Why Carry Openly?
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Joined
·
46 Posts
In this case... Why do LEOs open carry?
It's easier/quicker to access your weapon. If you have an appropriate holster, there is minimal risk of someone accessing your weapon (no more issue than a LEO would have).
It's also far more comfortable and often a chance to educate the public about gun rights - provided you do so in a proper way.
I'm not a fan of those that only openly carry "because they can". With the right, comes responsibility.
It's easier/quicker to access your weapon. If you have an appropriate holster, there is minimal risk of someone accessing your weapon (no more issue than a LEO would have).
It's also far more comfortable and often a chance to educate the public about gun rights - provided you do so in a proper way.
I'm not a fan of those that only openly carry "because they can". With the right, comes responsibility.
Joined
·
774 Posts
Carrying openly into a restaurant or convenience store might (And I stress "might") make you a higher priority target than the next guy in line. Let's just assume that is true.
What if your job requires you to enter buildings that are supposed to be vacant? If a bad guy is in there or comes in behind you, you're already first on his target list by virtue of being the only other person present. You don't have the advantage of buying yourself a lower spot on the list because you ARE the list.
This is the situation I'm in. On any given work day, I'll enter one to ten vacant homes for various reasons, and I'll do it solo - no partner, no backup, no radio, no dispatcher checking up on me every two minutes, etc. Best I've got is a cell phone that may or may not work in a basement.
Back to reasons for Open Carry - there is also a deterrent factor that is exceedingly difficult to quantify. Carrying concealed does not offer this deterrent advantage. I can't prove it in a court of law, but I know that my sidearm, carried openly on my hip, has stopped at least one attack on my person. I saw his intention on his face when he moved to attack me, I saw him glance at my hip and stop his attack, all before I even had a chance to react. Had my weapon been concealed, I would have had to have fended off that attack while exposing and drawing my weapon.
My situation isn't unique; there are a LOT of good reasons and situations where open carry is preferable to concealed. I admit, for most people in most situations, concealment is preferable. For me and most of my situations, the pros and cons balance in favor of open carry.
What if your job requires you to enter buildings that are supposed to be vacant? If a bad guy is in there or comes in behind you, you're already first on his target list by virtue of being the only other person present. You don't have the advantage of buying yourself a lower spot on the list because you ARE the list.
This is the situation I'm in. On any given work day, I'll enter one to ten vacant homes for various reasons, and I'll do it solo - no partner, no backup, no radio, no dispatcher checking up on me every two minutes, etc. Best I've got is a cell phone that may or may not work in a basement.
Back to reasons for Open Carry - there is also a deterrent factor that is exceedingly difficult to quantify. Carrying concealed does not offer this deterrent advantage. I can't prove it in a court of law, but I know that my sidearm, carried openly on my hip, has stopped at least one attack on my person. I saw his intention on his face when he moved to attack me, I saw him glance at my hip and stop his attack, all before I even had a chance to react. Had my weapon been concealed, I would have had to have fended off that attack while exposing and drawing my weapon.
My situation isn't unique; there are a LOT of good reasons and situations where open carry is preferable to concealed. I admit, for most people in most situations, concealment is preferable. For me and most of my situations, the pros and cons balance in favor of open carry.
Why carry openly?
Because I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone.
The neverending "debate" of CC vs. OC typically boils down to a handful of well worn assertions (1st target, element of surprise, gun grab, making others nervous) made by those who dislike open carry for some reason or have never even considered that there could be rational reasons for choosing to do so.
I've also noticed that it is extremely rare to find open carriers challenging those who prefer to conceal to defend their choice or reasoning. Actually, open carriers tend to accept and support other carry methods just as favorably as their own.
The following link summarizes a logical defense for open carry for anyone interested:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html
Because I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone.
The neverending "debate" of CC vs. OC typically boils down to a handful of well worn assertions (1st target, element of surprise, gun grab, making others nervous) made by those who dislike open carry for some reason or have never even considered that there could be rational reasons for choosing to do so.
I've also noticed that it is extremely rare to find open carriers challenging those who prefer to conceal to defend their choice or reasoning. Actually, open carriers tend to accept and support other carry methods just as favorably as their own.
The following link summarizes a logical defense for open carry for anyone interested:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html
Joined
·
774 Posts
Thank you for having an open mind and inviting an actual dialogue. Too often, it seems, conversations on controversial topics begin and end with each participant making their pet position and ignoring all others, regardless of the validity of any of the presented positions. I think Congress needs to learn this lesson.
Joined
·
774 Posts
The general public's knowledge of firearms comes primarily from the media, where you can only be a good guy with a gun if you also have a badge, or you fight the bad guy for it, clumsily use it to save the day, and stand around in shock until someone with a badge takes the gun from you, clears it, and tells you you did a good job. Law Abiding Citizen With Gun is a sorely underrepresented demographic in modern media.
If you're willing and able to present responsible civilian carry in a positive light, more power to you.
I mentioned in another thread that I had no clue how many people carried concealed. I started getting a better idea when I started carrying openly and firearms became a topic of conversation. But if I had no idea, neither do potential bad guys. If concealed carry is to effectively deter crime, criminals need to know that people carry, and open carry can put that idea in their heads.
Joined
·
14,132 Posts
R/A makes a great point!
Joined
·
142 Posts
well said,
I CC when the situation demands it.....and OC when the situation demands it ! and don't think twice about either.
Joined
·
70 Posts
Open carry vs. Concealed carry
The purpose of this essay is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.
Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community, the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been engrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowing eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thinks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whomever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the Constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.
The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed, the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent; of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage, I think, and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do so. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.
INTRODUCTION
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community, the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been engrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowing eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thinks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whomever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the Constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.
CONCEALED CARRY
THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed, the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent; of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage, I think, and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do so. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.
Joined
·
70 Posts
Open carry vs. Concealed carry
A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.
What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are there times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, definitely! Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for this a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."
THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY
BEWARE OF DOG/GUN
BEWARE OF DOG/GUN
A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.
CONCLUSION
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY
What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are there times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, definitely! Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for this a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
The statistics show that crime drops in concealed only states, just as it does in OC/CC states. I think this is probably because the % of people who OC when they have the option is significantly smaller than the number that CC. I've been in GA for 6 years now and outside of a gun store or range, I don't think I've run into anyone OC'ing yet.
I've always carried concealed. Everyone I worked with did the same. Especially in a state that is CC only, badge or not, you don't want the attention off duty.
Joined
·
774 Posts
As you've said, you've yet to run into anyone OC'ing yet, and this mirrors my own experiences in Ohio. Aside from hunters, uniformed LEOs, security guards, and gun-shop employees, I'm the only one I've witnessed carrying openly. Is it fair to say that although GA and OH are legally OC states, in practice they are de facto CC-only states? Wouldn't we expect the crime stats in a CC-only state to be similar to the states in a OC/CC state where nobody OC's? I think we would, which is why it doesn't surprise me that the stats are comparable.
I certainly don't think that everyone should carry openly. We all benefit when the bad guys don't know who is and who is not armed. But I do think that there would be a beneficial effect on crime rates if people occasionally but regularly saw good guys with guns before they chose to be bad guys.
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
That makes sense, it's just at this point nearly impossible to quantify. I think a big reason I have yet to run into anyone OC'ing is because I live in the Atlanta Metro area, where it would be extremely unpopular and likely to end up in a "man with a gun" call in any number of places an OC'er would visit. In other, more rural, parts of the state, it might be as common as brushing your teeth; I don't venture too far out, no reason, so I don't know. I used to travel frequently to Cleveland, Strongsville, Valley City and surrounding areas and never saw any OC there either.
That's probably fair to say of most, if not all, OC/CC states. There are probably exceptions of course.
Joined
·
202 Posts
In Missouri, concealed carry is legal throughout the state to anyone holding a valid concealed carry permit from any state or political subdivision of another state. On the other hand, while open carry is legal throughout the state the state has given authority to municipalities to prohibit open carry within their respective jurisdictions.
As you can imagine this creates a hodge-podge patchwork of laws prohibiting open carry and serious situations in which a person may find himself breaking the law without even being aware he had wandered into a different municipality. That is the primary reason most missourians choose to carry concealed all the time. Concealed, they will never find themselves in a situation like that I described above.
There are die-hard open carry advocates that familiarize themselves with local laws and comply with them so they can legally open carry. Personally, I prefer to carry concealed because it is not only easier to stay within the law but it creates less hassle for me and my family in the long run.
As you can imagine this creates a hodge-podge patchwork of laws prohibiting open carry and serious situations in which a person may find himself breaking the law without even being aware he had wandered into a different municipality. That is the primary reason most missourians choose to carry concealed all the time. Concealed, they will never find themselves in a situation like that I described above.
There are die-hard open carry advocates that familiarize themselves with local laws and comply with them so they can legally open carry. Personally, I prefer to carry concealed because it is not only easier to stay within the law but it creates less hassle for me and my family in the long run.
Joined
·
38 Posts
i cc in public & on private property of friends & neighbors to merely keep from being center of attention. i noticed more heat & resistance from others for my stance to protect self & innocent others from violent attacks. i'm amazed at how society is so brainwashed by the media to be so anti-firearms unless one is a police officer. but we don't always have them at our disposal when we need them. they are overworked in these days of growing madness. so, to avoid any arguments, i keep my weapon out of sight. i'm sure my opposers would love me for my carry if i happen to save their life one day. or their loved ones. this one thing i do know. as one who carries, i also tend to have one thing on my mind. 'who else is carrying as well?' i'm a 'yes sir, no sir, yes mam, no mam' kinda guy anyway. i was raised that way. respect is key toward even the most abrasive person. but i do wonder how many others carry as well. it's like having a fence around the yard. it keeps good neighbor.
very good post. good opinions as well. thanx guys.
very good post. good opinions as well. thanx guys.
Joined
·
774 Posts
Ohio had that problem in "home rule" jurisdictions about 10 years ago. The state wrote into law a bill superseding local ordinances. Now, you can be openly carrying an AR15 with a single point sling, an 870 slung over your shoulder, and a Glock 17 in a thigh holster; If you have a CHL, you can also conceal carry a G26 on your ankle, and an LCP in your pocket down main street in any municipality in the state without violating carry law. (I'm sure the cops would drum up some charge if you actually tried this; it would be something stupid like disturbing the peace) But, if you have a hunting knife on your belt, or even just a steak knife in your lunch, you can be arrested on a weapons charge in some jurisdictions. Not for the guns, for the knife. The state leaves knives and other weapons under local jurisdiction.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
