PDA

View Full Version : The Tactical and Practical Case for Open Carry


Liberty1
05-05-2009, 10:33 PM
Hat tip to the author and USACarry.com member "Mainsail" who carries Openly and Concealed in the State of Washington.

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

The Open Carry Argument

My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.

Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.

Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.

Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.

The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.


The Five Stages of Violent Crime: (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html)
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction

I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.

First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home...

Liberty1
05-05-2009, 10:34 PM
...
Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.

It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer who was targeted by a violent criminal. They assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm but there is never any real proof of this. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.

I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.

Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.

lioneaglegriffin
05-05-2009, 10:50 PM
Bravo

Mulay El Raisuli
05-06-2009, 8:47 AM
I presume that he writes from Seattle. But, I was just up there & I never saw any LOC. Which means I presume that my first presumption is wrong. So, where is he based?

Also, I wish I'd had this earlier.

The Raisuli

pullnshoot25
05-06-2009, 9:13 AM
This is freaking great. Linked in the blog in 5 seconds!

demnogis
05-06-2009, 10:18 AM
A good read indeed.

Roadrunner
05-06-2009, 11:46 AM
It's a good read, but I think it muddies the main intent of the article.

I believe the thesis of the article is how to avoid an altercation. The fact that he goes on about open carry seems to overwhelm that thesis.

It seems to me that the very first step is to avoid a place and circumstances where an altercation is possible. The second step is to size up any potential threats and be aware of any overt actions or interest by those that are deemed to be a threat. The third step is to have a plan in place to respond to the threat, and the fourth step is to react and defuse the situation when an attack is immanent. Just because a person carries concealed doesn't mean that the weapon should remain concealed until the attack occurs. So, while open carry is an option, I also believe that it tips your hand and provides the attacker with more information than I believe they should have. What I mean by that, it gives the attacker information that they can plan for.

The author said that criminals want everything to happen fast and easy, because they are incapable of altering their plan. I think I could argue that.

MudCamper
05-06-2009, 3:35 PM
Very good article. Definitely going to link to this one. Thanks!

pullnshoot25
05-06-2009, 11:42 PM
Any reason why no one is commenting on inherent coolness of this article?

Liberty1
05-07-2009, 12:23 AM
Any reason why no one is commenting on inherent coolness of this article?

They were all waiting with baited breath for your thoughts :p

What do you want an argument? 350 hits isn't good enough? I can argue the other POV. Let's have at it!

CC is better because you can then carry on antis' property/businesses and not get kicked off and send them a post card later telling them what you did and how they're NG policy failed.

CC is better because I don't have to match my holster to my shoes;)

CC is better...

Heck I want Vermont in CA!

N6ATF
05-07-2009, 1:09 AM
Any reason why no one is commenting on inherent coolness of this article?

I have deja vu reading it...

Heck I want Vermont in CA!

+infinity

KWA-S
05-07-2009, 1:10 AM
Great article, thanks for the post. Of course, its always nicer to have the choice of carry method instead of having the government decide for us.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-07-2009, 5:55 AM
It seems to me that the very first step is to avoid a place and circumstances where an altercation is possible. The second step is to size up any potential threats and be aware of any overt actions or interest by those that are deemed to be a threat. The third step is to have a plan in place to respond to the threat, and the fourth step is to react and defuse the situation when an attack is immanent. Just because a person carries concealed doesn't mean that the weapon should remain concealed until the attack occurs. So, while open carry is an option, I also believe that it tips your hand and provides the attacker with more information than I believe they should have. What I mean by that, it gives the attacker information that they can plan for.



First, the problem with avoiding "bad" places is that it isn't always possible. What if one lives in a "bad" area, for instance? Or works there? Keeping in mind that we do what we do for We The People, that would (or should) include ALL of The People, wouldn't it?

Second, 'revealing' the gun when danger is perceived has problems. It could be rated as "brandishing" for instance. Not only could that result in arrest, it could get one labeled as a 'quick on the trigger loon' in one's neighborhood.

Finally, the usual "plan" for thugs who see that their target is armed is to find another target. I speak from experience here (not from robbing, but from being targeted & seeing others being targeted).

No, this guy from the Northwest has given VERY good reasons for LOC. The example from AZ (posted elsewhere) is just another example of this being true.

The Raisuli

Roadrunner
05-07-2009, 6:30 AM
First, the problem with avoiding "bad" places is that it isn't always possible. What if one lives in a "bad" area, for instance? Or works there? Keeping in mind that we do what we do for We The People, that would (or should) include ALL of The People, wouldn't it?

You're right, and that's why you train and plan for it.

Second, 'revealing' the gun when danger is perceived has problems. It could be rated as "brandishing" for instance. Not only could that result in arrest, it could get one labeled as a 'quick on the trigger loon' in one's neighborhood.

Again planning, training and learning the danger signs is imperative before a person encounters a real incident.

Finally, the usual "plan" for thugs who see that their target is armed is to find another target. I speak from experience here (not from robbing, but from being targeted & seeing others being targeted).

No, this guy from the Northwest has given VERY good reasons for LOC. The example from AZ (posted elsewhere) is just another example of this being true.

The Raisuli

LOC maybe an option for some, but not for everyone. Suggesting that LOC is the best way is subjective.

MudCamper
05-07-2009, 9:05 AM
Suggesting that LOC is the best way is subjective.

Of course. The title of the essay is "The Open Carry Argument". Perhaps you do not realize that ordinarily when OC is brought up, the overwhelming majority react by claiming that OC is a bad idea and CC is the only way to go. This argument speaks against that.

Roadrunner
05-07-2009, 9:44 AM
Of course. The title of the essay is "The Open Carry Argument". Perhaps you do not realize that ordinarily when OC is brought up, the overwhelming majority react by claiming that OC is a bad idea and CC is the only way to go. This argument speaks against that.

You're right, never mind, forget I said anything.:sleeping:

Untamed1972
05-07-2009, 10:57 AM
My only "concern" with the article is the section about OC making you a target for example for the theft of your gun.

He makes the ascertion that the data / stats don't support such a claim. But I would contend from what I've read, that even in states where open carry is legal it is not common or widely practiced. So you're talking about a small % of the population OCing a small % of the time. To me that says...it doesn't happen often simply because of it only being an available option a small % of the time.

That would be like point to CA and saying "There is no data to show the OC makes you a target for gun theft." Well DUH! That's because no one is allowed to OC in CA, so the opportunity for CA dirtbags to commit such a crime simply are not available.

All in all....I thought it was a good write up and he makes some convincing points, that was the only area that his logic could be argued to be a little flawed perhaps.

Liberty1
05-07-2009, 11:13 AM
My only "concern" with the article...

A valid "concern". But OC is happening on a daily and routine basis for those in the "Free" states who push OCing and I'm still unaware of any gun grabs except by some police.

It will happen at some point and an OCer will be killed at some point, I'll guarantee that. As for that anomaly being a valid reason to not OC vs the other benefits, I will still see it as the rarest of the rare circumstances among the rare OCers.

To put this in perspective, in the "Shall Issue" States only between 2-5% of the population even get their CC licenses (growing % all the time!!!!) and even fewer carry all the time. Of those carriers an even smaller percentage 10% or less (probably less) open carry. So we are dealing with small numbers generally. Still of those OCers I'd say there have been thousands of days of no-criminal contacts and no gun grabs of which I'm aware (excepting the 2nd/4th A violations;)).

Untamed1972
05-07-2009, 11:21 AM
A valid "concern". But OC is happening on a daily and routine basis for those in the "Free" states who push OCing and I'm still unaware of any gun grabs except by some police.

It will happen at some point and an OCer will be killed at some point, I'll guarantee that. As for that anomaly being a valid reason to not OC vs the other benefits, I will still see it as the rarest of the rare circumstances among the rare OCers.

To put this in perspective, in the "Shall Issue" States only between 2-5% of the population even get their CC licenses (growing % all the time!!!!) and even fewer carry all the time. Of those carriers an even smaller percentage 10% or less (probably less) open carry. So we are dealing with small numbers generally. Still of those OCers I'd say there have been thousands of days of no-criminal contacts and no gun grabs of which I'm aware (excepting the 4th A violations;)).

But I would contend that people who do regularly open carry in free states also avoid such incidents by not being a bad places (alone at night in dark alley) kinda thing. I have nothing to back that up however....just an assumption. Were OC to become more common that is was seen more regularly in bad, gang infested type neighborhoods where violent crime between armed individuals is already quite common, I think the shooting of OCers for the purpose of gun theft would become more common, so I think locale would play into that to a certain extent.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-08-2009, 7:08 AM
Of course. The title of the essay is "The Open Carry Argument". Perhaps you do not realize that ordinarily when OC is brought up, the overwhelming majority react by claiming that OC is a bad idea and CC is the only way to go. This argument speaks against that.


I'm glad that even if Roadrunner didn't get it, you did. :)

The Raisuli

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 6:39 AM
btt for a good read

bbguns44
05-21-2009, 7:28 AM
Good arguments in the article for OC. The main reason I don't like OC
is that it raises my profile. It's like walking around with bright red hair.
It draws attention to me. The zebra in the herd that's not noticed is
the one that's not going to be chased by the lions or hyenas.

Seems to me if OC is a deterrent, then so is a baseball bat or pipe wrench
or some other object that the bad guys would recognize as a weapon but
the general public would not notice as much as a 1911.

Defense is difficult.

demnogis
05-21-2009, 9:15 AM
Try thinking it in terms of...

Are you a sheep, or a sheepdog? Which would you rather be when the wolves come out?

I believe the analogy applies for those who CC as well... Except, they're in sheep's clothing.

Good arguments in the article for OC. The main reason I don't like OC is that it raises my profile. It's like walking around with bright red hair. It draws attention to me. The zebra in the herd that's not noticed is the one that's not going to be chased by the lions or hyenas.

Ike Arumba
05-21-2009, 12:25 PM
They were all waiting with baited breath for your thoughts

What do you think we are -- anglerfish?

(Or did you mean bated?)

bbguns44
05-21-2009, 1:09 PM
Another aspect of OC that I'm not comfortable with is that you're not
allowed to have a round chambered or even a loaded mag in the gun.
What if the bad guys know that OC is not allowed to have a loaded mag ?
Now you've announced your intentions but you can't back it up quickly.
You've provided more info about yourself.

As for being a sheepdog, a sheepdog is looking for a fight. I'd rather avoid
it under normal circumstances.

MudCamper
05-21-2009, 1:19 PM
Another aspect of OC that I'm not comfortable with is that you're not allowed to have a round chambered or even a loaded mag in the gun.

Only in California, and hopefully we will eventually defeat that law. This particular essay is written from the perspective of a person living under less restrictive laws.

bodger
05-21-2009, 5:51 PM
Another aspect of OC that I'm not comfortable with is that you're not
allowed to have a round chambered or even a loaded mag in the gun.
What if the bad guys know that OC is not allowed to have a loaded mag ?
Now you've announced your intentions but you can't back it up quickly.
You've provided more info about yourself.

As for being a sheepdog, a sheepdog is looking for a fight. I'd rather avoid
it under normal circumstances.

I never liked the idea of UOC. Too much to have to get done b-4 you can shoot.

MudCamper
05-21-2009, 6:25 PM
I never liked the idea of UOC. Too much to have to get done b-4 you can shoot.

As opposed to the only other legal alternative (for most of us, who can not get a CCW permit), which is to have no firearm at all. I don't see how that is better. But again, this article isn't really about UOC. It's about LOC.

Seesm
05-21-2009, 7:50 PM
I would personally like to comment on the inherent coolness of the OP article!! :)

pullnshoot25
05-21-2009, 8:58 PM
Where do these whackass commentators keep coming from?

DDT
05-21-2009, 10:00 PM
Whackassville. duh!

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 10:00 PM
Where do these whackass commentators keep coming from?

N8,

Practice the zen of assisting (luring) those you think are opposed to your ideas with interweb stealth fu (aka honey not bitters) to bring them closer to your position ;)

Believe it or not I used to be one of them (CC only crowd) and it took time and experiences for me to get to where I am now. But if someone had treated me poorly for my reasonably held beliefs at that time I may not have been receptive to what they were saying.

Carry On! :thumbsup:

Liberty1
05-21-2009, 10:04 PM
Whackassville. duh!

Is that how they are talking in college these days? I'm officially old as I've never heard half the stuff N8 says sometimes. :p Freaking Weird:confused::)

DDT
05-21-2009, 10:17 PM
Is that how they are talking in college these days? I'm officially old as I've never heard half the stuff N8 says sometimes. :p Freaking Weird:confused::)

LOL... don't ask me what they say in college these days. I gave up trying to be cool on my 40th birthday.

Theseus
05-22-2009, 8:22 AM
I gave up trying to be cool at birth. . . found it came naturally. . . Haha!

I don't understand what they say either and I am only just about to turn 30. It is like figuring out a foreign language. . . I spend more time trying to determine the context of what they say instead of what they actually say.

demnogis
05-22-2009, 9:35 AM
As for being a sheepdog, a sheepdog is looking for a fight. I'd rather avoid it under normal circumstances.I believe that form of opinion is called projection.

You don't carry, do you?

Untamed1972
05-22-2009, 10:34 AM
"Originally Posted by bbguns44
As for being a sheepdog, a sheepdog is looking for a fight. I'd rather avoid it under normal circumstances."

I would disagree with that statement. I sheepdog's job is to guard his flock and BE READY for a fight if the wolf makes a move on any of his sheep.

pullnshoot25
05-22-2009, 10:55 AM
N8,

Practice the zen of assisting (luring) those you think are opposed to your ideas with interweb stealth fu (aka honey not bitters) to bring them closer to your position ;)

Believe it or not I used to be one of them (CC only crowd) and it took time and experiences for me to get to where I am now. But if someone had treated me poorly for my reasonably held beliefs at that time I may not have been receptive to what they were saying.

Carry On! :thumbsup:

You are correct and therefore I apologize.

bbguns44
05-22-2009, 12:21 PM
"I would disagree with that statement. I sheepdog's job is to guard his flock and BE READY for a fight if the wolf makes a move on any of his sheep."

I'm not interested in a job as a security guard. I'm not interested in
working the night shift at 7/11. I don't OC & I don't have a ccw. There
are other types of defense besides a gun. Like I posted before, the OP
has some good points but UOC is silly & LOC has some problems for me.

Untamed1972
05-22-2009, 12:38 PM
"I would disagree with that statement. I sheepdog's job is to guard his flock and BE READY for a fight if the wolf makes a move on any of his sheep."

I'm not interested in a job as a security guard. I'm not interested in
working the night shift at 7/11. I don't OC & I don't have a ccw. There
are other types of defense besides a gun. Like I posted before, the OP
has some good points but UOC is silly & LOC has some problems for me.

What if your "flock" is your family? Or perhaps just your wife, or one of your children? Perhaps you're getting carjacked while your small child is belted in the car seat in the back seat and the BG won't let you get them out? Now what? (I'm speak to "you" in the general sense, no you as an individual)

The sheepdog analogy can have many personal applications aside from that of protection of others as a profession.

I do agree that UOC seems to be of supremely little use for the potential hassles that come along with it. LOC would not be my first choice either given the option to conceal.

demnogis
05-22-2009, 1:57 PM
bbguns, please elaborate on your opinion. I'd be glad to hear it.

I'm not interested in a job as a security guard. I'm not interested in working the night shift at 7/11. I don't OC & I don't have a ccw. There are other types of defense besides a gun. Like I posted before, the OP has some good points but UOC is silly & LOC has some problems for me.

bbguns44
05-22-2009, 7:07 PM
I understand UOC/LOC from a standpoint of asserting our rights & if that's
the purpose of UOC/LOC, great. From a deterrent standpoint, UOC seems
silly because you have to load the mag & chamber the round. At home,
you probably have the few seconds of time to be able to do that. But in
the public, the bad guy can get awfully close so UOC does not work well.
With LOC, sure there's a deterrent effect but you also attract a lot of
attention from every cop & security guard. I don't want that attention &
I'm rarely in a situation where I need that deterrent. The odds of being
in a post office, office, bank or store when somebody decides to go on a
rampage is pretty slim. I've always found that being alert & moving
reduce your target attractiveness. As long as you're not the most
atrractive target, you're safe. LOC in public has a big limitation in that
you can't stop someone from getting very close to you. You can't exactly
pull the gun as soon as someone gets within 5 ft of you. Guns are great
but works better at some distance. Knives & bayonets works well at close
distance.

bbguns44
05-22-2009, 7:20 PM
"What if your "flock" is your family? Or perhaps just your wife, or one of your children? Perhaps you're getting carjacked while your small child is belted in the car seat in the back seat and the BG won't let you get them out? Now what?"

Good point. But that's a difficult situation to get out of easily and LOC may
or may not help if there's already a gun pointed at you. By the time you
get into the middle of a situation, things happen fast & making the right
choice is very difficult. Avoiding the situation entirely is much more desirable
and alertness & tactics help more than LOC. For example, leaving some
room between your car & the one in front can allow you to move to avoid
a carjack. Being alert to the surroundings can help. There's no perfect
answer to every possible scenario but I have a pretty boring life so I
don't need to guard against many possibilities, just avoid the road rage
incidents mostly.

GuyW
05-22-2009, 7:38 PM
From a deterrent standpoint, UOC seems silly because you have to load the mag & chamber the round..... But in...public, the bad guy can get awfully close so UOC does not work well.


OK - how close can the bad guy get if you DON'T have a gun??
.

pullnshoot25
05-22-2009, 7:40 PM
I understand UOC/LOC from a standpoint of asserting our rights & if that's
the purpose of UOC/LOC, great. From a deterrent standpoint, UOC seems
silly because you have to load the mag & chamber the round. At home,
you probably have the few seconds of time to be able to do that. But in
the public, the bad guy can get awfully close so UOC does not work well.
With LOC, sure there's a deterrent effect but you also attract a lot of
attention from every cop & security guard. I don't want that attention &
I'm rarely in a situation where I need that deterrent. The odds of being
in a post office, office, bank or store when somebody decides to go on a
rampage is pretty slim. I've always found that being alert & moving
reduce your target attractiveness. As long as you're not the most
atrractive target, you're safe. LOC in public has a big limitation in that
you can't stop someone from getting very close to you. You can't exactly
pull the gun as soon as someone gets within 5 ft of you. Guns are great
but works better at some distance. Knives & bayonets works well at close
distance.

1) Can't carry in a post office (at least in KA)
2) Show me proof of where an exposed gun makes someone a "crime magnet"
3) How would a concealed firearm be any better than an exposed firearm in the given "5'" scenario?
4) You can't stop someone from getting really close to you with CC either, so that seems weird to me.
5) If you could resurrect any person shot at close range, I am pretty sure they would say that the bullet worked pretty well. Unless, of course, you are speaking of distance and draw times, at which point 5' means you are screwed with a gun or a knife if it isn't out already.
6) No one except those that I tell or the cops that decide to check my firearm knows that my gun is unloaded. All other people most of the time think I am a cop when I OC.
7) While there is never a perfect answer to any given situation, just possessing a gun levels the odds.
8) Do you have ANY practical experience on these matters of which you speak or are you just repeating what you have heard?

yellowfin
05-25-2009, 2:53 PM
This thread has inspired me to OC all the way across the country. So far I OC'd all day yesterday and some of today in AZ, now in NM and OC'ing. Texas I'll have to tuck it, but back open in LA and MS. Back to concealed for AL and TN, then open all the way through VA and PA.

CitaDeL
05-25-2009, 3:24 PM
This thread has inspired me to OC all the way across the country. So far I OC'd all day yesterday and some of today in AZ, now in NM and OC'ing. Texas I'll have to tuck it, but back open in LA and MS. Back to concealed for AL and TN, then open all the way through VA and PA.

We will have to get you some sort of OCDO merit badge or one of those maps you see on RV's to show where you have been.:thumbsup:

pullnshoot25
05-25-2009, 3:55 PM
1) Can't carry in a post office (at least in KA)
2) Show me proof of where an exposed gun makes someone a "crime magnet"
3) How would a concealed firearm be any better than an exposed firearm in the given "5'" scenario?
4) You can't stop someone from getting really close to you with CC either, so that seems weird to me.
5) If you could resurrect any person shot at close range, I am pretty sure they would say that the bullet worked pretty well. Unless, of course, you are speaking of distance and draw times, at which point 5' means you are screwed with a gun or a knife if it isn't out already.
6) No one except those that I tell or the cops that decide to check my firearm knows that my gun is unloaded. All other people most of the time think I am a cop when I OC.
7) While there is never a perfect answer to any given situation, just possessing a gun levels the odds.
8) Do you have ANY practical experience on these matters of which you speak or are you just repeating what you have heard?

Calling bbguns44... Calling bbguns44...

pullnshoot25
05-25-2009, 3:56 PM
This thread has inspired me to OC all the way across the country. So far I OC'd all day yesterday and some of today in AZ, now in NM and OC'ing. Texas I'll have to tuck it, but back open in LA and MS. Back to concealed for AL and TN, then open all the way through VA and PA.

Freaking sweet. Show that American Pride!

Seesm
05-25-2009, 10:41 PM
I think loaded open carry is the way of the future. :)

People want to be nice and EVERY (legal) gun owner open carrying is just a good idea and people will bve nicer all the way around.

UOC I am not so fond of that idea.

DDT
05-25-2009, 11:33 PM
I think loaded open carry is the way of the future. :)

People want to be nice and EVERY (legal) gun owner open carrying is just a good idea and people will bve nicer all the way around.

UOC I am not so fond of that idea.

I am sure that Heinlein's reference to "a polite society" was all about open carry, one must KNOW it's an armed society.