Yeah...It's Loaded...

[SteyrAUG]

Not what I said though I always appreciate putting words in my mouth.

But since you went there... police officers receive training in weapons retention and almost always use retention holsters when carrying in public. These women aren't and I'd bet the vast majority of OC types don't either.

But as you say police officers are targeted for their weapons and I'd prefer to make myself as small a target as possible. I question the judgment of those that call attention to themselves in this way.

Well first off, it was a question to clarify and not a statement of your beliefs so it was NOT putting words in your mouth. That is what the "?" was for.

Second, what makes you think many people licensed to carry don't practice retention? I've seen many LEOs with the exact same design Serpa holsters who have situational awareness no greater than many who CCW.

Oh sheesh.

The fact that they are armed makes them a larger threat than someone just carrying a cell phone. The fact that they chose to carry openly without using much common sense, the proper gear or the proper training makes me question their judgment. Armed and stupid is more dangerous than just plain armed.

Your gun vs. cell phone debates was with another guy. My questions was how is somebody armed (concealed) inherently more of a threat than somebody armed (openly). As for proper gear, again I've seen the same Serpa on LEOs, granted she could use a much more stable pistol belt, but better to take it "as is" than leave it at home.

Furthermore, those who open carry will be able to employ their defensive firearm much more rapidly than the guy who has a tucked, IWB setup. And given that a threat which requires use of a defensive firearm is already a threat RIGHT NOW, which is really the most tactically sound method of carry?

Not at all. You're arguing pointless semantics. A person isn't a "definite" threat until that person pulls their guns and starts threatening me, at which point, game on.

A "reliable indicator" is what is person is right before it is game on. A "statistically probable indicator" means there might be a game. These are not pointless semantics.

Most don't seem to, but then that's the point. Hence the word "concealed". If I notice a gun than I pay closer attention. Does that mean I'm foolproof? No. Does that mean that the person isn't a threat? No. It just means that I see a person OC or bust them CCW, I'm paying closer attention. However that logic cuts both ways.

EXACTLY. Finally you say it. Anyone can be exactly the same kind of threat REGARDLESS of if you can see a firearm. Everyone around you could very well be armed, you could be walking in a sea of ordinary people all around you who have guns. So really the ONLY THING THAT CHANGES with open carry is visual recognition of that fact.

That depends on what you mean by "have a problem." Am I going to approach and berate them? No. I do have a problem with people OCing to make a political statement. It's unwise and does nothing to advance the cause of gun rights and quite a bit to make people dig in their heels. I simply question their judgment.

There were a couple times you seemed pretty adamant that people shouldn't do it. And most carry for defensive reasons, not to advance gun rights. When I state an opinion it is to tell people how I feel about an issue, it isn't to exercise a first amendment freedom.

Does it matter?

If one is going to criticize them for it I think it is important.

What about those that haven't made up their minds? Those people that might support CCW or gun rights but then see people walking around like cowboys and think WTF?

I've never understood the "let's not exercise all our rights so that we may keep some of our rights" mentality. It is like working with a mugger and giving him some of your money with the agreement that he won't take it all. But some people would actually accept that situation if they found themselves in it.

If someone is driving down my residential block recklessly than yes I have a problem with it. If they're slowing down and obeying the narrow confines of my street and watching for the children there, than no I don't have a problem with it. In either case would I walk down the center of the road even if I have a right to? No I don't but I see people doing it all the time. That doesn't make them bad people, it just makes me question their judgment, even if they aren't doing anything else.

Nobody said recklessly. I said driving down the street past you on the sidewalk. Even WITHOUT any warning indicators, you are far more likely to be killed by a guy with a car than a guy with a gun. All it takes is for him to spill his coffee, have a bee fly in the window or anything else and without any sufficient warning he is on the sidewalk and running into you.

And please stop trying to equate open carry with walking down the center of the road.

People can do or not do whatever is in the law to do or not do. What I have said repeatedly is that just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should do something.

And that is where you are losing most of us. The same arguments were once presented against conceal carry.

People who support the rights to own guns will find out and not support our rights. Nobody wants to think about the idea that everyone around them "might" have a gun.

People who carry concealed are at significant risk of having their guns used against them by criminals. People who carry concealed don't have the same training in firearm retention as law enforcement.

People who carry concealed put the public at risk, it is just one more gun on the street. People who carry concealed are "playing cop" as well as judge, jury and executioner.

It depends on the context. I grew up around guns too but I was taught having guns means exercising more caution, using more brains than just being a badass.

I've seen more than enough NDs in gunstores/gunshows, I've had shots taken at me and my Dad while walking in the woods, I've seen more than a few unethical hunters in my time that I don't tend to trust anyone with a gun until they prove to me they're capable. In my experience most firearms instructors, most firearms classes and the 4 cardinal rules of gunhandling are geared around this concept...and yet people still **** this up with startling regularity.

"Good guy" doesn't equate to "smart guy" which is all I've tried to say through all of this.

Of all the "gun folks" I knew growing up, I can't recall a single one of them who was aspiring to something as retarded as being a "badass."

On your example of hunters, I agree with you actually. Some of the most atrocious gun handling I've seen in my life have been from hunters. They are in my opinion the least skilled segment (with notable exceptions excluded) of the gun community. Yet they can walk around with guns and are expected to shoot them in the proximity of other hunters.

So my problem is if they can walk around with a handgun on their belt, why can't a person who is far less likely to discharge their weapon not be allowed to carry a defensive firearm in the same manner.

In any case, I don't think we are gonna find much more common ground. You've basically stated and reiterated your position and a few people (including myself) have taken exception to it. As I think we have both fully stated our positions I'm gonna let this one go so we can both move on to something more productive.

[Gutshot John]

Well first off, it was a question to clarify and not a statement of your beliefs so it was NOT putting words in your mouth. That is what the "?" was for.

The "?" mark doesn't do any such thing. You said "you believe" you didn't say "do you believe". You ascribed a belief to my reasoning that was completely out of left field.

Second, what makes you think many people licensed to carry don't practice retention? I've seen many LEOs with the exact same design Serpa holsters who have situational awareness no greater than many who CCW.

And I'd feel sorry for those cops and question their judgment/mindset as I would any other, in my experience weapons retention is heavily taught/practiced at most police acedemies. The article made no mention of these woman taking any kind of training whatsoever. Even if they did your basic firearms class doesn't teach retention. You can't practice something where you haven't been taught the techniques.

Your gun vs. cell phone debates was with another guy. My questions was how is somebody armed (concealed) inherently more of a threat than somebody armed (openly). As for proper gear, again I've seen the same Serpa on LEOs, granted she could use a much more stable pistol belt, but better to take it "as is" than leave it at home.

He's inherently more of a threat because he's armed. Are you more likely to give up your wallet to a mugger with a gun? or a cell phone? Come on, let's apply a little common sense.

Furthermore, those who open carry will be able to employ their defensive firearm much more rapidly than the guy who has a tucked, IWB setup. And given that a threat which requires use of a defensive firearm is already a threat RIGHT NOW, which is really the most tactically sound method of carry?

If your gun is in your holster, and someone has a gun on you than you're at a disadvantage. The difference is that if a bg sees you have a gun he's unlikely to approach you from the front, or even give you a chance at all...he's simply going to put the gun to the back of your head when you're not looking and pull the trigger...than take your gun and wallet. Crooks aren't that stupid.

A "reliable indicator" is what is person is right before it is game on. A "statistically probable indicator" means there might be a game. These are not pointless semantics.

Exactly a person OC'ing a gun indicates that there might be a game so my threat level goes up and I'm giving that person a closer look.

EXACTLY. Finally you say it. Anyone can be exactly the same kind of threat REGARDLESS of if you can see a firearm. Everyone around you could very well be armed, you could be walking in a sea of ordinary people all around you who have guns. So really the ONLY THING THAT CHANGES with open carry is visual recognition of that fact.

That's what I've said all along. So?

There were a couple times you seemed pretty adamant that people shouldn't do it. And most carry for defensive reasons, not to advance gun rights. When I state an opinion it is to tell people how I feel about an issue, it isn't to exercise a first amendment freedom.

I was never adamant that people should do anything one way or the other. So long as they obey the law, it's their choice. I've repeatedly said that I question their judgment when they carry a OC weapon out of context. Tactically speaking the sounder judgment is to blend in to your surroundings. Why is this so hard to understand?

If one is going to criticize them for it I think it is important.

I don't. They're opening themselves to criticism. If they're "cool" with that, whatever.

I've never understood the "let's not exercise all our rights so that we may keep some of our rights" mentality. It is like working with a mugger and giving him some of your money with the agreement that he won't take it all. But some people would actually accept that situation if they found themselves in it.

That's just silly. How is CCW not exercising your rights? I just don't broadcast it to everyone on the street.

Nobody said recklessly. I said driving down the street past you on the sidewalk. Even WITHOUT any warning indicators, you are far more likely to be killed by a guy with a car than a guy with a gun. All it takes is for him to spill his coffee, have a bee fly in the window or anything else and without any sufficient warning he is on the sidewalk and running into you.

I said recklessly to give context. Accidents happen, the difference is that OC announces you and makes you a target. Driving down the street doesn't.

And please stop trying to equate open carry with walking down the center of the road.

Really? Why? It illustrates the point perfectly. You don't like the analogy because you can't dispute it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should and doesn't mean it's wise.

And that is where you are losing most of us. The same arguments were once presented against conceal carry.

Sorry bro but that's pretty presumptuous you're only speaking for yourself. Many others agree with me as evidenced by the "assless chaps" comment.

Moreover it's a straw man. Just because I think OC is a dumb idea, doesn't mean I'm calling for the repeal of those laws and it certainly doesn't mean I oppose the 2a. How about we keep this within the bounds of reality?

As for the rest, you want to convince me I'm wrong. I'm just trying to get you to see things from another's perspective.

[SteyrAUG]

The "?" mark doesn't do any such thing. You said "you believe" you didn't say "do you believe". You ascribed a belief to my reasoning that was completely out of left field.

This is an example of why we can't have a meaningful discussion. A question mark ABSOLUTELY makes it a question. Consider these two examples:

1. So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry?

And...

2. So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry.

The first example is ABSOLUTELY A QUESTION seeking clarification of your beliefs.

The second example is a statement about your beliefs.

The function of a question mark is something I honestly believed was known to most people.

[Gutshot John]

This is an example of why we can't have a meaningful discussion. A question mark ABSOLUTELY makes it a question. Consider these two examples:

1. So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry?

And...

2. So you believe police officers are more skilled at protecting their sidearm than private citizens licensed to carry.

The first example is ABSOLUTELY A QUESTION seeking clarification of your beliefs.

The second example is a statement about your beliefs.

The function of a question mark is something I honestly believed was known to most people.

Not from my perspective, but if that was your intent so be it.

Given a lack of tone conveyed on forums I'd humbly suggest that in the future you use a grammatically correct interrogative "do you?" "what?" "why?" etc. So=ergo=therefore...in other words you drew conclusions about my beliefs rather than asking what they were.

The question mark could also indicate incredulity among other things esepcially when prefaced by "so" and especially when you didn't preface it by an interrogative.

At best you were unclear and I don't think it's unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion I did but again if that wasn't your intent, I accept your explanation at face value.

[SteyrAUG]

Not from my perspective, but if that was your intent so be it.

Given a lack of tone conveyed on forums I'd humbly suggest that in the future you use a grammatically correct interrogative "do you?" "what?" "why?" etc. So=ergo=therefore...in other words you drew conclusions about my beliefs rather than asking what they were.

The question mark could also indicate incredulity among other things esepcially when prefaced by "so" and especially when you didn't preface it by an interrogative.

At best you were unclear and I don't think it's unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion I did but again if that wasn't your intent, I accept your explanation at face value.

The question was perfectly acceptable "as is." There are many ways you can pose a similar question and be correct. More importantly I already HAD CLARIFIED that it was a question posed and explained that was the purpose of the question mark.

Rather than simply accept the clarification you took it upon yourself to attempt to correct me when no correction was needed and additional clarification was already provided.

And you are just doing the same thing now. This will be the third time I have tried to excuse myself from this pointless exercise in futility.

[11B101ABN]

Isn't that a bit like saying "I'll join and support the Republican party" if and when they stop having members of the KKK register Republican?

It may just be, but that crap is frustrating as hell.

Supporting 2A=win

A-hole OC troll=fail.

[LHS]

I don't necessarily see someone OCing in an urban environment as a potential hostile threat, but I do tend to see them as either uneducated/untrained, or so gung-ho for a cause that they forgo common sense. In an urban environment, there are so many many reasons to carry concealed vs. open if you have the legal option. I don't buy the whole deterrence aspect of OC. All it does is advertise that you have a gun, which makes you target #1 for any bad guy. Cops are supposed to be visible, which is why they OC. Civilians would do well to camouflage themselves rather than stick out like a sore thumb.

Even worse are the idiots who think having a gun on their hip makes them some kind of hardcore badass. These are far more rare than the MSM would have us believe, but I have seen them on occasion. I heard one retard refer to his pistol as 'self-esteem in a holster'. That kind of idiocy is certainly counterproductive to our 2A rights, much like the 'assless chaps' analogy used previously.

If you're out hunting, then OC makes sense. I do it myself. If you see a guy in the woods during hunting season, you automatically assume he's armed. Thus, there's no reason to conceal the weapon. Walking down a city street, I'd rather blend in.