NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: MissMichella on May 23, 2013, 08:44:15 PM
-
Hello Patriots.
I'm new here, so I'm not really in tune with the forum culture...but as I was skimming over the forum, I wondered why there appeared to be such a negative view on open carry? I don't mean to open a can of worms...just curious.
FYI: I open carry. Not that I have a problem with CCW or anything. I've never had a problem carrying my firearm visibly here in Lincoln, and I think it's really great as far as public awareness and education goes...but I'd like to gain a better understanding on why some feel so strongly about the subject.
-
Welcome to the forum MissMichella.
I could be mistaken, but I`m not so sure if it is a negative view rather than more of a `just not for me` issue.
I have open carried before when I lived in AZ, but then only when headed out of town to remote 4 wheeling (OK and a little partying) areas.
I say if a person chooses to open carry, and they do so in a proper manner, then right on, go for it!
I say proper manner due to seeing an individual in a Circle K convenient store (~18 months ago also in Phx. AZ) with what looked like a Desert eagle hanging 3/4 out of his back pocket ???
-
Oh, to maybe help you have a better understanding;
I would rather not have the `attention` drawn to me, that carrying open might bring.
Out of sight, out of mind more or less...element of surprise a little perhaps? IDK
-
Prudent. That word seems to typify the justification of concealed carry over open carry for many people.
Lets say, you have $15,000 cash as the days receipts from your business. Do you open carry it to your bank, or do you conceal carry it to the bank?
Lets say, you have a new puppy. Do you conceal carry him / her to the park, or does open carry work better?
Things that are of no business to anyone else, and only important to me, I keep concealed.
The puppy is really only my business, but I am quick to share cute cuddly things I adopt. Nothing cute and cuddly about a 10mm Glock.
-
Personally, I would rather not have anyone know I'm carrying. I don't want to be a target. I suppose you could make the argument that visibly displaying a gun on your hip is a deterrent, but you're also drawing unwanted attention.
-
You are open carrying, say in a park, walking your new puppy. Strangers approach to pet the dog and ask directions. They look nice, so you watch them, but let them approach. Who does not want to pet a puppy? In a split second, their real motive for walking up to you is known. They just robbed a bank, and the bag they have is bank cash. They have one gun, and two robbers looking to carjack a ride. They were looking for a car, when they spotted your gun on your hip. One robber with a concealled gun, being bold, walks up asking to pet your puppy, and ask you where the bus stop is. When you raise your hand to point to the bus stop, the robber takes his gun, and plants a bullet in your temple. Killing you instantly. The other guy grabs your gun, and now they have two guns, and walk on, still looking for a vehicle.
If you had your weapon concealed, your puppy would still have a best friend.
-
I might find a 10mm Glock to be cute an cuddly.
-
There's two issues you're prolly seeing.
A) Open carry is not for me.
B) Open carry at an event or similar to reinforce 2A rights etc is possibly the wrong way to go about things.
For (A) - to each their own. Whatever. I plan on eventually starting to open carry every so often, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
For (B) - an open carry event can both be great and bad.
Concerning that one guy's planned march into DC with a bunch of folks open carrying... that's just a bad idea. Too many things can go wrong and make the situation nasty - let alone what it might be do for the 'cause' he's trying to bolster. It's a highly publicized event... one ****tard, drunk, someone with a bad agenda, or someone willing to 'martyr' for the other side can turn that march into a catastrophe.
Concerning an open carry event locally, this kind of ties in with (A) a bit. Public perception and other stuff is a bit taught at the moment... and some feel it might not be the correct time for such a thing. Personally, I like the idea of a some other charity event (PD/FD softball game or something) that has open carry as it's subtitle.
-
MissMichella, not by ANY Means trying to steer you away from NFOA, because the more active members here the better..but
I also frequent another forum and recall a member there mentioning a site: opencarry.org
Just thought you might enjoy discussions there as well.
-
Wow. The robber-puppy story was SAD!
I understand the idea of not wanting to be a target. I also think that there are countless scenarios that could justify one method over the other. I don't think a lot of potential criminals are going to report out that they were going to commit a crime, but decided not to because they saw someone carrying. I suppose there is no way to know how many crimes were prevented by open carrying, and how many people were victims due to open carrying.
I've been advocating open carry for public awareness on the constitution, education, exercising rights, prevention of crime...blah, blah blah. However, I also am a small female, usually dressed up for work, and carting around a toddler. Not a lot of people appear to even notice I'm armed. I don't think I could conceal my gun on my person without being extremely obvious. Unless I put it in my purse...which is full of other crap.
I'm a pretty big advocate of gun rights...but I don't think I know enough about the pros and cons of open vs. concealed to make a big stand, so I really appreciate the insight.
P.S. Glocks are always cuddly.
-
I don't think I could conceal my gun on my person without being extremely obvious.
You'd be surprised. I'm a fairly thin guy (ok, I drank too much beer this winter and didn't exercise enough so not as thin as I used to be) and I can easily conceal a full size CZ 75. It's all a matter of having the right clothing and the right holster. I do think guys may have a little bit of an advantage there because our shoulders tend to be wider than our hips, which helps a shirt drape over the gun.
When I go running I wear this holster with an airweight S&W .38 Special and even with running shorts and a t-shirt it's invisible.
http://www.pistolwear.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=ia1321496070781 (http://www.pistolwear.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=ia1321496070781)
-
Yeah..I liked the concealed carry your cash vs open carry to the bank example far better than the puppy bank robber scenario...I mean what kind of bank robbers rob a bank with no getaway car and a cache of weapons :laugh:
-
Beer padding was necessary for this winter. So. Cold.
I carry a blocky cocky Glock 9mm...which I have no idea where I would put to conceal. I also can't pull off baggy clothing...without looking pretty ghetto. Maybe in the hair? Hm...
Thanks, Hank! I'll have to check it out.
unfy, I just started open carrying, though I've had my gun for awhile...it's been kind of neat. Most people don't even notice, but the few that do have been really nice and ask some pretty great questions. I'm all about public awareness for issues. It's the lobbyist coming out!
-
I have seen too many articles of individuals carrying open and ultimately robbed of their firearm. A firearm openly displayed on your person is similar to having several hundred dollars paper clipped to your pants. Someone is going to notice and plan to convert the property. Seems to defeat a purpose.
Guy with the gun robbed of his gun, because he had one. Was the robber afraid? Don't think so. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY#ws)
-
Yeah..I liked the concealed carry your cash vs open carry to the bank example far better than the puppy bank robber scenario...I mean what kind of bank robbers rob a bank with no getaway car and a cache of weapons :laugh:
The head shot and you are dead, happened recently, different circumstances, but the gist was the same. The MIT police officer, killed by the Boston Bombers. That is where I got the factoids from, to make a point. If someone would have the balls to walk up to a police officer, and do that, running away from a public bombing, anything is possible.
-
Hello there MissMichella! You are right! Here and most of the rest of the state have a huge open carry is scary thought process. I open carry all the time and have only had one issue in years because of it and it was from an uneducated cop.
Please dont buy into the whole to open carry you must be preppy, clean cut image thing that some people like to throw about. We are a modern world and the looks have changed since the bobby socks and poodle skirts went out of style.
Also I have been able to educate far more of Joe Public by open carrying my firearm than I ever could have by hiding because of ....dont want no trouble here...no unwanted attention.....but what if.....speculations and its akin to like how I have neck tattoos, I have more old people, kids and soccer moms approach my "scary looking ass" just to talk up a storm about, OH did that hurt etc etc
By the way welcome to the forum! And also if you think open carry is frowned upon, wait to see you how scared people are of police officers here ;)
-
Welcome to the forum, it can be addictive.
Personally, I would rather not have anyone know I'm carrying. I don't want to be a target. I suppose you could make the argument that visibly displaying a gun on your hip is a deterrent, but you're also drawing unwanted attention.
Pretty much my feelings. I conceal carry a Glock 17, (nice tiny little cuddly thing). :laugh:
-
The Columbus Chief o' Police has stated that anyone open carrying in Columbus will be "detained and questioned." Whatever that amounts to, I don't know, but you have been warned. :)
I can see the educational part of it, but I can also see it panicking the sheep as well. Furthermore, I believe it gives an opportunity for someone who dislikes "those damn NRA types" to call in a "man with a gun" call and jazz it up a little maybe. And last but not least, I believe concealed gives me an advantage and more flexibility should I ever find myself in a bad situation.
So I go concealed.
-
interesting about the Columbus police chief.
-
Welcome MissMichella to the boards. My niece conceal carry's everyday and one way is with the Flashbang holster. I don't open carry myself, but do conceal carry. I'm about 6' and 250 or so, (yeah, forgot to do the sit ups for awhile) and use a fanny pack to carry. The pack so beat up nobody ever knows. Yes Glocks are extremely cuddly, specially my G23 which is the carry gun. Here is the Flashbang website and video. Might have to get a different firearm though.
http://flashbangholsters.publishpath.com/ (http://flashbangholsters.publishpath.com/)
FLASHBANG BRA HOLSTER as seen on NCIS:LA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TGGEYhPnM#ws)
Again, welcome to the boards.
-
I'm liking this friendly discussion on this topic. As most would say I'm in the concealed is generally better group, but I also open carry at times. Saying that it is not always appropriate, nor is concealed always convenient or even doable.
I do have strong feelings on the open carry protests, though with proper planning and goals they can be usefull.
-
There's definitely a time and place for it.
I agree with Andy about the OC protests. Done right, an event like a barbeque could be a great PR move. Some of the more in your face protests are counterproductive, though. Look what happened in California.
-
Thanks for all the opinions and nice welcomes!
I've heard some of the horror stories about having your gun taken by a criminal. I might be overestimating myself, but I tend to be pretty aware of my surroundings, and I hopefully would be able to avoid having my firearm yoinked.
I also think there's no way to know how many crimes were not committed due to the potential offender noticing someone was holding. It's not like someone would call in a report on that...well...maybe. Haha.
I suppose it's more of a grey area than I originally thought...pros and cons-wise. I can see good points on both lines of thought.
Generally, when I open carry, I've just finished working and am usually dressed up. Most people that have talked to me think that I'm some sort of law enforcement if anyone even notices I'm holding. A pencil skirt and button up wouldn't hide my Glock well! I haven't had anyone panic on me before, but we shall see. I guess my intimidation factor is lacking.
Lmbass14, I've seen those bra holsters before! Pretty neat. I'd definitely have to get a smaller firearm...much smaller. Haha.
Good to know about Columbus...I'm tempted to call him up and clarify his issue with it.
-
I concur with the right time and place...plus the attitude when you're carrying. A little common sense goes a long way.
-
Hello Patriots.
I'm new here, so I'm not really in tune with the forum culture...but as I was skimming over the forum, I wondered why there appeared to be such a negative view on open carry? I don't mean to open a can of worms...just curious.
FYI: I open carry. Not that I have a problem with CCW or anything. I've never had a problem carrying my firearm visibly here in Lincoln, and I think it's really great as far as public awareness and education goes...but I'd like to gain a better understanding on why some feel so strongly about the subject.
Welcome and good comments. I just had a discussion this morning with a friend and fellow gun owner over coffee. I salute you for being willing to open carry. I just don't want the inevitable hassle that would occur if I decided to go about my daily business with an openly displayed sidearm. I salute you for your willingness to do it, but I have no doubt that if I tried to run into the supermarket or Jimmy Johns for a sandwich, someone would be dialing 911 to report a man with a gun.
-
Welcome to the forums! Your mentality about your rights and your opening statement of "hello fellow patriots" gave me a nice grin. I did try to get a feel from the other members of the NFOA doing an open carry/pro-2a gathering, basically a barbecue and it was not received well. I am new to being a handgun owner and have still not received my CCW but I open carry quite often at my home and around my neighborhood, unfortunately my job stricly forbids us from carrying in company vehicles and on company property. I believe some of the issues with the whole open carry thing are from a lack of that being observed more regularly here locally. From a tactical perspective most believe that CCW is more advatageous while I would have to agree to the tactical aspect as an open carry supporter the positives gained as far as education and the sheepdog mentality your portray as an open carrier are also very positive.
Once again welcome and great post!
-
Most people that have talked to me think that I'm some sort of law enforcement
I believe that most people would be willing to overlook or ignore a woman carrying open than a man, because women are considered to be violent people, and "everyone knows" that men have too much testosterone.
BTW, there's enough progesterone in animal products today that many men could use the Flashbang to conceal their weapon! :laugh: :laugh: :o
Welcome to the forum. It's a fun place with LOTS of good info.
I'm in the "keep it concealed" crowd. Carrying open gives away the greatest advantage you have: surprise. If you walk by someone who noticed your weapon and they decide to take it you'll be hit in the jaw with a blindside punch that would ring your bell or put your lights out. Or, they'd use a club or knucks or a brick, or what ever. The force of the blow could be enough to cause brain damage.
There are many, many cases of guns being taken away from LEOs and used against them or other citizens.
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/ (http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/)
Then, there is this joke headline, after it was revealed that the NY gun laws forbid law officers from carrying guns:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/54119/nypd-takes-guns-away-from-officers/ (http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/54119/nypd-takes-guns-away-from-officers/)
-
BTW, there's enough progesterone in animal products today that many men could use the Flashbang to conceal their weapon! :laugh: :laugh: :o
That must be my problem...I'm a flexitarian, so I suppose I'll have to gut a few more NE steaks before I can use the Flashbang...bahaha.
I'm sure you guys are right, females probably are hassled less when open carrying...and no one wants to be hassled while out and about. I guess as of now I'd rather open carry for several reasons. First, because I don't really want the element of surprise after a crime has already started happening. I'd rather deter a crime before it happens. I prefer not having to use my weapon against another human being, and if I concealed it I feel like it would be more likely I'd have to because the criminal wouldn't know I had that sort of ability to defend myself. If something happened someday where I would need to draw my firearm, then I would want the quickest possible access to my gun. For me personally, to conceal my gun would be kind of difficult, and prevent easy access. Lastly, each time I've had interactions with people while OC, I'm able to show them that I'm a good responsible person who happens to legally carry a weapon. I think it makes most people more comfortable since so many negative connotations are associated with firearms.
I do still think there's a time and place for everything...and I'm not going to be an ass because it's my legal right... :) I probably won't OC to the toddler church programs my kid likes to go to.
-
If something happened someday where I would need to draw my firearm, then I would want the quickest possible access to my gun.
Here's a suggestion: get your CHP and carry a small concealed weapon in your Flashbang and pack your open carry too. You'll have both kinds of deterents: you are obviously armed, but if someone happens to engage you before you can draw it they won't be suspecting your ace in the hole.
-
I have open carried for several years, so you are not alone I just leave it locked in the truck if I go somewhere people would freak. Always have one holstered between the seat and console of my truck. I have had one cop that I have had an issue with and that story is in this section (stopped by state patrol) we need more people to open carry! To get it normalized so as not to freak people out. As far as being a target well you better go buy a lotto ticket about the same odds. And the you tube clip of the by who's gun was taken is like the CC classroom project by ABC all made up and fake (IMO)
-
the CC classroom project by ABC all made up and fake
Staged for sure. Flying into the face of proven facts by lying, they ignored the 1 to 2 million defensive uses of guns each year. You will rarely see one of these stories in the MNM unless it can be twisted to fit their anti-2nd Amendment agenda.
Here are two on the defensive use of guns:
http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu (http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu)
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/30/examples-of-armed-self-defense/ (http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/30/examples-of-armed-self-defense/)
and one chronicling home invasions:
http://www.reddit.com/r/homeinvasion (http://www.reddit.com/r/homeinvasion)
-
I'm sure you guys are right, females probably are hassled less when open carrying...and no one wants to be hassled while out and about. I guess as of now I'd rather open carry for several reasons. First, because I don't really want the element of surprise after a crime has already started happening. I'd rather deter a crime before it happens. I prefer not having to use my weapon against another human being, and if I concealed it I feel like it would be more likely I'd have to because the criminal wouldn't know I had that sort of ability to defend myself. If something happened someday where I would need to draw my firearm, then I would want the quickest possible access to my gun. For me personally, to conceal my gun would be kind of difficult, and prevent easy access. Lastly, each time I've had interactions with people while OC, I'm able to show them that I'm a good responsible person who happens to legally carry a weapon. I think it makes most people more comfortable since so many negative connotations are associated with firearms.
Just a couple of things to think about, since you asked for opinions... :)
1) I have yet to see any reliable research data showing that criminals are deterred by open carry. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but unlike the fact that there is research showing that criminals are deterred by areas with potentially large number of concealed carry folks, I haven't seen any showing that criminals (upon seeing open carry) are deterred. I have, however, read a number of specific cases (note: those count as anecdotes, not evidence) in which open carry folks were specifically targeted for their guns.
So: I personally have ever seen any research on any particular deterrence effect of open carry. Do you know of some?
2) If someone decides to indeed commit a crime and they see you open-carrying, you are now a priority target for serious attack, as they have to make certain that you are unable to respond. This can be done in several ways: A) make you unable to do anything through direct attack, or B) take your weapon.
Which brings up the question: As someone open-carrying, are you using a retention holster that will actually keep the gun under a determined grab attempt? Preferably one in which the retention release cannot be easily activated by the attacker? (In my opinion, anyone who is open carrying should be using a holster with active retention, and also in my personal opinion, it should be similar in type to the Safariland ALS system, and NOT a SERPA holster.)
If you are open-carrying, you have to have a heightened awareness of people around you and their relative distances---because if you ARE going to be attacked, it will be at a significantly higher level than if you weren't open carrying. (And you also have practiced empty-hand defensive techniques, to stop people at close-range long enough to access your handgun, yes? While keeping them from obtaining your handgun?)
3) Concealment and access----it is certainly true that open carry is faster than concealed carry. HOWEVER, that being said, the difference really should be quite small. It possibly be even equivalent, if the person doesn't practice much with their retention holster. Active retention is slightly slower than passive retention, and an open-but active holster just isn't going to be that much different in speed than a concealed-but-passive holster. Again, that's just my opinion, but my speed from an open competition holster averages at 1.0 second to an A hit at 7 yards, and my speed from an Archangel AIWB concealed holster averages about 1.4. Half a second can be a long time, true---but I know that my speed from a standard belt holster with ALS (suitable for open carry) is NOT 1.0 seconds.
Also with regard to concealment---I think you might be surprised at what you can conceal comfortably. A young lady of my acquaintance conceals a G19 for most of the year (and no, she isn't large) without resorting to tent clothing, and when it is extremely hot, she moves to a Kahr K-9. Another female friend of mine carries a G26 all year with no issues. In neither case do they have to go with baggy clothing to hide their firearms, and in both cases they comfortably carry all the time.
For most people, CCW is a function of finding the right holster/carry method combination. I know a LOT of people who conceal a tiny, tiny handgun because they say anything larger just won't conceal---and yet after trying a couple of different methods, have changed their mind.
I and my wife even offer a class in CCW where we pour out a bucket of different holster types so that people can try different methods. :)
Anyway---I think you'd be surprised what you can conceal.
4) I'm glad that OC has worked well for you in terms of positive interactions with people. As others have said, I'm sure that being female has actually made a difference in that, and if you have been able to shed a positive light on firearms and carry, that's excellent!
As many people have said here---most people do not find that to be the normal reaction, particularly in cities. (In rural areas, tends to be different.) If OC-ing in Omaha, most people would end up having time-consuming discussions with local police officers, including potentially be proned out and handcuffed during said discussions. (I wish I was exaggerating, but that comes directly from the OPD facebook page awhile ago, in which they admitted that given a call that someone was walking done the street with a holstered firearm, they would respond and potentially prone out, disarm, and cuff the person until they could establish that said person was legal. Which is interesting, because walking down the street with a firearm openly carried is completely legal, and when that was pointed out to them, they said "for the officer's safety, this may potentially occur.")
It would indeed be nice if people understood that OC is legal, and nothing to be particularly worried about, and indeed, the more it occurs, the more people might eventually come to relax about it. That being said, as people have pointed out, a number of people OC to make a scene and "make a point" which rather hurts the cause instead.
I personally have nothing against OC-ing. That being said, I'd never by choice OC in a place in which people not my close friends would see, or which was not on land owned by myself. In my opinion, I don't want criminals to know I'm carrying (both for the element of surprise, and also because I don't wish to be a priority target), and I simply don't have time for the hassle if some idiot calls the cops who respond to a "man with a gun!" call without further explanation.
If it is working for you---then go with it! However, from a self-defense perspective, be careful that you don't mistake "it hasn't happened to me" with "it won't happen to me because I have a gun."
YMMV, of course. :)
-
I would OC more often if I did not live in Omaha. I see many "gung-ho" officers in this town. I have even been harassed by some for a simple traffic stop.
I personally would open carry in smaller/rural areas. My number one reason for not open carrying is the Omaha Police Dept. & that there is a city ordinance that prohibits open carry.
I understand that those with a CHP are allowed to open carry but I wouldn't bother risking it.
-
I like to open carry in Omaha when:
* I'm traveling from my residence to visit friends, family or the gun store.
* It's evening/night
I'm not as likely to run into a crowd of people that will be frightened. It's easy to obstruct the view of the firearm when only crossing paths with one or two people. I'm always in a heightened sense of awareness at night when I'm out and about, so having my pistol more accessible is nice.
-
As to deter crime, one person open carry makes you the person they eliminate first, it makes you a suspect with the general public and the police. 20 people open cary is a visual deterrent.
-
I really appreciate everyone's replies, opinions, and experiences. I'm kind of a nerd about information collecting when I get stuck on a topic...and the first-hand stuff is fantastic. I was super motivated last night and blogged about it. www.thesnarkyowl.blogspot.com (http://thesnarkyowl.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-i-open-carry.html) :)
Overall, whether someone conceals or open carries, I'm just glad that there are responsible people doing it. Levels the playing field, right?
Just a couple of things to think about, since you asked for opinions... :)
1) I have yet to see any reliable research data showing that criminals are deterred by open carry. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but unlike the fact that there is research showing that criminals are deterred by areas with potentially large number of concealed carry folks, I haven't seen any showing that criminals (upon seeing open carry) are deterred. I have, however, read a number of specific cases (note: those count as anecdotes, not evidence) in which open carry folks were specifically targeted for their guns.
So: I personally have ever seen any research on any particular deterrence effect of open carry. Do you know of some?
I like opinions! I could be wrong, but I have a theory on the lack of data showing criminals are deterred by someone open carrying. The data and focus group of this kind of statistical analysis would be difficult to identify and obtain. I highly doubt that a potential offender would report out that they were going to commit a violent crime but chose not to due to seeing someone open carrying. However, from my interactions with a more...ahem...unsavory sort of people, I do know that most of them have a plan set in place before they set out to commit a crime. When there is someone present who is armed, it adds a variable, and most of them wish to carry out their crime without having to factor in that sort of variable. I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't exceptions, but I OC for the most likely situation I might face. I think most potential criminals will choose the easiest target, and with OC, it's clear that I am not. I haven't heard many stories of open carriers being the first to be targeted, but I concur that it could be possible...but not highly likely unless the planned crime was murder. I assume the risk of a murder charge and manhunt would dissuade most criminals who were only planning a robbery or mugging.
You make a lot of great points though. I will have to look into other holster options...mine is not active retention. I own a Glock 19 Gen4...and I have no idea how I would be able to conceal it without putting it in my purse or waddling around with it strapped to my leg. I do have a heightened awareness about people, situations, and space when I carry, though I think most females do even when they aren't! Can't be too careful about the creepers. Haha!
I understand the problem open carrying in Omaha. I work with law enforcement frequently, and I've had some discussions about the city ordinance issue. A lot of the more seasoned officers say that they don't generally stop people who are open carrying because even if they don't have their CHP, the charges usually fall through in court, but that's all hearsay, and I wouldn't risk it.
I think open carry should be done respectfully and responsibly...definitely in a subtle way. It bothers me when people OC to make a scene or have a huge attitude about it because it sheds a negative light on all of us. I OC mostly in Lincoln, though I have in some of the smaller communities in Nebraska and Missouri as well. So far I haven't run into any huge negative reactions, but only time will tell. I recently noticed that when I OC, I unconsciously smile at people more...no more frowning in line at the grocery store!
One last thing...yes, I'm long-winded...A lot of you mentioned the element of surprise that CC gives. I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic. It seems to be more of an offensive move. Honestly, the last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon on another human being. For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place. If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible. That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm. That all being said...I have no problem with those who choose to CC. I think the best option is whatever you are most comfortable with.
-
One last thing...yes, I'm long-winded...A lot of you mentioned the element of surprise that CC gives. I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic. It seems to be more of an offensive move.
The surprise is in bringing your firearm into action against a hopefully flat footed assailant - thus saving your life (or family's, etc).
ie:
They've made their intent clear.
You have been dismissed as not being a threat / providing resistance.
You draw your weapon and defend yourself, thus the surprise.
Another way of thinking about it - a counter punch when not expected, or in military terms, a surprise / flaked counter attack.
.... not so much as a 'PEKE AH BUH I R FIGYLANDY!' hehe :)
-
Nice civil discussion of a sometimes divisive topic.
Michelle, here's a video of a fairly slender woman in fairly form-fitting clothing carrying concealed in a CrossBreed SuperTuck (my IWB holster of choice): Crossbreed Supertuck IWB holster (female review & demo) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3oPw1WCYpU#)
In my opinion, if that young lady can carry concealed in those jeans under that "blouse" ... pretty much anyone can carry concealed.
Personally, I mostly carry concealed but occasionally open carry when I feel the circumstances are right, e.g. hunting, hiking, working on the farm, etc. (typically relatively unpopulated areas). Open carrying in a populated area without a retention holster would definitely make me nervous. Then again, I'm kind of a "nervous" person to begin with. I tend to be a little jumpy with my head on a swivel. I'd rate my situational awareness about 100X the average individual - maybe more.
-
Okay...did a little checking because I realized I didn't quite know what active vs. passive retention entailed. Apparently I do carry in an active retention holster (at least according to what I googled). Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
-
The surprise is in bringing your firearm into action against a hopefully flat footed assailant - thus saving your life (or family's, etc).
ie:
They've made their intent clear.
You have been dismissed as not being a threat / providing resistance.
You draw your weapon and defend yourself, thus the surprise.
Another way of thinking about it - a counter punch when not expected, or in military terms, a surprise / flaked counter attack.
.... not so much as a 'PEKE AH BUH I R FIGYLANDY!' hehe :)
Putting things into military terms, there is clearly a school of thought that promotes OC. While CC can obviously be equated to the ability for a surprise counterattack, OC can serve as a deterrent. I think that's the point Michella is making when she points out that no stats exist to estimate the number of acts by BG's were put off by the presence of a firearm.
It's often referred to as the paradox of deterrence. "We spent all this money on xxx (weapons, guards, surveillance, etc) and we've never had an incident so maybe we don't need all that stuff!" In fact, it may be the presence of all the stuff that deterred the BG from acting. Ultimately we'll never know.
For me, open carry brings the risks of hassle that I don't want. I find that sad for a right enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but I also don't have the motivation to be a martyr for the cause. None the less, if OC gives someone peace of mind, then go for it. I find compelling arguments for either method.
-
~~ snip ~~
One last thing...yes, I'm long-winded...A lot of you mentioned the element of surprise that CC gives. I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic. It seems to be more of an offensive move. Honestly, the last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon on another human being. For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place. If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible. That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm. That all being said...I have no problem with those who choose to CC. I think the best option is whatever you are most comfortable with.
I think that part in bold is very true, and probably the reason most(99% maybe?) Law Enforcement OPEN CARRIES their primary weapons.
I fully support you in open carrying, and wish more people would. It is YOUR RIGHT, exercise it!!
-
I think that part in bold is very true, and probably the reason most(99% maybe?) Law Enforcement OPEN CARRIES their primary weapons.
I'm think they open carry because since they are a uniformed cop, it doesn't help them at all to carry concealed. It isn't like people won't be able to tell they are a cop...
I also note here that law enforcement types tend to have to fight over their weapons a lot.
My comment about there being no data on the deterrence effect of OC, is that there IS data on the deterrence effect of CC. And if we are able to get data on one, we are able to get data on the other. More precisely, if you accept the research that says that increased CC can have a deterrence effect, then you have to accept that OC can be researched in a similar fashion.
I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic. It seems to be more of an offensive move. Honestly, the last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon on another human being. For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place. If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible. That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm.
Surprise is an offensive move. But then again, no matter what anyone says, a handgun is not a defensive weapon (it has no defensive capabilities--it does not block, shield, or protect against a physical attack) it is an offensive weapon. If you ever have to use it for your defense, you will have to use it in an offensive fashion---and having surprise on your side will be a significant helpful factor.
Here's something to think about. You say "For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place. If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. "
If a criminal acts and you think you've lost---then your mental outlook is going to hinder your effective action.
You say: "The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible. That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm. "
And that makes perfect sense. An important thing to remember, however, is that the criminal knows you are carrying, and that is not sufficient to stop them---which means that he believes that either you cannot threaten him for some situational reason, or that he will take care of you first. Hence my earlier comment about empty-hand training and retention holsters (quality ones).
This phrase: "For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place." ---seems to assume that it is an either/or situation. And it also seems to assume that having the gun in the open will stop it from happening. (We can indeed assume that a concealed weapon will give you the help of "surprise" as long as you can react in time. The "reacting in time" part is just like it is for OC, so in the case of CC, you'll have surprise on your side assuming all else is equal.)
I just haven't read any information about OC actually being a deterrence, other than when it is on a police officer's hip. I'm sure that there have been cases in which it was---but I just don't know how often it makes a difference.
It would be nice to have some research on it.
I also would be happy if OC was more common, and commonly accepted. It currently isn't, though, which is too bad.
I will note that I'm pretty much in agreement with this statement:
As for deterring crime, one person open carrying makes you the person they eliminate first, and makes you a suspect with the general public and the police. 20 people open carrying is a visual deterrent.
...none of which changes the fact that if you are comfortable carrying OC, and prefer to do so, then it is most certainly your choice, and you should do what you want. :)
-
I think the real advantage of CCW over Open Carry is that even if only 1-2% of the population ever actually carry concealed, the criminal element does not know who is armed and therefore forced to change tactics or locations to find easier targets.
So, the effective crime deterrent for CCW is much higher than the real number of permit holders, while Open Carry is limited the actual number of visibly armed persons and locations
-
I also note here that law enforcement types tend to have to fight over their weapons a lot.
I'm going to rely on my memory for this but, IIRC, over the 10 years between 1999 and 2010 about 51 officers were killed with their own weapons, and 104 officers had their weapons stolen.
-
Well, I don't know about all of you, but I'm enjoying all the different perspectives and experiences on this subject. There's obviously a lot of thought put into what particular method of carry you've all chosen, which I think is important.
My comment about there being no data on the deterrence effect of OC, is that there IS data on the deterrence effect of CC. And if we are able to get data on one, we are able to get data on the other. More precisely, if you accept the research that says that increased CC can have a deterrence effect, then you have to accept that OC can be researched in a similar fashion.
Do you happen to know where I could find this data? I'd be interested in checking it out! :) Personally, I have a hard time seeing statistics as being purely black and white. There's so many variables that can't or aren't factored into the outcome of studies. I'm curious how they collected the information on CC deterrence.
As far as OC deterrence data goes, I still feel like this would be pretty hard to track as most criminals aren't going to admit to a crime they haven't committed...but if they can track CC deterrence, it seems logical they could do the same for OC.
Surprise is an offensive move. But then again, no matter what anyone says, a handgun is not a defensive weapon (it has no defensive capabilities--it does not block, shield, or protect against a physical attack) it is an offensive weapon. If you ever have to use it for your defense, you will have to use it in an offensive fashion---and having surprise on your side will be a significant helpful factor.
I think you're right...if someone has to use their weapon, it would be in an offensive manner. I'm still mulling over whether gaining the element of surprise is worth the loss of the crime/attack never happening because the offender saw you were armed. I suppose I should do some more reading on the subject because a lot of my opinion stems from what I think is logical, but from my experience, most criminals planning to commit a crime would rather have an easy target. If they can see I'm armed, the risk starts to outweigh the benefit. It seems that OC would be a big deterrence for the types of crimes I am most likely to face...but I don't (always) think like a criminal. :) Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. If the potential criminal has seen that I'm open carrying, and decides to go for it anyways, then I think I personally would at least have a faster draw if I wasn't concealing. I hope I never have to test my theory.
If a criminal acts and you think you've lost---then your mental outlook is going to hinder your effective action.
I don't think I put this quite right...it made better sense in my head! Let me explain what I meant...
Every time I wear my weapon out and about, I feel like I'm taking on a huge responsibility. I never want to have to use my weapon against another person, but I'm making the decision each time I carry that if deadly force was required, I would act. I think that anytime a person is placed in a defensive position they lose, it's only the amount of loss that varies. It could be as little as being shaken up by the situation or as big as losing their life, but in the end there is an impact on someone when they must defend themselves.
If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is empty-hand training?
I guess I feel that carrying concealed makes you more likely to need to use a firearm since your attacker doesn't know if you can defend yourself or not...and I would prefer to not have to get this far into a situation. But, like I said before, I'm not thoroughly educated on the subject.
Anyways, you all make some really good points. Definitely food for thought. You all have given me lots to think about.
-
Do you happen to know where I could find this data? I'd be interested in checking it out!
Read.... More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott
-
Here's a couple of recent links for folks to look at, regarding this topic:
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/02/open-carry-myths-misconceptions/ (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/02/open-carry-myths-misconceptions/)
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/09/open-carry-myths-misconceptions-2/ (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/09/open-carry-myths-misconceptions-2/)
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/16/open-carry-doing-it-right/ (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/16/open-carry-doing-it-right/)
In particular, in response to MissMichella's question:
If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is empty-hand training?
As the articles discuss---it is indeed true that perhaps some criminals might be deterred by your open carry. But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon. As such, if someone is open-carrying (particularly if that someone is using a passive-retention holster, or a cheap holster that breaks easily), that person should know the basics of empty-hand self-defense (weaponless self-defense training), and have practiced weapons retention techniques.
If you don't, or haven't---then you are a walking "free gun" to a criminal who has decided to go ahead and attack anyway.
I don't know anyone who can maintain situational awareness all the time. I know people who try, including quite a number who have had specific training on doing so. And yet---they will all admit that they simply can't do it all the time.
One of the reasons that the trained people I know tend to overwhelmingly choose concealed carry is that they aren't worried about deterring the small-time criminals, because there are plenty of other techniques and skills that can handle those. More serious criminals, however, won't be deterred by simply seeing someone with a firearm, and being a target and a free gun isn't what those people want to be---and they know that no one has perfect situational awareness.
Again, this isn't telling you that you shouldn't open carry--I support your right to carry any way you like.
However, that being said, my personal opinion (so give that whatever weight it deserves) is that open carry won't stop anyone that I'd actually be seriously worried about, and it will mean that in a situation in which I'm open carrying my attacker will already have a plan to neutralize either myself or my weapon--which increases the danger level to me quite seriously.
And that's coming from the perspective of someone who has practiced martial arts for over 20 years, and who has considerable practice at empty-hand self-defense and weapons retention techniques.
-
But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon.
My direct experience with criminals suggests that very few of them have anything resembling a plan. Certainly, some, on the spur of the moment, may grab for a visible firearm. However, I highly doubt that what I would describe as a "run of the mill" criminal gives much, if any, consideration to the questions, "What if I run into an armed citizen? What if that person is openly carrying their firearm?"
Edit: FWIW, I would liken open carry with a retention holster to carrying a "biker wallet" with a chain. Is it truly more enticing to a thief to try to grab a "biker wallet" or a regular wallet?
-
I think the real advantage of CCW over Open Carry is that even if only 1-2% of the population ever actually carry concealed, the criminal element does not know who is armed and therefore forced to change tactics or locations to find easier targets.
So, the effective crime deterrent for CCW is much higher than the real number of permit holders, while Open Carry is limited the actual number of visibly armed persons and locations
And then there are instances like this: http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw (http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw)
-
I said:
But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon.
To which Mudinyeri replied:
My direct experience with criminals suggests that very few of them have anything resembling a plan. Certainly, some, on the spur of the moment, may grab for a visible firearm. However, I highly doubt that what I would describe as a "run of the mill" criminal gives much, if any, consideration to the questions, "What if I run into an armed citizen? What if that person is openly carrying their firearm?"
I think---that you are talking about a different topic.
The criminals I have dealt with in the past (approximately 1600 or so, though it should be noted that most were convicted criminals) almost all fit the following profile: cunning, average range of intelligence, extremely poor impulse control, and an attitude that they were the only important thing in the world--as such, other people, and other people's belongings (everything, really) did not matter compared to their own wants and needs. (I note that the ones who only had personal-use drug charges were a little different.)
Given that---some did indeed plan their crimes. Some were spur-of-the-moment. And some were incredibly monumentally stupid.
But that isn't what I was talking about. I'm not talking about your average criminal, who decides to commit a crime and doesn't notice that you are open carrying a firearm in the place where he is going to do it. For that case, there is no deterrent effect since he didn't see it, and it gives you no real advantage compared to concealed carry since he wasn't paying enough attention to know you had a gun, so he really isn't going to notice a careful draw, either.
I was talking about when a criminal decides to commit a crime, scopes out the area, and notices that you have a gun. Some may be deterred by this. However, the ones who aren't will not simply go ahead with their crime and ignore that you have a gun. They will change what they are doing to deal with you and your gun. Whether that means:
1) They will blindside you when you are taking a soda out of the cooler at the mini-mart as the start of their crime, or
2) They will notice you have a common SERPA holster on your right hip, so they will simply step behind you in line at the grocery store and take it out of your holster with their right hand as the start of their crime, or
3) They will just shoot you first if it is that level of crime...
I don't know which they'll pick. But it is certainly true that if they notice you have a gun and decide to go ahead with their crime---they AREN'T going to ignore you. They'll start their crime with you.
If their crime was a simple mugging, and you were the only victim, then whether or not you have a gun will make a difference to their choice, I'm sure---but it'll also depend on how you carry yourself and how much attention you are paying to what is going on around you. As was posted in the links, some open carry folks were specifically targeted because it was an easy way to get a gun, based on the awareness and general demeanor of the OC person.
If your attacker knows you have a gun, and they still decide to mug you, then that is going to change how serious a situation you have, isn't it?
We aren't talking about criminals who make plans with multiple avenues, redundancies, and alternate tactics in case of issues prior to their crime. We are talking about when you are in a Walgreens and the person casing the place goes back outside and says to his two friends "There's a guy in there with a gun, so Joe, you get behind him in line and when we are ready drop him and get his gun and we'll take the rest of the place."
-
I haven't kept track of the number of convicted criminals with which I've interacted, but I've done jail ministries and youth detention/diversion ministries for years. My guess would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 - 5000 individuals over the years.
Out of that number, I would only use the word cunning to describe a relatively small percentage - maybe 20%. (We may be attaching different connotations to the word.) Generally, I would agree with the rest of your description of the "average" criminal.
If we're talking about "above average" criminals who truly plan their crimes and take the time to scope out the AO ... that's a pretty small percentage in my experience - maybe five or ten percent. Does that fit with your experience?
If so, we're talking about a relatively small chance that the relatively small percentage of the population who open carries interacts with the relatively small percentage of the criminal population who is "above average". I think we can safely say that the odds of an "above average" criminal taking and using an open carrying civilian's firearm and using it against them are lower than the odds of being struck by lightning or dying in a plane crash. Nevertheless, the results will doubtless be catastrophic. As such, it doesn't hurt to give the scenario some consideration - much like one should give consideration to the possibility of being struck by lightning.
Does that mean one should stay inside when the forecast calls for rain or whenever one doesn't carry concealed? Probably not. Then again, I'm not going to tell anyone that they need to open carry. It's a personal decision.
-
If we're talking about "above average" criminals who truly plan their crimes and take the time to scope out the AO ... that's a pretty small percentage in my experience - maybe five or ten percent. Does that fit with your experience?
No, actually. And I don't consider these "above average" criminals, either. Lots of idiots who knock over a mini-mart step inside and look around a bit first. Lots of "area" crimes (as opposed to ones in which they pick one isolated victim) start with a member of the criminal set taking a quick look around.
Again---we aren't talking scoping out the place, going back and creating a floorplan with set tactical choices. Three guys in a car park beside a gas station, one goes in and uses the restroom while taking a look around at how many people are in there, and comes back out. One guy takes the car around to the front and parks it and stays, the other two run in, knock over the place, and run back out, then they drive off.
Doesn't take an above average criminal to do this. I would say that a large number of the criminals I've interacted with would have no problem doing this.
If so, we're talking about a relatively small chance that the relatively small percentage of the population who open carries interacts with the relatively small percentage of the criminal population who is "above average". I think we can safely say that the odds of an "above average" criminal taking and using an open carrying civilian's firearm and using it against them are lower than the odds of being struck by lightning or dying in a plane crash. Nevertheless, the results will doubtless be catastrophic. As such, it doesn't hurt to give the scenario some consideration - much like one should give consideration to the possibility of being struck by lightning.
I think that:
1) In Nebraska, the chances of any particular person needing to use a carried firearm for self-defense purposes is very, very small.
2) That possibility is made even smaller by not doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places.
3) That possibility is made even smaller by maintaining your best awareness of the situation around you, and being smart enough to not engage and just leave when incipient altercations are about to occur.
And yet, plenty of people carry anyway---in other words, they are planning on being prepared for an incredibly low probability event.
And if we are planning on being prepared for a low probability event in the first place, it seems to me that it makes sense to make said preparation the most useful. (For the time and resources being given to it. We don't have unlimited time and money, so not everyone can go take SouthNarc's ECQC course.)
I don't consider criminals who simply look around for a minute before starting their crime as "above average," and I do know that criminals who target individuals may be deterred by the obvious presence of a weapon--but may also instead (based on the individual's actions) consider it a "free gun" depending on the circumstances. And no, I still don't consider those "above average." (Making a decision to blindside someone with a tire iron and take their gun and wallet instead of just threatening them with a knife for their wallet isn't anything incredibly difficult.)
It doesn't take a smart person to hit you. And it doesn't take a genius to decide to hit you first using surprise if you are visibly armed.
I note that I don't believe I ever said "take your gun and use it against you"--and for good reason. Unless you are a police officer (who actually do have their weapons used against them on occasion) that is incredibly rare. This, however, is separate from people potentially being targeted as a primary opponent due to carrying, or having their gun stolen from them.
Point being--given choices that raise or lower your personal risk, I'm thinking that it makes more sense to take the choices that lower your personal risk. Most of us don't carry guns as a fashion statement, we carry as part of our personal risk management plan. In my personal opinion, open carrying doesn't lower my risk at all, and draws unnecessary attention to myself. It also means that in certain specific (highly unlikely, but then again so is needing it in the first place) situations, my risk is highly increased.
Given no upside, and several avenues of potential downsides, it isn't an option I'd choose for normal daily carry.
Does that mean one should stay inside when the forecast calls for rain or whenever one doesn't carry concealed? Probably not. Then again, I'm not going to tell anyone that they need to open carry. It's a personal decision.
I'm not going to tell anyone what type of carry they can do.
And I happen to think that five people open-carrying in a store would be a GREAT deterrent.
Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.
When I win the lottery...
-
In Nebraska, the chances of any particular person needing to use a carried firearm for self-defense purposes is very, very small.
Except if that person is an LEO or retired LEO, or a PI, or as an expert witness helped convict and imprison dangerous people.
-
everyone older than 10 has to take a firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly
Yeah, because the second amendment says you have to have training.
NOT
-
Thanks for all the resources. The more I read about this topic, the more conflicting information and research I've found. :-[
I suppose it's best to carry how you feel most comfortable for the situations you are most likely to face.
And that's coming from the perspective of someone who has practiced martial arts for over 20 years, and who has considerable practice at empty-hand self-defense and weapons retention techniques.
That's an impressive number of years! I kind of thought that's what you meant by empty-hand training. I did Krav years ago, but have recently gotten some informal lessons in self-defense and weapon retention from my military buddies. I hope I never have to test out what I'm learning. :(
I have only heard a few stories of an OC having their weapon taken...on other forums...but I know it's something that could happen. If this situation was the norm it seems like LEO would CC and all be in plain clothes. A criminal COULD target me first because I'm open carrying, but a criminal COULD target a CC because they look like an easy target. There's lots of different situations that COULD happen, so even though it's not perfect, I think situational awareness is something that is very important.
I also interact with convicted felons frequently...and in high numbers...and in my conversations with them on this topic, they overwhelmingly expressed that they would not have committed their crime if there was someone armed present. They wouldn't want the risk of being hurt, stopped, or apprehended. Now, I also haven't spoken to every convict on this matter, and I'm sure that there are some who wouldn't care about taking on the risks or the potential charges associated with murdering someone who was going to get in the way of their plans.
Point being--given choices that raise or lower your personal risk, I'm thinking that it makes more sense to take the choices that lower your personal risk. Most of us don't carry guns as a fashion statement, we carry as part of our personal risk management plan.
This part I agree with completely...except that I would say that if open carry deters a crime from being committed, it would give it an upside. With my past and current job history, my gender, my neighborhood and areas I frequent...etc...I actually have a pretty high probability of experiencing a situation where I would need to defend myself in some way. The situations I've already experienced led to me becoming a gun owner after all! ;D Assault, rape, home invasions, or being robbed are the crimes I could see being the most likely to occur in my life. The criminal element that commits those types of crimes seem logically like the type who would seek out an easier victim rather than taking on the risk of committing their crimes on someone who had a "situation equalizer" handy. But that just would be for me personally, so I can see how it would be different for others.
-
Except if that person is an LEO or retired LEO, or a PI, or as an expert witness helped convict and imprison dangerous people.
Chances are still tiny. Larger than for others, but still tiny.
-
Yeah, because the second amendment says you have to have training.
NOT
You did catch the part about starting a town, which means that people would have to buy the land from me in the first place, which means they knew what they were getting themselves into, right? In other words, by choosing to live there they were choosing the circumstances under which they live? And no one was forced to build themselves a house to be part of the town?
Sheesh.
I'm pretty sure that by now, people have caught on to the fact that of all people, I'm not the person who believes that training should be mandatory before anyone can buy a gun.
I'll also note that my "town ordinance" didn't say anything about how this was necessary before anyone owned a gun---it was necessary to LIVE THERE.
Hey, kinda like Kennesaw, Georgia. And you know what? That seems to be working pretty well.
-
I have only heard a few stories of an OC having their weapon taken...on other forums...but I know it's something that could happen. If this situation was the norm it seems like LEO would CC and all be in plain clothes.
Actually, lots of reports and studies show that LEOs often have to fight to retain their weapons. (And when LEOs are shot, it is sometimes with their own weapon, though I believe this number has decreased as departments have instituted better weapons retention practice, and got themselves better holsters.) This isn't a surprise, as the one thing they have to do in every situation is close with the criminal to cuff them. (This makes their requirements very different from normal citizens.)
If you read about the history of police departments and police work, you'll run into a lot of very good reasons why police departments mostly wear easily recognizable uniforms. :) And given that, there isn't any reason to carry concealed. (At least, not the primary weapon.)
-
Actually, lots of reports and studies show that LEOs often have to fight to retain their weapons. (And when LEOs are shot, it is sometimes with their own weapon, though I believe this number has decreased as departments have instituted better weapons retention practice, and got themselves better holsters.) This isn't a surprise, as the one thing they have to do in every situation is close with the criminal to cuff them. (This makes their requirements very different from normal citizens.)
If you read about the history of police departments and police work, you'll run into a lot of very good reasons why police departments mostly wear easily recognizable uniforms. :) And given that, there isn't any reason to carry concealed. (At least, not the primary weapon.)
You are very correct...and as a side note, in the last few months here in Lincoln attempting to grab a LEO's weapon has become more prevalent. The retention holsters have been changed to a different model in fairly recent years for LPD. I got a demonstration on how they worked a couple days ago and was pretty impressed. However, I don't think a LEO is targeted solely to steal their firearm. If the attack occurred with no provocation, I believe the officer most likely was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. Even more likely of a theory, the officer’s gun was taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody for an unrelated (alleged) rime. If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again? Do they change policy so all LEO must carry concealed? Not that I've seen. I want to prioritize my defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
Okay...I'll stop before I go into straight-up soapbox... :) I'm a newbie, so you all are teaching me. Free education...I love the internet.
-
I'll also note that my "town ordinance" didn't say anything about how this was necessary before anyone owned a gun---it was necessary to LIVE THERE.
So I am guessing said town will be in Canada then? If you start a town in the good 'ol USA you still are subject to the constitution. Requiring training is infringing on 2A. Last I looked, they hadn't removed that part, at least not yet ...
-
However, I don't think a LEO is targeted solely to steal their firearm. If the attack occurred with no provocation, I believe the officer most likely was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. Even more likely of a theory, the officer’s gun was taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody for an unrelated (alleged) rime. If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again? Do they change policy so all LEO must carry concealed? Not that I've seen. I want to prioritize my defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
I don't believe I ever said that the LEO was targeted specifically for their gun, and I do believe that I said that one of the reasons that they had to fight more often for their guns was that they had to close with the criminals to cuff them.
And I also don't believe that I ever said that being targeted specifically so that someone could take your gun was the priority issue. :)
Edited to add:
If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again?
They do a lot more weapons retention training, and get better retention holsters---because again, carrying concealed would be useless for a uniformed police officer.
As such, the decision to carry concealed for someone who must be instantly recognizable as a law enforcement officer, is a separate one from the decision normal citizens should make. :)
The weapons retention training, and a good retention holster, on the other hand, is a good thing for anyone open carrying for any reason.
-
So I am guessing said town will be in Canada then? If you start a town in the good 'ol USA you still are subject to the constitution. Requiring training is infringing on 2A. Last I looked, they hadn't removed that part, at least not yet ...
Buck, are you even reading what I'm writing?
The second amendment is about people's rights to keep and bear arms. My joke commentary about a fictional town ordinance has nothing to do with people's rights to keep and bear arms. (As I've said.) It has to do with people's ability to buy land from me to live in that area. Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms.
Quite the contrary, if you want to live in this fictional town, adults MUST demonstrate basic gun-handling safety and accuracy, which means that they all must have access to firearms for at least basic practice. (I'm sure I'd add a clause for exceptions like Kennesaw did, of course.)
And, as I've said, part of it is similar to the town ordinance in Kennesaw, GA, which has been in effect for years, and has worked perfectly well.
You can keep trying to make this a "mandatory training to own guns is wrong!" situation, but it isn't. And your comments about how this is against the 2nd amendment and how it wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. is---incorrect.
-
Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.
Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms.
I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.
And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.
-
No, actually. And I don't consider these "above average" criminals, either.
You obviously associate with a higher caliber of criminal that I do. :D
-
I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.
What about that has to do with whether or not they can keep and bear arms? You see, THAT is what the second amendment is about. Let's see here-----yep:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So---if people want to LIVE in this town, they have to (at some point in time in their life, after the age of 10) take a safety class. And, each year, prove that they can handle firearms safely with a base level of accuracy.
As none of that has anything to do with owning firearms, keeping firearms, or bearing firearms, , but instead about being able to live in the town that I created in fiction, I'm rather curious as to what part of the 2nd amendment you think it is infringing?
And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.
Hm. Have you actually read what I've written, yet?
Again: This fictional ordinance would not regulate or affect in any way the ability of any person to own, possess, or bear firearms in any fashion. I'm sorry you aren't understanding that, but that doesn't make what you are saying true.
Just for the sake of my curiosity---have you read Kennesaw's city ordinance regarding firearms?
Have you or your children taken a Hunter Safety class? Do you consider that "infringing"?
I also find your disparaging remarks, offhand derogatory commentary, and general attitude pretty rude, so I'm thinking I'm done with the part of this discussion that includes you. If you aren't going to bother to actually read what I've written, but instead post things that don't actually apply, I see no reason to continue this part of the conversation.
-
You obviously associate with a higher caliber of criminal that I do. :D
Pretty much just the ones who were in the State Penitentiary when I worked there.
-
Pretty much just the ones who were in the State Penitentiary when I worked there.
Them penitentiary boys is hi-falutin'.
-
Them penitentiary boys is hi-falutin'.
Bahahaha! For some reason this comment cracked me up.
The ones I know that did hard time for violent crime (not that I regularly associate with violent criminals, it's just a small city) waited to bust out their thug life until when they knew someone wasn't armed. The hardcore guys saw it as an minor obstacle they would rather avoid, the more minor criminals saw it as a high risk. There are always exceptions, though.
-
Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.
Again: This fictional ordinance would not regulate or affect in any way the ability of any person to own, possess, or bear firearms in any fashion. I'm sorry you aren't understanding that, but that doesn't make what you are saying true.
Yes I've read it. Preclusion of training and qualifying to be able to live in Never-Never land, and gun ownership beyond that is up to the individual. To me its all the same - forced training is just plain wrong, no matter how you spin it. Luckily for me there are other fantasy worlds to live in.
-
OO Buck.....
Luckily for me there are other fantasy worlds to live in.
....does that include Dungeons and Dragons ??? (You know I'm just bustin' your chops :) )
-
I see no reason to continue this part of the conversation.
about the only thing you two are arguing about, I agree on.
-
A town that required gun AND ammunition ownership is not new.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm (http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm)
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."
"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."
In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."
I'd call that law a rousing success!
Nelson, GA., more recently, did the same thing:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0402/Georgia-city-requires-gun-ownership-in-all-households-after-new-ordinance (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0402/Georgia-city-requires-gun-ownership-in-all-households-after-new-ordinance)
The ordinance in the city of Nelson, Georgia — population 1,300 — was approved Monday night and goes into effect in 10 days. However, it contains no penalties and exempts anyone who objects, convicted felons and those with certain mental and physical disabilities.
...
Fears of a government crackdown on gun sales have prompted a few communities around the United States to "require" or recommend their residents arm themselves, reflecting a growing divide in the wake of the Newtown massacre.
...
Police Chief Heath Mitchell noted that the city doesn't have police officers who work 24 hours a day and is far from the two sheriff's offices that might send deputies in case of trouble, so response times to emergency calls can be long. Having a gun would help residents take their protection into their own hands, he said.
Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. A group that thinks its wisdom exceeds that of officials elected by a majority of the community has sued Nelson, GA.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/georgia-town-sued-over-law-requiring-gun-ownership/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/georgia-town-sued-over-law-requiring-gun-ownership/)
The Brady Center's argument is exactly like that of OOBUCK's.
The Washington-based Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Nelson, about 50 miles north of Atlanta, claiming the law is unconstitutional. The suit contends the Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to have a gun, and government cannot require citizens to arm themselves.
I'm not a lawyer but I wonder why the Brady Center thinks it has any standing to file this lawsuit. The law exempts anyone who doesn't want to own a gun, felons and folks with mental problems, so the Brady Center's contention that it "forces" people to buy guns is bogus.
-
OO Buck..... ....does that include Dungeons and Dragons ??? (You know I'm just bustin' your chops :) )
HA! Good one sir, good one!
-
I wonder why the Brady Center thinks it has any standing to file this lawsuit.
Much like any other lobby. They have the money to push legal issues to the point of financial concern. If the money burden becomes great enough, it can force change.
Unfortunately our legal system lets lawyers and judges get paid for anything someone might dispute. It is win/win for the legal end of things...they win no matter what happens to others involved. That expense is enough to break individuals and entities.
-
I know I'm a little late to the party on this discussion as I just recently joined the forum and have been trying to catch up on topics and the culture around here.
I thought that in this discussion I would add that even if you are open carrying that it would be beneficial to take a CHP class and get your permit. Not only for the override of Omaha and other city ordinances but also so that you learn the laws and situation lessons for the use of force statutes for NE. Should you ever have to deploy your firearm it would also help you have an additional defense of being more trained than the average citizen in use of force scenarios.
I also see your point as far as being a small female with a "don't even try it buddy" warning on your hip verses an attacker thinking "what an easy target, no way is SHE armed"
-
I think OC is perfectly fine but you're going to fluster to henhouse within any city limit/high population zone. If you're willing to be getting talked to by authorities (not necessarily detained) and judged on your mental fitness at any given time then go for it. Be polite. I just don't view OC or the threat of gunplay as a realistic deterrent to those who wish to commit violent crime since they're all in anyway.
The weapons retention training, and a good retention holster, on the other hand, is a good thing for anyone open carrying for any reason.
This is probably the wisest statement concerning OC but probably one of the most forsaken. Training is hard to come by and awfully expensive depending on where you go but is the most necessary. Most folks will think in their mind that "I would do this or that" when they have actually done nothing in preparation. When the situation actually arises, they will then fall back upon what they truly know -- nothing. Convincing people to get this kind of training/gear to prep them for OC is along the same lines as telling people they should exercise at least thirty minutes daily. It's just a fairy tale; big boy rules just don't work with 95% of the population.
Great discussion.
-
The Columbus Chief o' Police has stated that anyone open carrying in Columbus will be "detained and questioned." Whatever that amounts to, I don't know, but you have been warned. :)
I can see the educational part of it, but I can also see it panicking the sheep as well. Furthermore, I believe it gives an opportunity for someone who dislikes "those damn NRA types" to call in a "man with a gun" call and jazz it up a little maybe. And last but not least, I believe concealed gives me an advantage and more flexibility should I ever find myself in a bad situation.
So I go concealed.
I'm not so sure they can do that without some type of cause... It is legal to open carry in Nebraska. However, this state is kind of lame to firearms somewhat. Maybe I'm wrong. In Texas, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make. I don't see myself open carrying ever. I have seen a couple people do it. Not for me, but to each their own...
-
In Texas, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make.
Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas
-
Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas
REALLY? Whodda thunkit!
-
Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas
Open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas
I'm not so sure they can do that without some type of cause... It is legal to open carry in Nebraska. However, this state is kind of lame to firearms somewhat. Maybe I'm wrong. In UTAH, open carry would probably be more acceptable than here is the point I am trying to make. I don't see myself open carrying ever. I have seen a couple people do it. Not for me, but to each their own...
FIXED?
-
Not to resurrect this post...but I am. :kiss:
I just got back to Nebraska from UT...and I actually had more attention while OC there than I do in Lincoln. In Utah, you also can't have a round chambered when you're carrying.
-
In Utah, you also can't have a round chambered when you're carrying.
That's crazy man...crazy! They allow CC on college campuses when many other states gasp at the thought, but you can't have a round in the chamber while OC'ing. Kind of antiquated and less progressive (in a gun sense) than their CC laws.
Fly
-
I will open carry during hunting season. I got my CCW to cover times in which it is cold and I may want to wear a coat. I find open carry more comfortable and have actually purchased holsters that qualify as concealed in broad daylight. Check out the Sneaky Pete line of holsters. I have heard a lot of negative feedback on this type of holster but if your shirt only half covers it, or not, it is still a mystery. Not open, but the holster's size maybe being a giveaway, I find them the most comfortable and I don't have to worry about printing. I have had NO ONE ask me about the case on my belt. They are not out there everywhere, so I am not convinced someone that hasn't done some research would know what they are looking at so the "being a target" is not so upfront. You and I might Know what they are, but the guy that just stuck up the liquor store might not, with you standing right behind him. I opt to carry concealed in plain sight.
-
I will open carry during hunting season. I got my CCW to cover times in which it is cold and I may want to wear a coat. I find open carry more comfortable and have actually purchased holsters that qualify as concealed in broad daylight. Check out the Sneaky Pete line of holsters. I have heard a lot of negative feedback on this type of holster but if your shirt only half covers it, or not, it is still a mystery. Not open, but the holster's size maybe being a giveaway, I find them the most comfortable and I don't have to worry about printing. I have had NO ONE ask me about the case on my belt. They are not out there everywhere, so I am not convinced someone that hasn't done some research would know what they are looking at so the "being a target" is not so upfront. You and I might Know what they are, but the guy that just stuck up the liquor store might not, with you standing right behind him. I opt to carry concealed in plain sight.
Be careful - open carry and concealed carry are both violations if you do it during archery and black powder seasons.
-
Be careful - open carry and concealed carry are both violations if you do it during archery and black powder seasons.
Really? I didn't see that in there....doesn't even make any sense...not like you are using the pistol to hunt with.
I am going to have to look into that law and see the exact details.
-
00 Buck is correct Proto....NEG&P is an "entity to itself". You WILL BE cited if carrying ANY firearm (centerfire/rimfire) on your person while bow or blackpowder hunting..... Makes as much sense as the no snowmobile carry.......
-
00 Buck is correct Proto....NEG&P is an "entity to itself". You WILL BE cited if carrying ANY firearm (centerfire/rimfire) on your person while bow or blackpowder hunting..... Makes as much sense as the no snowmobile carry.......
well, I want to look at the wording...not that it wasn't correct. The wording will tell what the officers discretion options are...and maybe insight to their morbid reasoning.
It will probably be a claim of something like "it's for safety so if you fall out of your stand..." or "you might use it to hunt..."
Game and parks in any state are pretty stupid and lack any sense at all...
-
Could this be another source of income?
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/15/3149688/open-carrying-army-veteran-gets.html (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/15/3149688/open-carrying-army-veteran-gets.html)
I prefer not to draw attention to the fact I'm carrying.