kiggy74

Open Carry = Not Concealed, easily visible regardless of type of holster. OWB = Holster type, Outside Waistband vs Inside waistband There are outside waistband concealed holsters.

What makes you think that any criminal trying to take your gun is going to do any of the following?: 1. Come at you from where you can see them. 2. Make you aware that they want your gun before they try to take it. 3. Not just shoot you first so they can pull their new gun from your dead body while you lay motionless on the ground. This isn't the wild west, this is the real world. I think you need to open your mind a little to the different scenarios in which this attack would occur. When you are concealed, you have options. When you are open, all your cards are already on the table and you'd better be ready. Open carry serves the purpose of letting everyone around know you are armed. IMO this doesn't mean that you are secure. Concealed carry allows you to remain inconspicuously armed and prepared, but also leaves you options as to if and how you are going to engage a threat in a critical threat.

You are reiterating my exact point in response to this post.... My point is in total agreement with you if you take a sec to read it again. There is no definition of what a threatening people look like, nor is there a dress code. Nor should anyone be mis-perceived as a threat just because of the way they choose to dress, their race, or the fact that they like tattoos. Good luck if you try to use these criteria to assess whether or not the person walking by you with a gun on their belt is a threat or not. All of the 9/11 terrorists were well-dressed, professional looking people with box cutters on them, and were all screened by airport security, and look how that turned out. The fact is that in the current state of society, any non-LEO who walks around openly armed is perceived as a threat. The gun movement has to be sensitive to this as well. Shoving it down people's throats with Starbucks sit-ins or by showing up armed at McDonald's as was described by the OP isn't doing anyone any favors IMO.

No, not at all, not trying to suggest you are racist, apologies if it seemed that way. My point was that everyone has their own definition of "normal", meaning there is no definition. And if laws allow for open carry for anyone then they have to allow open carry for dirty people too, or those with wife beaters and tattoos. There is no dress-code for criminals, just stereotypes.

Fuck you very much, and just because we don't agree doesn't make me dumb or ignorant. Exactly. Again, openly carrying a gun is not a shield. You're telling me that someone can't walk up behind you and take that gun? By carrying it openly you are making yourself a target to some criminals that think they are a bigger bad ass than you. By the way, none of your arguments make open carry a better option than concealed carry. And I'm not an easy unarmed target, but if I'm carrying you won't know it. So only clean people can open carry? So how's that going to work, and who decides who's clean? Where does it end, should only white people be allowed to open carry? Open carry such as is described by the OP ignores the fact that people that don't have guns and don't like guns also have a right to not want them on their establishments. The fantasy land is you guys thinking if you're openly displaying a gun on your belt in public that you are immune to violent crimes committed against you. I'm saying that such assumptions are false, and you should consider whether or not you are making yourself an opportunity. What makes you think that the criminals that might want your openly displayed gun don't have guns already? I don't want to take the chance of getting shot just because someone wants to steal my gun. When the gun is concealed, I don't have to worry about. I got lots of gun, I carried CONCEALED all the time. I believe that people should be allowed to own and carry guns. But the only time anyone should see my personal protection weapon is if I feel that my life or the life of someone else is being threatened and there is no opportunity to flee the scene.

Concealed carry is implemented for those that are concerned with personal protection. Carrying your weapon CONCEALED means that no one knows you have a gun. When you open carry, you are making yourself a target. In the least you are walking around with a valuable item hanging from your hip for all the world to see. In reality its not just a valuable, its a weapon that someone could easily snatch from you and easily use in a violent crime - on you. An untrained person carrying a weapon on their hip is just inviting trouble, its not a shield. And lets get real, don't even try to draw a similarity between civilians who open carry and LEOs. Do you use a 3-way retention holster when you open carry that is physically attached to your belt? Are you trained on methods for physically removing a weapon from an armed assailant? Do you have a taser, pepper spray, and a baton on you as well to serve as backup weapons? Do you also carry a radio to report your activities to a dispatcher and request backup or medical assistance if needed? Are you wearing a vest under your shirt? And most importantly, no uniform, no badge, you're just some guy walking around with a gun on his belt and no one knows what your intent is, which is where the inciting panic charges come in. Private property owners have a right to post no weapons allowed, including businesses - deal with it. If I don't want someone walking into my house or business with a gun I have a right to refuse them entry. And if they keep coming anyway, professing their 2nd ammendment rights, they are going to get shot. At some point someone trying to make a political statement regarding Open carry into these establishments is going to get killed, and then we are in a whole 'nother world of shit. Keep it up and there will be a law banning open carry. If you want to make a political statement for these establishment do it in a way that matters, stop doing business with those places. Otherwise, next time you want to protest McDonald's or whoever, walk in with a sword on your belt instead of a gun.

Concealed Carry = A legally recognized, obscure and inconspicuous method of protecting ones self of violent crimes. Open Carry = Abusing gun laws in an attempt to make a political statement or artificially create an incident to again make a political statement. People that are seriously interested in personal protection dont open carry.

I haven't been shopping for these for a long time, so don't bash me too hard if I got screwed. But this was the best deal I could find on a KAC Rail System for 16" ARs. Was at least $100 cheaper than I could find elsewhere. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Knights-Armament-Complete-Carbine-Quad-Rail-System-KAC-RAS-New-Box-/330640601016?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4cfbb72fb8

Was hoping they would kill off the wife (Lorie?) but alas..... she still lives.

Nothing is ever certain, and there isn't a single right answer. I'm not even saying that what you here is wrong, or that you should give a turd what anyone here thinks. But guns, tools, crossing the street or just but a couple of million scenarios that your kid will have to learn to deal with, just as you did when you grew up. You can't learn it for them, but you can provide them a good environment in which they can learn these things on their own. You're obviously a conscientious parent, and ultimately erring on the side of caution, if erring at all. I'm just offering this advice: Don't risk losing the value of the lesson by using deceitful tactics. At the end of the day what's most important is that your kid trusts and respects you. But this goes both ways. A typical 8 yr old probably doesn't have the perspective to feel violated by your test, but eventual he will.

I'm assuming that by posting your experiment here in a public forum that you are at least open to, if not requesting the opinions of said public on your experiment. With that said... To video a kid that has given you reason to have concern is one thing, but to video a kid that so far hasn't given you a reason to not trust them is a whole other thing. From what you've described I would say that it would be very difficult for this kid to succeed in this situation. Hew knew he was being tested and above all other things he did the right thing: he didn't touch the gun. But yet he still got in trouble for a situation that you artificially created. Not sure if your expectations of the kid was fair. But I am certain the situation you created here was definitely not fair. I hope that the cost of your "test" was worth the price. In your attempt to learn if you can trust your kid I fear the result is that your kid has learned that he can't trust you.

Some coverage, but not a lot. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Anti-Gun-Group-Boycotting-Starbucks-139304753.html

I would definitely not sell you a gun.

I like gun shows. I like the fact that I can buy/sell to private individuals at gun shows. Hell, I like the fact that as a private owner I can buy/sell to whomever I damn well please. But my consciense does struggle a little not knowing whether or not the person to whom I'm selling a gun is legally allowed to own a gun. I was at a gun show in Cleveland once, with a brushed stainless Desert Eagle 44 mag in my hand for sale. I'll admit it here, the only serious inquiries I had were guys that looked like they were in a gang, and had no serious in guns as much as they wanted to be armed for cheap. I lied to them and told them I had just bought it because I didn't want to sell it to them. If I had the ability to run a background check on those guys myself I probably would have considered selling to them. I support private sales, I support gun shows, but the public needs access to the background check service that dealers have access to.

I think its been longer than that. The Duke isn't there any more. I'm sure lots of people are wondering if this is related to the string of armed robberies that have been occuring in the area lately.

http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=332

If it were me I'd be more inclined to leave them in my trunk than with the staff of the hotel. You have no idea whether or not the hotel staff can be trusted, where the guns will be stored, or if any of them are convicted felons for that matter. Plus if you have to take it out of your car then a lot of people will have an opportunity to see them.

A couple years ago a clerk was shot and killed in the Duke/Duchess right beside that Sunoco. This about 2 miles from my house. My step-kids go to the elementary across the street.

No, but you've got a Tim Hortons, which is better anyway.

Did it come with a safe? Getting your door boo'd sucks, almost as much as someone breaking into your house. But it sounds like you might need to do a better job of securing your home/guns.

I still keep my race bike insured even though it is paid off and no longer streetable. Per my insurance, this is the only way that I can keep theft/fire coverage. Costs me about $275/yr.

How's it going Drew, haven't seen you at the track since your nasty crash with random pit-in dude at Grattan a couple years back. Have you been riding?

Obviously, because these weren't actual snipers. They were "model's for tactical gear retailer. Fun to look at nonetheless.

And the clip can be reversed if you are a lefty like me.

This is totally why I asked if these were "real" photos to begin with. I can't believe that any qualified LEO would reveal so much about their tactics on the internet, at least not one who was planning on keeping their job. Turns out they were marketing photos = NOT LEGIT. Anyway, here's a link to a UK version of the news story surrounding the pics and the controversy growing around them. I don't care for the article much or the comments from the Brits who read it, but it does have more cool pics. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098592/Photos-snipers-nest-Super-Bowl-police-watched-big-game-high-powered-rifles.html?ito=feeds-newsxml