you do.

+10

I don't expect any more trouble from law-abiding citizens with this passing than what came from passing a concealed carry law (which amounts to none).

I support the open carry bill, mainly because of the protections it gives me when I CC. I don't carry all the time, but when I do, I'm paranoid that somehow I'll accidentally reveal and someone freaks out and tries to have me arrested.

I carry because I like being confident that I've done everything I can to make sure I can defend myself and my family in a bad situation. Will I openly carry if this passes? I have no to plans to. But at least I won't get arrested and lose my CC license if a random breeze blows my shirt open in front of someone like LowRyter.

My feelings exactly.

I've never personally seen anyone accidentally flash their gun and would like to see some stats on prosecutions for doing the same if that's the main argument.

Yes, it will be the overcompensating intimidators who will be sporting the weapons in public, not Joe normal out to have a regular day. We don't need that.

I'd like to see some stats on how many "overcompensating intimidators" (lol, that sounds like a rec-league softball team name) come out of the woodwork in other states pass open carry laws or have no restrictions on open carry.

I've never personally seen anyone accidentally flash their gun and would like to see some stats on prosecutions for doing the same if that's the main argument.I have had my shirt blow around when on the motorcycle enough to show the gun a few times. I can just see someone calling the police claiming a "Biker" with a gun. I've also caught myself reaching up to something on a high shelf and realized the gun was showing. No one has ever said or done anything but there is the legal possibility of being reported and law enforcement being involved. I don't know that any charges have been filed for "brandishing" since the CC law has been in effect. But my luck I'd be the first and that would be a real pain for me. I would have paperwork, interviews, etc. to deal with at work. If the new law passes I'll still carry concealed but at least I could worry less about the gun being seen.

It happens, i see it on the jail blotter from time-to-time. Never followed up to see if a city or state charge was every filed - but yes, people do get arrested in OKC for that offense. Not often, but I see it.

No doubt people get arrested for brandishing and deserve to go to jail for it. I still do not believe accidental flash from a CC licensed person is a significant issue to warrant imposing open carry on the vast number of the public who do not want it.

No doubt people get arrested for brandishing and deserve to go to jail for it. I still do not believe accidental flash from a CC licensed person is a significant issue to warrant imposing open carry on the vast number of the public who do not want it.

I never said 'brandishing' and that's not what was asked. I have seen violations of the conceal and carry act that led to arrest. Hell, they arrest people for not vaccinating their dog, walking the wrong way and yard parking.

Wait...you mean all these gun owners packing heat are not the law abiding citizens they pretend to be? Thought not. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Wait...you mean all these gun owners packing heat are not the law abiding citizens they pretend to be? Thought not. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Wow. I think we've met our first perfect person. Never accidentally or unintentionally crossed the line of the letter of the law. A true (and perhaps among the 1% or less) law abiding citizen.

Maybe we should back off on concealed carry since those trained and licensed seem to be having such a hard time complying with the law...

No doubt people get arrested for brandishing and deserve to go to jail for it. I still do not believe accidental flash from a CC licensed person is a significant issue to warrant imposing open carry on the vast number of the public who do not want it.

I don't consider my right to carry openly, should i feel a need to, to be an imposition on anyone. Also, who said the open carry compliance was the most significant reason for open carry. Its just one of many reasons. I might also be amongst the Chicken Little's too if the practice of Open Carry had not been implemented without issue in other states.

Maybe we should back off on concealed carry since those trained and licensed seem to be having such a hard time complying with the law...
Maybe we should shut up people who we disagree with too since were treading all over citizen's rights.

Lets get rid of the law requiring one to keep their manhood in their pants too. It imposes too much restriction on freedom of expression.

Stalin would be have been so very proud of you.

Stalin would be have been so very proud of you.

Jesus would have been so very proud of you.

Jesus would have been so very proud of you.

That is uncalled for.

Jesus would have been so very proud of you.

He turned water into wine and fed multitudes from a bit of bread and a few carp like thangs. For all we know, upon his return old six-shooters will blossom into full-auto demon busters.

Jesus would have been so very proud of you.
LOL, yes, yes he would.
http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/jesus-gun.jpg

Personally I don't think if your weapon shows while your reaching for something shouldn't be considered banishing a weapon. jmho

prepared? so you have to intimidate everyone by displaying your gun.

I don't need to provide a juvenile taunt, I am not the one that wants to carry. res ipsa loquitur

I am not intimidating anyone. I can not control how a person reacts to me participating in a legal activity.

Never understood the gun obsession with you guys in Oklahoma. Just not my thing. But then again I am a "libtard yankee" so I guess that explains it. I probably have 15 rifles and handguns total. I just don't feel the need to have one with me constantly (concealed or not).

Not that I am against it.... just don't understand the need to feel "protected" by openly carrying.

Honestly. I absolutely love the contradictions. People who are pro-open carry are usually pro-capitol punishment as well, and anti-abortion. They're also usually anti-welfare. So, it's not OK to kill babies, but it's OK to starve them and leave them without immunizations. It's OK to kill really bad people too, despite the fact that we have executed people who were innocent.

Then, those of us who are anti-gun are usually pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment. If you go ahead and have that unwanted baby, we'll make sure it's fed, clothed, housed and immunized, but we're not going to force you to have it. We think it's OK to have an abortion, but not to kill a criminal. Pretty ironic, isn't it?

Never understood the gun obsession with you guys in Oklahoma. Just not my thing. But then again I am a "libtard yankee" so I guess that explains it. I probably have 15 rifles and handguns total. I just don't feel the need to have one with me constantly (concealed or not).

Not that I am against it.... just don't understand the need to feel "protected" by openly carrying.

The only person I can rely on to protect me, is....well.....me. Therefore I should provide myself every means necessary for that protection.

Honestly. I absolutely love the contradictions. People who are pro-open carry are usually pro-capitol punishment as well, and anti-abortion. They're also usually anti-welfare. So, it's not OK to kill babies, but it's OK to starve them and leave them without immunizations. It's OK to kill really bad people too, despite the fact that we have executed people who were innocent.

Then, those of us who are anti-gun are usually pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment. If you go ahead and have that unwanted baby, we'll make sure it's fed, clothed, housed and immunized, but we're not going to force you to have it. We think it's OK to have an abortion, but not to kill a criminal. Pretty ironic, isn't it?
Wow, generalize much?

The only person I can rely on to protect me, is....well.....me. Therefore I should provide myself every means necessary for that protection.

Just curious, how often have you felt threatened enough that you considered using your gun?

Just curious, how often have you felt threatened enough that you considered using your gun?

To date, a grand total of 1. I was living in a ground level apartment and some fool was playing hide and seek with his buddies on my patio at around 2am.

That really has nothing to do with OC or CC though. So if you want to talk about during my daily routine, than the big doughnut...0.

Now before you go all...then statistically you don't need to carry at all because you have never felt threatened enough...on me, if you, or anyone, can see the future and tell me when and where every crime will occur, I will avoid those places at those times and won't have to worry about feeling threatened enough to use my firearm. Until then, I will still afford myself as much protection as I can, because I am the only person I can depend on to protect me.

Wow, generalize much?

So you believe in open carry, abortion and welfare? Just curious to see if there are people like that out there...

Never understood the gun obsession with you guys in Oklahoma. Just not my thing. But then again I am a "libtard yankee" so I guess that explains it. I probably have 15 rifles and handguns total. I just don't feel the need to have one with me constantly (concealed or not).

Not that I am against it.... just don't understand the need to feel "protected" by openly carrying.

I rarely CC but have a CCW license so I can carry on my bike or jeep when I go on trips. Not all CCW holders carry all the time and the only time I can see myself doing open carry is if I'm out camping or in the woods where I might come across an unfriendly animal.

To date, a grand total of 1. I was living in a ground level apartment and some fool was playing hide and seek with his buddies on my patio at around 2am.

That really has nothing to do with OC or CC though. So if you want to talk about during my daily routine, than the big doughnut...0.

Now before you go all...then statistically you don't need to carry at all because you have never felt threatened enough...on me, if you, or anyone, can see the future and tell me when and where every crime will occur, I will avoid those places at those times and won't have to worry about feeling threatened enough to use my firearm. Until then, I will still afford myself as much protection as I can, because I am the only person I can depend on to protect me.


I think some folks are worried about protecting themselves from somebody that's walking around with a gun out in the open. Like I said before if a robbery is going down the bad guys are going to take out the one with a gun and I don't want to be standing next to the guy open carrying.

I think some folks are worried about protecting themselves from somebody that's walking around with a gun out in the open. Like I said before if a robbery is going down the bad guys are going to take out the one with a gun and I don't want to be standing next to the guy open carrying.
Here's an article that makes a strong argument against that argument (as well as several others expressed here).


http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

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.

The Five Stages of Violent Crime (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html)
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.

So you believe in open carry, abortion and welfare? Just curious to see if there are people like that out there...
I'm sure there are some like that, but its not as simplistic as a black and white, yes or no answer to those topics. There are plenty of people who do not fit your molds. But that's a topic for another thread.

Betts, my father was raised by Minnesota liberals, whom, I believe would make you look conservative. He served in the Marine corps for 30 years and always taught us to handle guns responsibly. He is a disabled veteran that knows the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, that there are bad people out there that want your stuff. They don't care if they hurt you to get it. He always considered a pistol a tool, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And having my permit since its been legal, I see no benefit for having open carry!

Betts, my father was raised by Minnesota liberals, whom, I believe would make you look conservative. He served in the Marine corps for 30 years and always taught us to handle guns responsibly. He is a disabled veteran that knows the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, that there are bad people out there that want your stuff. They don't care if they hurt you to get it. He always considered a pistol a tool, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And having my permit since its been legal, I see no benefit for having open carry!


As I've said before the only advantage of the open carry law, that I like, is I wouldn't be charged if my CCW became visible when reaching for something or if the wind blew my shirt up.

One thing for all the Scared Nelly's that would wet themselves if they saw someone open carry at WalMart, McDonald's etc., - I'm most certain many retial establishments, office buildings etc. will be putting up 'No Firearms' signs on their buildings. Which will limit one's likelihood to open carry on a regular basis, as you'd be wearing an empty holster much of the time. Then you'd look like some of our goofy Assistant DA's that insist on walking around with empty holsters (maybe that's because they can't wear their No Fear or MMA t's to work).

Yep, that will take the guns off the People of Walmart.










and at McDs, and where ever. How much you wanna bet the gun toters will be wanting to change that law next?

Nah, private establishments can do as they please in regards to allowing firearms. You won't find many who open carry who would argue against that (but I'm sure you could find extreme examples who would complain about it).

You know it's already been tested.


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.

(ignoring all the assumptions)


The same can be said for one open carrying their manhood. After awhile, everyone will be desensitized to it, quit fearing it and accept it. That's what we all want isn't it?

... How much you wanna bet the gun toters will be wanting to change that law next?


Some might. Not those willing to push for it. The simple fact it isn't part of this year's legislation attests to that. There is favorable reaction to open carry in both the legislative chambers and with the Gov. this year. However, trying to jam up the rights of property and business owners to say yea or nay on permitting firearms would not carry nearly the same level of support as merely eliminating the requirement to conceal when one is carrying.

I'm indifferent to open carry more than opposed to it. The fact is that we've had concealed carry for nearly two decades, with minimal to no ill effects, suggests open carry will merely create somewhat more visibility of firearms that are already out there. Some will continue to prefer to conceal.

I don't envision hordes of folks who refused to obtain concealed carry permits dashing out to now complete the same required process based on now not having to conceal the firearm.

Pretty much everything else except concealment being a requirement, perhaps entirely everything else, will remain just as it has been for quite some time.

The one thing I think will change is there will be an increase in the no guns allowed decisions. Joe Bizowner who never worried on it during the purely concealed days will have some customers who express concern and Joe will decide to exercise his right to say leave yer guns behind son, just leave your guns behind.

Right. One step at time. First CC. Then open carry. Then open carry when ever and where ever.

As MM knows...since CC passed, it has already been tested that one can bring a firearm onto private property in spite of an owners desires otherwise. So far that includes the parking lot. Stand by.

Mass hysteria! Dogs and cats living together I tell ya!


You know it's already been tested.



(ignoring all the assumptions)


The same can be said for one open carrying their manhood. After awhile, everyone will be desensitized to it, quit fearing it and accept it. That's what we all want isn't it?

I don't recall anything in the constitution for that, but if you wanna pop that off and hang it on yer hip, go right ahead.

Right. It was talked about the last time we had this thread.


fear


hysteria

No. You can try to make this into that but it's about public decency, IMO.

But don't let that stop you from pretending all the real Men are not afraid and carry weapons and everyone who disagrees are women, children and pansies. Especially when the opposite is more true.

FYI. I currently own three guns and have owned a handful of others in the past.

The sweeping changes are part of a little-known but dramatic expansion of user-friendly gun laws across the country. Rough estimates put the number of concealed carry permit holders at between 4 and 7 million nationwide.

In just the past three years, 22 states have weakened or eliminated laws regulating the possession of concealed weapons, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public-interest law firm in San Francisco that supports more restrictive gun laws.

These measures are easing testing and eligibility requirements for obtaining a permit, opening up new public and private places where people can have concealed weapons, and giving new legal clout to those who use guns to defend themselves.

Many states now give concealed carry permit holders the right to have their guns in parked cars at work — and some have extended the right to parents picking up their children in school zones. Landlords are being told they can no longer refuse to lease property to someone who owns guns.

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/11/15/7396/carrying-concealed-weapons-just-keeps-getting-easier

Colorado Supreme Court Affirms Campus Carry

DENVER, March 5 – Students in Colorado can now legally carry guns into college classrooms.

http://concealedcampus.org/2012/03/colorado-supreme-court-affirms-campus-carry/

Just more recent ammunition against those who claim there haven't been any problems with concealed carry:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-crime-floridabre82i019-20120318,0,2759308.story
George Zimmerman believed loitering should be a capital offense. That led him to kill an unarmed 17 year old boy.

Just more recent ammunition against those who claim there haven't been any problems with concealed carry:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-crime-floridabre82i019-20120318,0,2759308.story
George Zimmerman believed loitering should be a capital offense. That led him to kill an unarmed 17 year old boy.

Actually looks like more ammunition for conceal and carry. I saw nothing in the article that states Zimmerman was practicing conceal and carry. Very well could have simply had a gun in his vehicle (different set of laws in most states). If so, I'd use it as an example that had the victim been carrying a weapon he could have defended himself.

Also, its hardly ammunition for a cause when they can't find enough examples to even equal 1% of the conceal and carry population. I can find far more links to stories of people being being attacked by machete wheeling individuals - maybe you should outlaw those first.

That link is here (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148752666/pressure-mounts-after-neighborhood-watch-shooting)
Sorry, heard it on the radio.


ROBLES: Every single person that I've interviewed in the community is having a very hard time understanding why George Zimmerman thought that it was a good idea to carry a gun on neighborhood patrol.

But don't let that stop you from pretending all the real Men are not afraid and carry weapons and everyone who disagrees are women, children and pansies. Especially when the opposite is more true.
Where did you get the idea that those who carry think those that don't aren't "real men"? I think your imagination is running a bit wild here. I think someone who has admitted trembling in fear at the site of a gun is a little bit silly (barring any scarring event in their life involving a gun), but nobody ever questioned anyone's "manhood". In fact, I believe the only person mentioning such nonsense here is you.


The sweeping changes are part of a little-known but dramatic expansion of user-friendly gun laws across the country. Rough estimates put the number of concealed carry permit holders at between 4 and 7 million nationwide.
That's a good thing, IMO. You make a great case for conceal carry as well. Four to seven million permit holders and the only problems anyone can point to are statistically insignificant, incidental cases.


Colorado Supreme Court Affirms Campus Carry

DENVER, March 5 – Students in Colorado can now legally carry guns into college classrooms.

http://concealedcampus.org/2012/03/colorado-supreme-court-affirms-campus-carry/Way to go Colorado! I know of no time a student who was legally carrying shot up a campus.

As someone who tends to anger people on a regular basis I am not a fan of this.

Just saw a TV news report. Yes, they confirmed he was legally carrying with a conceal and carry permit. Police also said they have no evidence that would allow them to arrest Zimmerman. I do have an issue with Zimmerman getting out of his car. I wonder if any liability will be placed on the home owners association who organized the neighborhood patrol?

I also think this helps support my idea that to conceal and carry or open carry you should have to have more training and carry insurance.

Yep, that will take the guns off the People of Walmart.










and at McDs, and where ever. How much you wanna bet the gun toters will be wanting to change that law next?

Won't affect Wal-mart. Wal-mart has a corporate policy to follow state law. They don't give local managers the ability to decide to post or not. Most national chains have the same type of policy, simply to follow state law. McDonalds stores are franchised and so each franchise owner can decide what they want for their own stores.

Where did you get the idea that those who carry think those that don't aren't "real men"?

BB:
Scared Nelly's who wet the bed

Again, the primary assumption and assertion I was speaking to that's been repeated several times is those who are opposed to open carry are doing so out of fear as if that argument is automatically trumped by someone else's desire to carry a weapon for whatever reason (fear.) Who is afraid when your answer to a perceived problem is to strap on a loaded weapon, not to mention one in plain sight of everyone you come in contact with?

As I said, it's a decency and standard of behavior and interaction issue for many of us but the gun toters like to demonize their opposition by stereotype and branding them as hysterical, scared nelly's who wet the bed.