Tactics - Open or Concealed Carry

[contenderman]

Another thread of mine devolved into a debate on Open -vs- Concealed carry. I asked that it be shut down and am starting this to facilitate continuation of the debate if such is desired.

MY VIEWS

1.) I support the RKBA of the US Constitution and many states have similar language in thier respective constitutions, which, of course, I support too.

2.) If you live in a state that has RKBA and the optin of both open and concelaed carry, I still encourage you to get the concealed permit/license.

3.) Open carry may scare off certain classes (levels) of BGs, but ... for those that don't scare off they are wired to take out the greatest threat(s) first, and open carrying you are obviously a major threat.

4.) If you've been targeted by BG(s) then they are not going to give you any advance warning (at least try not to). They will try to ambush you with what ever they have to ambush you with. If they are armed, even if you are open carrying, in all probability you are not going to be able to draw and effectively fire to stave off the ambush. If your carrying concealed, the odds are a little more in the BG(s) favor as far as the ability to draw and fire. But, unless they just up and shoot you the opportunity does exist that you may be able to surprise them.

5.) Armed people make other people nervous. Chalk this up to, programmed education, media, movies, politicians, etc., etc. But you also have to add in Human Nature. Long before there were guns, the presence of armed people stirred up the populace.

Nuff said. The stage is set and the floor is open to comment, discussion, debate:

.

[Treo]

I started out very, very anti O.C. but as time goes on I support it more and more. Personally I don’t care how you carry, as long as you carry. My issue is with the common argument that O.C. makes you the prime target of badguys, statements like the following are common

One need not "cite a single incident" to understand clearly the risks that having an openly carried weapon presents to the carrier. Kleanbore

If you can’t cite a single example of an O.C.er getting attacked for his/her gun or being the first one killed in a robbery how can you tell me it a huge risk? If it’s that big of a risk, if it’s essentially inevitable why haven’t we heard about it happening?

If open carry was really as dangerous as some of you people stipulate, we'd be hearing about lone police officers being jacked for their weapons all the time. Darkness

Why isn’t the above in the news every day?

And this from Massad Ayoob

In most of this society, the only people the general public sees carrying guns in public are uniformed “protector figures,” such as police officers and security guards. When they see someone not identifiable as such, who is carrying a lethal weapon, they tend to panic.

It wasn’t like that a hundred years ago so what changed? Open Carry became less common? People lost the acclimatization to seeing normal people going about their daily business armed? So the solution to this delemma is to be more careful about hiding the guns so as not to offend them, how does that make sense?

More Mas

Moreover, a harasser who has picked you as his victim and knows you carry a gun can create a situation where there are no other witnesses present, and then make the false claim that you threatened him with the weapon. This is a very serious felony called Aggravated Assault. It is his word against yours. The fact that you are indeed carrying the gun he describes you pointing at him can make his lie more believable than your truth, to the ears of judge and jury.

Got an example? Can you give me just one incident of this ever happening, please? If it happens why can’t my defense be he saw it when I was O.C.ing? I don’t know too many people, who go out of their way to piss off the armed guy, do you?

Bottom line IMO we can’t give one inch to the antis. Give up a right and it’s gone forever we need to stand the ground we have instead of conceding so easily. Here in the Springs O.C. is legal and happens frequently enough to be a non issue I haven’t heard of any instances of the horror stories cited above happening, don’t hear about them happening in Arizona either what’s up with that? Acclimation

[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.

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 potential 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. 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. 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.

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. Back in the 7-11, if he 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 armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed behind him in the parking lot, 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 any sense that they would be.

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 based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while 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 may 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. 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 as 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 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. There are no Robins in the hood trying to help the poor by stealing from the rich. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to your self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing.

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 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. We give much 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 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 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. The combination of the two makes the criminal’s job that much more risky, that much more dangerous, and that much more uncertain.

[dsw3131]

I wouldn't personally open carry, although I like the idea. I prefer to have my own little secret and not make anyone around me the wiser. However, I don't think ill of anyone who wants to open carry and support their right to. I think any law that makes carrying a firearm in self-defense easier is a good one.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by Treo

Bottom line IMO we can’t give one inch to the antis. Give up a right and it’s gone forever we need to stand the ground ...

Where did the notion come from that if we don't use a right we will lose it? It seems that there are plenty of examples of just the opposite in fact being the case. Rights have time and time again been lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised.

Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

Also, in recent years more and more communities have been adopting draconian restrictions on smoking in public. Much of the time, these are rationalized on the grounds of health, but they also reflect what appears to be fairly widespread annoyance with people smoking in public.

The point is not whether these sorts of restrictions are right. The point is that they do exist. And the fact of their existence illustrates that if enough voters find some form of otherwise lawful conduct in public to be obnoxious, politicians will be only too happy to pass laws against it.

Given our history, I don't really see how one can reasonably conclude that if he doesn't exercise a right, like the right to openly carry a loaded gun in public, he will lose the right. Based on our track record of losing rights, it seems more likely that if a lot of folks start openly carry guns, and if enough of the public finds this annoying, there will be a clamor to ban such practice; and the politicians will gladly oblige.

But in any case, history just doesn't seem to support this "use it or lose it" view.

Originally Posted by Mainsail

...open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm...

Maybe, but I doubt it. I've never seen any good evidence that OC can actually change attitudes. Most probably, most people who are annoyed by OC will just "suck it up" and bear it, like most people do with the many common annoyances we deal with in normal life. But they will probably jump at a chance to vote for someone who promises to ban OC.

Originally Posted by Mainsail

...but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one...

How many people do you expect will come up to you and tell you that they don't like your wearing a gun. After all, you are wearing a gun.

So carry your guns however you like, assuming it's legal. But I just don't buy the argument that OC is some grand political statement furthering the RKBA.

[Optical Serenity]

I recommend concealed at all times. Here in GA either way is fine, but unless I'm on duty, or going to court or something, I conceal. Every now and then I open carry but regardless of my LEO status or not, it's just bad tactics.

element of surprise is priceless.

[contenderman]

GOOD STUFF !!!

Not to stir the pot (well maybe a little) try looking at some of the stuff that comes up with this link ... open carry people are attacked ...


http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+s...ient=firefox-a

[Mainsail]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

So carry your guns however you like, assuming it's legal. But I just don't buy the argument that OC is some grand political statement furthering the RKBA.

Nowhere in my post do I make that claim.

Originally Posted by Optical Serenity

element of surprise is priceless

Surprise isn’t a defensive tactic anywhere but in the minds of concealed carry proponents. Surprise is an offensive maneuver.

[Mainsail]

Originally Posted by contenderman

Not to stir the pot (well maybe a little) try looking at some of the stuff that comes up with this link ... open carry people are attacked ...

I’m failing to see the nexus between your search for ‘gun store robbery’ and the open carry issue. I’m a regular person going about my regular business, I’m not a gun store and I don’t work at a gun store.

[contenderman]

OK ... let's try this.

In a number of these situations they were "Open Carrying" inside of a store full of firearms and ammunition, yet the bad guys attacked. Your a "regular guy" who open carries and your probably not in a store surrounded by guns and ammunition.

Point is ... there is a level of BG that will go after you.

Open carry an Arsenal if you want ... I'll support that.

Just doing a little "leveling" as there was comment that BGs are disinclined to attack openly armed people. It all depends on the BG. Open or concealed are not "magic shields", yet I do both depending on situation and I support both.

.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by Mainsail

...Nowhere in my post do I make that claim....

You say that open carry can help change attitudes: "....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 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...."

That is, in my view, both unsupportable and attempting to put a political spin on open carry.

[Mainsail]

Just doing a little "leveling" as there was comment that BGs are disinclined to attack openly armed people. It all depends on the BG. Open or concealed are not "magic shields", yet I do both depending on situation and I support both.

First, like I wrote in the paragraph “It Will Get Stolen” , pretty much anything you posses that is visible to others can make you a target of an opportunistic criminal. Now, if your wife and children are ugly, your car is a big POS, and you wear dumpy clothes, you’re probably OK. The rest of us, armed or not, live with the risk of displaying some of our possessions and family when we are out and about.

Secondly, a gun shop is a fixed location where high value items are known to be stored. It’s the same reason a jewelry store will be robbed more than Goodwill store. I am not a fixed location, I’m pretty mobile when I’m out doing my thing. If someone knew that I carried a gun and wanted to rob me, they would have to study my comings and goings for a while to determine the best time to strike. As mentioned by someone else, there are significantly less risky methods of obtaining a firearm than by trying to attack someone carrying one.

Thirdly, the historical data that such a thing has happened doesn’t exist. I’ve never, despite hundreds of posts in numerous threads on several forums all making this claim, heard of even one open carrier being robbed. Could it happen? Certainly, but the possibility is remote enough that the benefits of open carry completely negate the risk. Admittedly, this is a weak argument because open carry isn’t exactly something you might see every day. Or is it? I would estimate that 90% of the people I pass while carrying openly in an urban environment like Seattle never even notice it. It seems silly to believe that there are any criminals walking around the city looking at people’s belts to see if they are carrying a gun.

Fourthly, when we develop our personal defense strategy, it is impossible to behave in such a way that all possible risks are eliminated. You don’t wear a bulletproof vest when you go to the mall just in case there may be a random shooter, right? You have to prioritize threats, then create a plan and equip yourself with the tools you need based on the most likely threats, all within the constraints of comfort and what you can realistically carry. It is foolish to base your defense plan on the least likely threat such that a more likely threat is overlooked. Where I live, based on listening to the police scanner and reading crime reports in the newspaper, the most likely threat is several youths armed with either a knife or a gun robbing me in the park or while I’m leaving a store. I don’t want to surprise them by whipping out my concealed firearm and saying something cliché like, “Make my day punk!”. I don’t want to be in a life and death situation when I can easily avoid it. This is from a webpage on personal safety:

There is a big difference between self-defense and personal safety. Self defense is predicated on the fact that you are in a very bad place to begin with. Things have already gone to hell in a hand basket. As such, self defenses is making sure the situation doesn't get any worse -- it is damage control, pure and simple. However, no damage control is EVER as good as preventing the problem in the first place. That's personal safety...
Marc MacYoung

As to your comment about criminals being disinclined to attack someone openly armed, as I mention in the essay, every study says they prefer an unarmed person when choosing victims. Yes, it does depend on the bad guy as you point out. But what are you preparing for? Yes, it could happen, anything could happen, but it is highly unlikely, so unlikely that it doesn’t warrant changing the way I carry.

[Mainsail]

Reread the paragraph. The sentences are grouped in a paragraph because they are meant to relay a thought, not just because I thought it looked like a good place for a line break. I’m not making the “argument that OC is some grand political statement furthering the RKBA.” I’m discussing the often made claim that open carry damages the public perception of all firearms owners.

[Kleanbore]

From Treo:

If you can’t cite a single example of an O.C.er getting attacked for his/her gun or being the first one killed in a robbery how can you tell me it a huge risk? If it’s that big of a risk, if it’s essentially inevitable why haven’t we heard about it happening?

Why would one need an example to conduct a risk analysis?

I can't "cite a single example" of someone shooting himself in the lower body with a pocket gun not contained in a holster, but (1) common sense tells me, and ought to tell you, that having the potential for a snagged trigger is a risk and that it would be wise to use a pocket holster, and (2) a medical professional I know tells me there is an ER code for accidental self inflicted gunshot wounds in the lower body. It must happen.

The availability or nonavailability of stats does not prevent me from, as rondog suggested, considering what a potential assailant might do if someone is carrying openly. He may choose to come back later, or he may choose to neutralize the threat. That's a risk I won't take.

It wasn’t like that [people seeing guns in only the hands of authority figures] a hundred years ago so what changed? Open Carry became less common? People lost the acclimatization to seeing normal people going about their daily business armed?

What changed? Well, for one thing, people decided that they didn't like others carrying openly in public. Wyatt Earp made 'em check their guns, and Texas outlawed open carry about a century ago. Thank heaven we have regained the right to carry concealed in most places, but we can push the pendulum back by walking around with guns on our hips if we aren't careful.

From Mainsail:

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 based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios....Surprise isn’t a defensive tactic anywhere but in the minds of concealed carry proponents. Surprise is an offensive maneuver.

You can keep repeating that but it doesn't compute here. Which citizen poses the threat to the assailant? "Don't know" equals surprise. Where is the defending sniper in combat? If he were standing in the open in a red coat, he would no longer exist. His concealment is an element of surprise.

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.

And he can quickly and completely eliminate that risk by shooting you first.

Early this year a distraught man with a stolen gun went to a city council meeting (gun free zone, by the way) near where I live for the sole purpose of killing people. On his way toward the building he encountered a policeman. He shot and killed the officer and took his sidearm. Upon entering the council chamber, he saw the armed policeman on guard and made him the second victim. As rondog said in the other string, put yourself in his shoes. Wouldn't you have done exactly the same thing? It was clear and obvious that those fine officers were armed. Did it tip the risk scale, or seal their doom?

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.

You are making an assumption about his values. In our local case, the man had decided to die.

The historical data that such a thing has happened doesn’t exist.

Care to share your data on whether open or concealed carry is more likely to create problems, or are you simply saying that you do not have data on the former?

By the way, I have provided an example or two for you.

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by Mainsail

Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value.

I respectfully disagree.

I was at a party recently (wife's co-workers--I knew practically no one). I was carrying, legally concealed of course.

I doubt I'm the only one who looks at people this way: As I was being introduced, I was assessing the men (sorry for the sexism, but the likelihood of a woman interested in meaningful self-defense around here is wicked slim).

You know, shake the hand, look the guy in the eye, and say to yourself: If a fight broke out, or a fire started, or a gunman appeared--which of these guys would hide behind his wife, saying "Please don't hurt me!"--and which would do something...different.

There was ONE guy. I don't know if he was carrying, but I do know that he sent a signal. I did NOT want to mess with him, and if a fight broke out, I wanted to be back-to-back with him.

I flatter myself to assume he saw the same, looking at me.

We are taught that JUST THE GUN means nothing--a gun in the hands or a determined defender means almost everything. Similarly, I think that the CCW-holder often projects enough deterrence (BY FAR) without open-carry, just by alertness and bearing.

An open-carry person without that same alertness and bearing is inviting a gun-grab.

You know which of these two profiles you fit better than I do. All in all, I see (today, at my age) no extra deterrent by carrying open (if I could).

But I'd like to--I've got a few NICE pistols to show off! Heck, I'd like to open-carry a few of my rifles.

[Sistema1927]

5.) Armed people make other people nervous.

Who cares?

Where is the Constitutionally described right not to be nervous?

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by Sistema1927

Who cares?

There is (or at least used to be) such a thing as good manners.

[Armueller2001]

Who cares?

Where is the Constitutionally described right not to be nervous?

+1

I get offended when I see someone wearing an Obama shirt or button. I don't confront them about it or bitch about it though.

[Catherine]

Making someone nervous if you open carry has nothing to do with 'good manners' or Emily Post.

If you go to someone's house or apartment and they are ANTI gun or don't want GUNS in their house or on their Private Property you have a choice. You do NOT go into their home or on their property or you can leave your gun @ home or in your vehicle... if they accept a gun in a vehicle ON their land/property. You respect their property rights and wishes. The same as I would want done with MY private property. I don't mind people with guns if I know them and even if I do NOT know them walking around on the STREET or anywhere else. It does NOT make me nervous or get me upset - it is another TOOL to me. Know them or not know them - no difference if they have a gun or more guns on them. If they try to rob, rape, hurt, kill me or point a gun at my head... that would concern me and UNTIL they do that - so what - big deal if they have a GUN! It is not the GUN - it is the person with the gun - personal responsibility as with anything else in LIFE!

The open carry people that I personally know, including men from THIS board and elsewhere, who live in MT and in OTHER states are some of the finest gentlemen that I know. Former military men, some in police work, many in other careers and they are kind, smart, use common sense, etc. gentlemen. Gentlemen! They were raised properly and have outstanding manners. Old fashioned gentlemen in ALL age brackets too.

I know of a woman who NEVER carries a gun on her or has one with her. Her Mom and Dad are not into guns much at all. They are NOT anti gun just not into guns. The Dad used to hunt, may still hunt some - I am not sure, and the older son DOES hunt. The older son carries guns various ways. He does not live at home anymore. Even though they don't carry, don't shoot much if at all, have a gun or more in their house... they do NOT object to guns and people wearing guns ON their body (Conceal and OPEN CARRY and in their vehicles.). They like their special friends to HUNT on their land via personal invitation only. They like my husband to get 'Varmints' for them on their ranch too. He can do this shooting for them and it saves them time, property and so forth.

I know many women and men who are not INTO guns as I am, as my late husband was for self defense and as my groom/husband is. They accept us with our firearms ON us - open and conceal carry.

I know men who open carry here, they conceal carry too, and I don't blink twice when I see them OPEN CARRY even though I was born/raised in 2 gun restrictive east coast states and moved to my late husband's farm/lake state that did NOT allow CCW nor were they keen on open carry due to a lying, Rino, anti gun governor. That CCW and vehicle gun law changed AFTER I moved out west but it is still fairly restrictive! The other day we had dinner together here in town and 2 gentlemen OC and 1 CC. I should have checked out the OC Rig aka holster on the one man - I did not notice it but he does OC. My husband told me about his rig and the gentleman told me about his rig in the past too. The next time that I see him - I will LOOK and ask to see his OC holster! No one got all nervous, regular Montana folks and tourists, seeing 2 men with OC guns - one with a shoulder holster and one with an waist holster. That night my husband did not open carry even though he usually does OC. I did not OC that night for a dinner out nor did I have anything in my purse. I usually do so there would have been the 4 of us - all armed eating dinner out in Montana. That restaurant has MANY tourists and regular Montana folks as I stated.

The rancher friends and other friends don't ASK us to disarm ourselves even though some are not 'into guns' much for whatever reasons. The mother has expressed some interest in going to the range with me when her busy schedule permits. I have asked both ladies several times and so has my husband who has a weird work schedule too. Heck, even if they did not go to my gun range... they have enough land that they could shoot as much as they want right at home!

Catherine

[Catherine]

I get offended when I see and hear some WEIRD things including clothing on some people. Male and female.

I don't have to LOOK at them or LISTEN to them worse off LIVE with them. I do not have to listen or see or read many things - it is called FREE WILL that the good Lord gave us in such matters using our brains and common sense! You can WALK away or leave many things in this life and that includes bad people or people that you choose not to be associated with.

I don't like to handle or use CHAIN SAWS. I tried it once and I prefer to let someone else use them or I use my own tools - a Sears 'saws all' with a different blade or a hand saw. Do I tell people that I want them banned? NO! Do I want to run their lives and if I see someone sawing a tree with it - scream and get nervous? NO! They ought to know what they are doing and if not - tough cookies. NO offense with any TOOL or object!

There are many things in LIFE that upset me and, trust me, it boils down to things like pro gun issues, gun rights, gun laws, all freedom issues, ALL politics and the screw job that we have received in the past, present and most likely FUTURE as taxpaying American citizens and/or legal immigrants. I really do not care what some nervous Nellie, Jane or Joe may 'think' when it comes to losing even more FREEDOM issues (OC or CC Gun Rights!) that have been shoved down our throats along with all of the other BS that social engineering and Orwellian thought has brought upon this Republic in the last 50 or so years! I am sick of it. If they are so nervous... let them be a coward - take two aspirin and call me in the morning. How is that for being NOT so politically correct?! It is this kind of thinking (Duh!) and fuzzy/wuzzy feel good policies and 'thought' that have ruined this COUNTRY in my not so humble opinion. You have women and men who teach their children along with the public fool system to be COWARDS in their daily lives with ALL things! Objects and people - oh my, gasp, it is a G U N. Run for the hills! NOT!

Disclaimer: NO offense - there - does that make you feel better now?

Catherine

[Catherine]

PS:

I had a bunch of posts on THR (Here and there.) about open carry and I am too tired to put up the links now.

I know that many of us discussed this all over the board. PRO OC and pro only CC - some people really dislike OC even in the states where it is 'allowed'!

Catherine
Pro Open Carry Lady

[kornesque]

Visit opencarry.org forums.

For those who have already shunned the concept of OC, it will come across as a throng of gun-totin yeehaws who want to be cowboys. OK, maybe not that, but...

I forget how I found it, and had honestly never even considered the thought of it. Not saying I was swayed in the other direction by reading around on there, but my ignorance was quickly displaced.

Most responsible gun owners will feel awkward about the possibility of making those around them nervous by OC'ing. Natural I say, human nature that we care about others feelings right off the bat. I saw some merit in it and went out openly armed one day, Walmart, gas, normal errands. And I WAS approached by a couple people, one who was genuinely interested in the idea, and one who was as cliche an anti as could be. After only a few minutes of respectful conversation with them, both walked away seemingly satisfied with the fact that I was simply a person exercising my right to defend myself. THAT felt priceless.

The "Guns=crime" mindset is out there, rampant, and I saw it. I'm not saying it's our job to educate the public, or at least desensitize them to the sight of a firearm. I'm just saying that nobody else is going to do it. The fact that the majority of people out there will vote anti-gun because of their ignorance and exposure to directional media really irks me.

I support open carry, and exercise my right to do so when the law allows. I dress "respectably", present myself confidently, and interact with others respectfully. AND NOBODY MINDS ME! As an aside, one day I tried dressing in crummy jeans, t-shirt, and slouched and swaggered a bit, and experienced a much different vibe from those around me. Take from that what you will. And finally, when I visit an establishment with a no-gun sign posted, I conceal.

I respect those who prefer to carry concealed exclusively though. It's just sad that some of those who proclaim to be "pro-gun rights" can be so vehemently anti-OC. And that's my side of the story.

Execllent thread, keep the discussion up!

[Treo]

It's been my experience that 90% of the people you encounter (assuming you're not toting a .50 cal, gold anodized , Desert Beagle) won't pay the slightest bit of attention to you. They're too wrapped up in their own thing.

O.C. is normal in Arizona, I don't hear any hue & cry for a ban from there.

O.C. is acceptable in Colorado (excluding PDR Denver) again, no move to ban.

Are people in those states different that they don't freak when they see a gun?

If you won't exercise a right because you're afraid to lose it....
You've lost it

[Kleanbore]

From Treo:

O.C. is normal in Arizona, I don't hear any hue & cry for a ban from there. O.C. is acceptable in Colorado (excluding PDR Denver) again, no move to ban.

Excellent point, and I'm sure you can add Montana, Idaho, and a number ot other areas.

Where I live it's up to individual jurisdictions, and the more populous counties ban open carry. In the others you can carry openly if you have a CCW endorsement or if you are engaged in the lawful taking of game.

Are people in those states different that they don't freak when they see a gun?

They certainly are conditioned differently. Remember Mayor Daley's rant after Heller?

If you won't exercise a right because you're afraid to lose it....
You've lost it

I don't know what you mean by that, but I can tell you that if open carry were legal where I live and many people were to exercise that right, they would soon lose it. History shows that. Open carry was once legal in most places. Then the populace decided it wasn't what they wanted.

The city council where I live recently passed something banning open carry (unnecessary; already covered by the county) and concealed carry (illegal--state preemption). Many of the people around here despise guns and, I think, the people who want to have them. One cannot reason with them.


I like the idea of open carry in less populated areas--even within the populous counties. Allows a larger frame and longer barrel and provides more dress options. Before CC was permitted here one was really vulnerable when alone in the country.

[Treo]

History shows that. Open carry was once legal in most places. Then the populace decided it wasn't what they wanted.

Open carry's been legal where I live since 1876

They certainly are conditioned differently.

You just proved my point. If they're conditioned to one thing they can be acclimated to something else by seeing normal people going about their normal business while lawfully armed.

I don't know what you mean by that

I mean that if fear causes you not to exercise a right then you don't really have that right anyway