Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly, in most communities, you will be hassled - either by some soccer mom, some granola eater, or some jerk cop that thinks his badge entitles him to be the ONLY one allowed to carry a gun.
I think there is also merit to the fact that keeping it concealed is a strategic advantage (don't let the bad guys know you are carrying), but I got attacked here last time for suggesting that.
So I will just say I carry concealed as a matter of personal preference, to avoid the hassle factor, and have no problem keeping my 9mm XD concealed with only shorts and a tshirt. Keep in mind however that people are so self obsessed that most will not notice someone carrying a firearms unless they are naked or something.
I'd rather carry concealed than open. Why invite the hassle or weird looks from strangers. I guess it all depends on where you are.
I don't think it is nieve to think that a criminal would attack a known target first to get it out of the way. Would bank robbers go to the teller first or take out the armed guard?
The bad guy might not act in the presence of a gun carrying individual but then again if they did than that OC guy would be the first to get it.
I just think it is better to conceal than reveal.
I am an NRA life member and 100% pro gun rights, but I am not sold on the idea of open carry. If you're in rural bear country, or cougar country, ok fine, pack a .454 Casull on your hip. But in an urban setting, to openly carry seems to me to be an exercise in self-indulgence.
Why do you think that? I'm not being a pain or anything I just want to follow your logic.
For instance is wearing a T-Shirt with a company or rock band logo on the front an exercise in self-indulgence, and even if so where is the harm? The first amendment allows for freedom of expression, as long as that expression is legal, then it's protected under the 1st Amendment.
Moreover, the person was in a Library, there is no description of the gun, the holster, or what the guy was doing, suppose said carrier holds a WA State CHL. He's got a high hip OWB concealed carry holster and he's taken off his jacket because he's checking email, it's WA (an unlicensed OC state), and he's in an area that doesn't prohibit firearms. Is he still being self indulgent?
I occasionally open carry a 454 Ruger with a 7.5" barrel in an urban setting, because I have two options, leave it in the truck or take it with me. Concealed carry is hardly an option for that, unless I want to get arrested for public lewdness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
In the event that it doesn't you are just going to scare the living daylights out of libs and give them ammo in their quest to quash gun rights.
The easiest way to quash a right isn't to scare people by demonstrating it is a right, it's to convince people it was never a right at all. How can any second amendment supporter not know this? How many times have you been told, the 2nd only protects the rights of members of the militia to have firearms? That is precisely what I mean by convincing people that it was never a right at all, we all know it's BS, but how many folks out there know it to be true?
If the support for the 2nd is so slight that one person (or even many people) getting scared just seeing a gun can quash the right to keep and bear, the writing is on the wall anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Here is a letter to the editor in my local paper complaining about an open carry siting in a library.
This line in the letter cracks me up...
"The libraries are full of young children. Their parents should be aware of what they are exposed to."
Yes I agree and the guy with the gun isn't the scariest thing in a library, pick your poison, nudity, sexuality/pornography (anyone know of any library without at least one copy of the Joy of Sex?), snuff imagery and torture photographs, violence, politics, "The Catcher in the Rye", military and combat training manuals, the Law, and instructions for the production of weaponry from Nuclear Weapons to Shivs, and also manufacture of various types of artificial drugs.
If after all that you're concerned about your child being exposed to seeing a gun, you've got some pretty messed up priorities.
The idea of being targeted by a bad guy due to open carry is a relatively minor point, which is why I used the word "rare." But it is a potential situation where concealed carry would be a decided tactical advantage. Perhaps it has never happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. But even if it were proven to be impossible it would not change my mind on open carry. It's a minor part of my argument.
This is one of the arguments that most resonates with me in favor of open carry. If I lived up north, concealed carry would be a whole lot easier because you can hide a big .45 in all those heavy clothes pretty easily. Down here in TX (where I wear flip-flops year-round), in many situations it is difficult to CC anything but a pocket pistol and still have it reasonably accessible (i.e. in situations when your shirt needs to be tucked in and/or cargo pants aren't appropriate). If I need to defend myself, I do not want to have to untuck/unbutton a shirt or reach down for an ankle holster.
First of all, you shouldn't be wearing flip flops. You carry a gun in case of emergency; you should also have footwear that will serve you in an emergency, and flip flops won't. Can't you sprint in them? Can you run a mile in them?
What possible scenario would have you worried about a dress code violation of not having your shirt tucked in, but not worried about being seen with that 1911 on your hip in open carry? That seems a bit bizarre to me. Leave the shirt untucked.
I worked several years at a job where robbery was a concern, so I carried a Glock 19, appendix-style, under a t-shirt. And I am a very small guy, about 5'7" 135 lbs. No one ever detected my Glock. I also have a S&W 342 and Kahr PM9 that work fine with front-pocket carry.
Why do you think that? I'm not being a pain or anything I just want to follow your logic.
For instance is wearing a T-Shirt with a company or rock band logo on the front an exercise in self-indulgence, and even if so where is the harm? The first amendment allows for freedom of expression, as long as that expression is legal, then it's protected under the 1st Amendment.
How about the example of wearing a t-shirt with the F-word, N-word etc? It is your right to do so under the First Amendment, but it is self-indulgent, IMO. It's all about you, you, you. The predictable reactions of others are not to be taken into account.
Quote:
I occasionally open carry a 454 Ruger with a 7.5" barrel in an urban setting, because I have two options, leave it in the truck or take it with me. Concealed carry is hardly an option for that, unless I want to get arrested for public lewdness.
point taken. I agree that if the choice is between leaving it in an unattended vehicle and open carrying it, I would choose the latter.
Quote:
The easiest way to quash a right isn't to scare people by demonstrating it is a right, it's to convince people it was never a right at all. How can any second amendment supporter not know this? How many times have you been told, the 2nd only protects the rights of members of the militia to have firearms? That is precisely what I mean by convincing people that it was never a right at all, we all know it's BS, but how many folks out there know it to be true?
I think you make an excellent point here. There is a right to bear (carry) arms, and perhaps it is a mistake to pretend that there is not. One reason I posted the thread was to see if anyone could talk me out of it, and this is one I'll have to ponder.
Quote:
This line in the letter cracks me up...
"The libraries are full of young children. Their parents should be aware of what they are exposed to."
Yes I agree and the guy with the gun isn't the scariest thing in a library, pick your poison, nudity, sexuality/pornography (anyone know of any library without at least one copy of the Joy of Sex?), snuff imagery and torture photographs, violence, politics, "The Catcher in the Rye", military and combat training manuals, the Law, and instructions for the production of weaponry from Nuclear Weapons to Shivs, and also manufacture of various types of artificial drugs.
If after all that you're concerned about your child being exposed to seeing a gun, you've got some pretty messed up priorities.
The idea of being targeted by a bad guy due to open carry is a relatively minor point, which is why I used the word "rare." But it is a potential situation where concealed carry would be a decided tactical advantage. Perhaps it has never happened, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. But even if it were proven to be impossible it would not change my mind on open carry. It's a minor part of my argument.
Actually, what you said was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
In the rare event that the SHTF, you are going to be the first one targeted. You should have been carrying concealed.
So - your claim of "rarity" was if SHTF - NOT about it being rare to be targeted. AAMOF, you stated unequivocally that the OC would be "the first one targeted". All I did was request your basis for such a claim, and now you want to walk away from it.
I ain't beating you up on it - LOTS of folks FEEL that way - and in fact, you go on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
But even if it were proven to be impossible it would not change my mind on open carry.
So - it would seem to me that your mind is made up, and having been called on it, you're now engagin' in what we Texans call "crawfishin'". I've observed any number of plains-clothes cops going about their day without a single glance from passers-by, despite the fact that their badge wasn't readily visible (but the gun was).
How about the example of wearing a t-shirt with the F-word, N-word etc? It is your right to do so under the First Amendment, but it is self-indulgent, IMO. It's all about you, you, you. The predictable reactions of others are not to be taken into account.
Indeed but how does that really compare to open carry? Is the person open carrying implicitly saying any of those things? Why do you think having a gun plainly in sight is the equivalent of wearing a t-shirt with the F-word or N-word?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
point taken. I agree that if the choice is between leaving it in an unattended vehicle and open carrying it, I would choose the latter.
Well in this instance how can you be certain that those options were not the only options available to the person in the library?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
I think you make an excellent point here. There is a right to bear (carry) arms, and perhaps it is a mistake to pretend that there is not. One reason I posted the thread was to see if anyone could talk me out of it, and this is one I'll have to ponder.
Actually I don't think that it is an excellent point on the way to publicize, however the principal of convincing people they don't have a right to do something has been a well known and used strategy many times for the elimination of people's rights.
We should have dealt with the problem, but the fact that we haven't is hardly an argument for open carry in libraries.
I prefer to experience my viewing in less public settings, but that's just me.
You're missing the bigger picture, ideas are inherently dangerous, they lead people into new areas of thought and understanding. A well educated population is the strongest weapon the people have against government tyranny (I'm not claiming credit for this). Libraries were created to help in the education of the people and stimulate ideas, therefore they are inherently dangerous places too.
Meanwhile back to the point, effectively unless someone is waving the gun around or shooting people, it's just something that kids can look at, well in a library you can go to section 683.4 and look at them too. How is having someone with a gun on their belt exposing kids to more that is available at that Dewey decimal number?
This is one of the arguments that most resonates with me in favor of open carry. If I lived up north, concealed carry would be a whole lot easier because you can hide a big .45 in all those heavy clothes pretty easily. Down here in TX (where I wear flip-flops year-round), in many situations it is difficult to CC anything but a pocket pistol and still have it reasonably accessible (i.e. in situations when your shirt needs to be tucked in and/or cargo pants aren't appropriate). If I need to defend myself, I do not want to have to untuck/unbutton a shirt or reach down for an ankle holster.
Surprisingly, it's almost as hard to conceal up North, only during opposite seasons. You mentioned that you don't want to untuck/unbutton, etc... In the winter time, long johns or Union Suit, levi's, long sleeve shirt tucked in, and a long heavy coat, does cut down your options. It's easier to carry in a holster but then you run into the problem of walking into a cafe, the first thing you do is shed your coat. Now you are open carry. Spring, summer and fall is a lot easier or at least, presents better options to be both, concealed, and easily accessible.
Last edited by ElkHunter; 09-23-2013 at 07:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've observed any number of plains-clothes cops going about their day without a single glance from passers-by, despite the fact that their badge wasn't readily visible (but the gun was).
