Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?

[Tarn_Helm]

Open carry is a tactical disadvantage.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ds-open-carry/

"Blood is not flowing in the streets from concealed carriers gone wild. So . . . nothing. Might as well let people—average folk—buy and carry guns."

Good take, good read

"Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?"

No.

"Mainstream America Is NOT Shifting Towards Open Carry."

Nor should it.

Open carry is a tactical disadvantage amidst human predators in non-rural settings.

It is an axiom of daily personal self-defense tactics that it is better to have hidden strengths/weapons.

If I am visibly armed, I can be disarmed by someone who approaches me by stealth from a blind angle.

I know. I know. I should never be so unaware as to let that happen.

However, only in movies do people have perfect awareness and superninja hearing that blocks out all background noise and focuses in on the soundless footsteps of an attacker.

At least if I am caught off guard by an aggressor while I am carrying concealed, I can then make a quick and planned move--at the moment that is best for me--for my firearm while the aggressor might be assuming I am unarmed.

The problem with open carry is that you have to draw down on someone long before he has signaled his attack upon you. This raises legal issues.

I would rather draw from concealment at the moment when unambiguous evidence of an attack exists in my mind.

Otherwise, surveillance equipment, which might be hidden and called upon later by investigators, could show me drawing on someone whom I perceive to be a threat but who does not appear to be one in the recorded version of things, which does not always pick up audio, including explicit threats ("GIve me your money or I'll stab/shoot/beat you!").

I prefer that advantage to all of the other advantages of open carry.

An exception would be if I were in the wilderness where I am unlikely to encounter other humans.

There, I would want my .458 Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan to be as readily accessible as possible while in any area where I could encounter a bear or other large nonhuman predator.

[Gray Peterson]

If they were shifting to OC, then unlicensed CC wouldn't be pursued.

[Tarn_Helm]

Absolutely

If they were shifting to OC, then unlicensed CC wouldn't be pursued.

Excellent point I neglected to mention.

Thought it was too obvious.

But I guess sometimes certain things are not too obvious to some folk.

[HowardW56]

Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?

NO... I don't think so....

[CitaDeL]

"Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?"

No.

"Mainstream America Is NOT Shifting Towards Open Carry."

Nor should it.

Open carry is a tactical disadvantage amidst human predators in non-rural settings.

It is an axiom of daily personal self-defense tactics that it is better to have hidden strengths/weapons.

If I am visibly armed, I can be disarmed by someone who approaches me by stealth from a blind angle.

I know. I know. I should never be so unaware as to let that happen.

However, only in movies do people have perfect awareness and superninja hearing that blocks out all background noise and focuses in on the soundless footsteps of an attacker.

At least if I am caught off guard by an aggressor while I am carrying concealed, I can then make a quick and planned move--at the moment that is best for me--for my firearm while the aggressor might be assuming I am unarmed.

The problem with open carry is that you have to draw down on someone long before he has signaled his attack upon you. This raises legal issues.

I would rather draw from concealment at the moment when unambiguous evidence of an attack exists in my mind.

Otherwise, surveillance equipment, which might be hidden and called upon later by investigators, could show me drawing on someone whom I perceive to be a threat but who does not appear to be one in the recorded version of things, which does not always pick up audio, including explicit threats ("GIve me your money or I'll stab/shoot/beat you!").

I prefer that advantage to all of the other advantages of open carry.

An exception would be if I were in the wildnerness where I am unlikely to encounter other humans.

There, I would want my .458 Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan to be as readily accessible as possible while in any area where I could encounter a bear or other large nonhuman predator.

The problem with concealed carry is that you must appear to be a victim before exhibiting your weapon for it to be an effective deterent. This raises 'mortality' issues.

Having your self-defense preparations displayed wards off bad actors in just the same way a marked police car in traffic induces drivers to adjust their behavior to abide the speed limit and use their turn signals.

We can argue benefits and drawbacks all day long- in keeping the subject on topic; Can you argue that one method of carry over another will always be the accepted mode of carry? For me, the answer is certainly 'no', as history bears out that what behavior is culturally acceptable is never completely settled.

[Liberty1]

Whatever our personal choice, constitutional carry needs to be the end game. It's too easy for a CCer to inadvertently expose or print (Texas/Florida) and an OCer to in inadvertently cover their sidearm resulting in criminal liability and loss of rights.

Unrestricted OC with licensed CC is a close second option.

[Tarn_Helm]

OCing in non-rural settings? No thanks.

The problem with concealed carry is that you must appear to be a victim before exhibiting your weapon for it to be an effective deterent. This raises 'mortality' issues.

Having your self-defense preparations displayed wards off bad actors in just the same way a marked police car in traffic induces drivers to adjust their behavior to abide the speed limit and use their turn signals.

We can argue benefits and drawbacks all day long- in keeping the subject on topic; Can you argue that one method of carry over another will always be the accepted mode of carry? For me, the answer is certainly 'no', as history bears out that what behavior is culturally acceptable is never completely settled.

1. a) A visible, exposed weapon does not necessarily have any deterrent value against a human predator, especially against one whom I am unaware of, were I to be carrying openly.
b) If I were a predator, I would attack openly armed folk and take their firearms.
c) Wearing my guns around openly would be like wearing 500-dollar (or 1,000-dollar) bills taped to my t-shirt. Why would anyone want to do that? A gun has many uses and is valuable for far more than as a weapon. In many circles it is currency--currency that is worth more than cash or drugs or whatever else one cares to trade in. At any rate, I have no further interest in discussing this side issue. The whole thing is too obvious in my mind. Do what you like. I just hope I don't get robbed with one of your soon-to-be-stolen guns.

2. I care infinitely more about what is more effective than about what is "culturally acceptable."

Back to the point: Constitutional carry--open or concealed--with an option of obtaining a permit is what I would like to see.

Open carry will never catch on. (If you think it will, I don't think you understand the vast majority of people.)

[BoxesOfLiberty]

Open carry is a tactical disadvantage amidst human predators in non-rural settings...

You should read the link that Liberty1 posted ... it might make you might reconsider.

...If I am visibly armed, I can be disarmed by someone who approaches me by stealth from a blind angle.

I know. I know. I should never be so unaware as to let that happen.

However, only in movies do people have perfect awareness and superninja hearing that blocks out all background noise and focuses in on the soundless footsteps of an attacker...

This must be why so many cops get their guns taken from them every day... oh wait ... that doesn't really happen. If I had a nickel for every verifiable story I've heard in the last twenty years in which some ninja-like assailant crept up on a cop, and disarmed him by surprise, I think I'd probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of ... a nickel.

I open-carried a loaded firearm daily for years in (often quite crowded) urban environments. Twice, I had people try to take my weapon, but neither attempted to do so by stealth, and neither was even close to successful.

You never hear of this happening with armed security guards, either. Of course that's probably because they are so highly trained and have the sort of "perfect awareness and superninja hearing" that you would only expect to find in movies (or malls).

I don't mean to imply that it never happens, but it is exceptionally rare. And by the way, when you carry a weapon -- especially an exposed one -- your situational awareness does improve (at least that is my experience).

[Tarn_Helm]

not convinced

You should read the link that Liberty1 posted ... it might make you might reconsider.

Link?

This must be why so many cops get their guns taken from them every day... oh wait ... that doesn't really happen. If I had a nickel for every verifiable story I've heard in the last twenty years in which some ninja-like assailant crept up on a cop, and disarmed him by surprise, I think I'd probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of ... a nickel.

So you say.
A cop can also call for an army of back up, chase the guy down, get his gun back, and cover the whole thing up (which is probably the prudent though illegal thing for him to do)--unlike an OCer.

I open-carried a loaded firearm daily for years in (often quite crowded) urban environments. Twice, I had people try to take my weapon, but neither attempted to do so by stealth, and neither was even close to successful.

You never hear of this happening with armed security guards, either. Of course that's probably because they are so highly trained and have the sort of "perfect awareness and superninja hearing" that you would only expect to find in movies (or malls).

I don't mean to imply that it never happens, but it is exceptionally rare. And by the way, when you carry a weapon -- especially an exposed one -- your situational awareness does improve (at least that is my experience).

What is reported in the media is a miniscule fraction of what actually happens.

Do what you like.

[CitaDeL]

Link?

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

Enough effort has been made in arguing the merits and defects- its all been done before. The only thing we can agree on is that any carry method is and should be unencumbered by infringements.

[watsonville]

I wouldn't mind loaded open carry but prefer concealed



NO Coal no lights

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Not a civil

It may be a Right, but if it ain't recognized as such, then that doesn't really have any meaning. Which is I too am going with what the Right People say.

I'd prefer making it the person's choice.

Me, too. Which is why I favor having LOC recognized as the Constitutional Right before CCW.

+1

Open Carry was never anything I was interested in. That being said, it has freaked out the antis enough to make some headway in the CCW department, so it has been an effective tool in our RKBA struggles...

Thank you! That was part of the goal of the events & its nice to see the success of this recognized.

Whatever our personal choice, constitutional carry needs to be the end game. It's too easy for a CCer to inadvertently expose or print (Texas/Florida) and an OCer to in inadvertently cover their sidearm resulting in criminal liability and loss of rights.

Unrestricted OC with licensed CC is a close second option.

Yes!

If they were shifting to OC, then unlicensed CC wouldn't be pursued.

I'm not so sure about that. Unlicensed CCW is only being pursued in the VERY free states. What of the rest?


The Raisuli

[scarville]

California more "urbane and civilized"? You have to be joking.

Yes. I was. CCW is the gun owners version of the ghetto.

[Liberty1]

Open carry will never catch on. (If you think it will, I don't think you understand the vast majority of people.)

Licensed Carry will never catch on. 3 to 5 % of the eligible population in "shall issue" states get licensed. 95% is therefore disarmed at least in part by the criminal statutes, part by personal choice, licensing costs/process (fingerprints, etc...).

But when a perceivable threat is recognized by a member of that 95% - riot, serial rapist, homicidal ex-domestic partner, stalker, local crime wave...- accessibility of a license is dependent on how fast, efficient, and cooperative .Gov is (if .Gov is even open for business and appointment times are available).

Licensing, which doesn't statistically improve safety IMO (witness accident rates in constitutional carry states), is not therefore serving a 'compelling state interest' and is opposed to the 'security of a free state' which naturally benefits from a robust and exercised RKBA.

[M. D. Van Norman]