Open Carry, A Right Not Guaranteed

[kiggy74]

Not even in Colorado....

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/05/robert-farago/jefferson-county-colorado-curtails-open-carry/

[Tonik]

Stopped reading after the second sentence.....where he said open carry is a tactical disadvantage.

[kiggy74]

Your loss. Robert Farago speaks the truth on all things gun.

[Scruit]

Stopped reading after the second sentence.....where he said open carry is a tactical disadvantage.

 

It certainly can be, especially if the BG just slots a bullet into the back of your head do prevent you from fighting back.

[chevysoldier]

How many reports of an open carrier being actively targeted are there?

[BDBGoalie]

It certainly can be, especially if the BG just slots a bullet into the back of your head do prevent you from fighting back.

 

I totally agree. There is no purpose to carry openly rather than concealed unless you're trying to make a statement or draw attention. The element of surpise is a great tactical advantage as well as not exposing your capabilities until needed. If I'm a BG, I'm targeting those that present the biggest threat first.

[chevysoldier]

I totally agree. There is no purpose to carry openly rather than concealed unless you're trying to make a statement or draw attention. The element of surpise is a great tactical advantage as well as not exposing your capabilities until needed. If I'm a BG, I'm targeting those that present the biggest threat first.

Have you ever open carried? I doubt out since the ones who make those statements usually haven't. Most bad guys want an easy target, easy get away. They don't want to risk dying over a few bucks. The risk of sneaking up on someone that is openly carrying is too high.

[Gunner75]

Any person who is willing to open carry does so because the law allows it. There are those out there that do so as a political statement but the greater majority of open carry proponents do so because they are allowed to. I open carry all the time and I am not out there screaming at the top of my lungs in Walmart, or McDonald's, Kroger's, or even home depot about how i am exercising my rights to carry a gun. Those who think that's what open carry is about need to get a reality check. Most times I do so to incite a dialog for gun curious people who don't know where to turn. Each time I open carry I get at least one person who asks about those rights and they aren't assholes about it and neither am i. I always give them advice to visit a local gun range and to go to buckeye firearms. I advise them to stay away from YouTube open carry videos because that is not representative of most open carry advocates. 

Edited May 24, 2013 by Gunner75

[Pokey]

I totally agree. There is no purpose to carry openly rather than concealed unless you're trying to make a statement or draw attention. The element of surpise is a great tactical advantage as well as not exposing your capabilities until needed. If I'm a BG, I'm targeting those that present the biggest threat first.

 

I would not go so far as to say there is not a purpose, but I would disagree that many who open carry do so for attention. When I ride I typically carry my LCP in my jacket with a pocket holster, but my XD holster can peek out from under my jacket sometimes. I will not open carry beyond my property, other than being at a good friends house. There is no tactical advantage IMHO, and unless you are carrying openly with a retention holster, that is not tactically very smart. We have the right to do so for now, but I fear that could change if we get a Democrat Gov in office after Kasich.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Pokey

[BDBGoalie]

Have you ever open carried? I doubt out since the ones who make those statements usually haven't. Most bad guys want an easy target, easy get away. They don't want to risk dying over a few bucks. The risk of sneaking up on someone that is openly carrying is too high.

 

Yes, I have open carried. I do not like the attention it draws to me. I disagree that it is more of deterrent than it is a target. If they are already decided to commit the crime, your getting shot before it starts rather than having the tactical advantage of deciding when to reveal and deploy your weapon. I'd rather make myself a target after I've put shots towards the enemy. If you're clearing a house, you shoot the armed ones first, right?

 

Any person who is willing to open carry does so because the law allows it. There are those out there that do so as a political statement but the greater majority of open carry proponents do so because they are allowed to. I open carry all the time and I am not out there screaming at the top of my lungs in Walmart, or McDonald's, Kroger's, or even home depot about how i am exercising my rights to carry a gun. Those who think that's what open carry is about need to get a reality check. Most times I do so to incite a dialog for gun curious people who don't know where to turn. Each time I open carry I get at least one person who asks about those rights and they aren't assholes about it and neither am i. I always give them advice to visit a local gun range and to go to buckeye firearms. I advise them to stay away from YouTube open carry videos because that is not representative of most open carry advocates. 

 

Even though you are not screaming that you are openly carrying a weapon, the weapon is doing that for you. Open carrying because it is a right is very much making a statement. Also, if your intention is for people to come up and ask you questions about it or exercising your rights, you are for sure making a statement.

 

You and I have very different views on carrying. You carry as a statement/conversation starter on weapon rights, and as a weapon second.

I carry concealed, with good weapon retention, in a quickly accessable location, with a weapon system I'm highly trained with, that affords me the best tactical advantage to eliminate a threat. The only time your weapon should be exposed is when it is clearing the holster to eliminate a threat.

 

My reason for carrying sure isn't to inform someone at Wal-Mart or McDonalds what their right are. They can use google for that.

 

I would not go so far as to say there is not a purpose, but I would disagree that many who open carry do so for attention. When I ride I typically carry my LCP in my jacket with a pocket holster, but my XD holster can peek out from under my jacket sometimes. I will not open carry beyond my property, other than being at a good friends house. There is no tactical advantage IMHO, and unless you are carrying openly with a retention holster, that is not tactically very smart. We have the right to do so for now, but I fear that could change if we get a Democrat Gov in office after Kasich.

 

I would disagree with this. I think the majority of people that open carry are:

1. Openly exercising their rights to carry a weapon. (Statement)

2. Think it gives them a tactical advantage because of faster draw time. (I believe the element of suprise is worth the .5 second it takes me to deploy my weapon)

3. Want people to see them carrying a weapon. (Statement, ties in with 1)

4. Want to cause a problem so they can get in a debate about run rights with someone. (Statement, ties in with 1)

5. They cannot/or are too lazy to obtain a CHL permit.

 

I do not consider minor printing or a bit of the weapon peeking out to be open carrying, providing it is corrected when you notice it. That happens to all of us. As long as your not completely negligent in matching your attire to the weapon you are carrying I think you are doing your part.

 

Weapon retention is a great point to bring up as well. If the weapon is not carried in a holster with some form of additional retention system built in you are not only advertising that you have a weapon, you are offering it to the enemy to use if he can get close.

 

I doubt that they will touch Open Carry laws, but even if they did I would expect something like TN state law where open carry is tied into CHL permits. I'll just keep voting Republican. Maybe the GOP will even cut the church affiliation loose and we'll have a good voting option.

Edited May 24, 2013 by BDBGoalie

[Tonik]

. I disagree that it is more of deterrent than it is a target.. 

 

 

 

Depends on the situation.  Standing in a bank when the bank robber comes in, you might be instantly targeted.. Or maybe the bad guy will see the weapon and leave and come back later. Walking down a dark street, will the mugger in the doorway come out guns blazing or will he wait for the next guy that doesn't have a weapon showing? Bottom line, it depends. It depends on the attacker, it depends upon the type of attack. It depends on a shitload of stuff. 

 

But there is NO evidence to back up either opinion.  And that is why I dismissed the article as soon as I saw that. The dude made it a statement of fact when there is not one shred of evidence to support his claim.

[owndjoo]

open carry can serve as a deterrent. most criminals are pansies when it comes to committing crimes against innocent people. Concealed gives you the "surprise" advantage, but usually if someone see's that a person is carrying, they will change their mind and walk away.  Most of the time these people aren't going in to kill someone, they actually dont want any confrontation whatsoever, which is why they pull a weapon.  just my .02 from experience.

[Scruit]

I conceal because it makes my life easier.

[C-bus]

Open carry where I live is akin to me kissing a black man in downtown Macon circa 1960. Just wouldn't go over well with the locals.

[jbot]

I think as long as gun owners can agree that we should fight any attempts to further erode any more of our rights, tactically advantageous or not, we are better off.

[chevysoldier]

There are advantages and disadvantages to each style. Honestly, when I'm off duty I tend to carry my Bodyguard 380 since I carry an M&P 40 5 days out of the week, It's just easier and lighter. But I have OC'ed quite a bit. I've dealt with criminals bg's Yes there are exceptions, but more often than not, a bad guy isn't going to pick off the guy with a visible gun. Would I open carry while walking down the streets of Chicago at night? Hell No but then again I wouldn't be walking in Chicago at night anyways. I take into account the area I'm going to be in. I've OC'ed because it's my Right, because maybe it'll help ease the "evil gun syndrome" for a few people, because in certain instances I want a deterrent rather than surprise.... 

 

I've had this for a while. A good read IMHO.

 

 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.

Quote: The Five Stages of Violent Crime: 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.

 

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 whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. 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. More often, the officer‟s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. 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.

 

 

[Gunner75]

Damn Chevy put it how I feel

[Pokey]

Just carry, that is what is most important. 

[BDBGoalie]

 

There are advantages and disadvantages to each style. Honestly, when I'm off duty I tend to carry my Bodyguard 380 since I carry an M&P 40 5 days out of the week, It's just easier and lighter. But I have OC'ed quite a bit. I've dealt with criminals bg's Yes there are exceptions, but more often than not, a bad guy isn't going to pick off the guy with a visible gun. Would I open carry while walking down the streets of Chicago at night? Hell No but then again I wouldn't be walking in Chicago at night anyways. I take into account the area I'm going to be in. I've OC'ed because it's my Right, because maybe it'll help ease the "evil gun syndrome" for a few people, because in certain instances I want a deterrent rather than surprise....

 

Maybe I feel different because of my perspective and experiences. After my time in the service and seeing/experiencing a few things, I've come to believe that people as a whole are out to take advantage, steal from, or kill anyone they can so they can get ahead in life. Everyone is a threat until I've met and interacted with them, and even after that they may just be elevated to neutral. So in essence I treat situations as if I'm in a hostile zone. I expect people not to going to be deterred, they will use lethal force whenever they can, and they will eliminate exposed threats first.

 

Now, 99% of the time, that level of vigilence and preparation is not necessary. But I don't want to be slacking at the 1% time, so I'll sacrifice the deterring factor for whatever tactical advantage and target mitigation I can obtain.

 

 

The article was a good read. For the sake of not filling half a page with a quote, I'm not going to quote it.

 

 

I agree that we carry to protect ourselves, and we hope to never have to use that weapon.

 

However, if a threat is presented to myself, my family, or my friends, and there is no avoiding it, I wouldn't even lose sleep. Legally it sure isn't appealing, but if it was the only option, so be it. (Hopefully the situation can be mitigated by some avoidance methods)

 

I agree that firing your weapon in self defense will be a traumatic event for you, but I don't agree that it would necessarly be a loss. That seems to be a function of your resiliency.

 

I agree that carrying concealed removes the ability to have an active deterrant and you appear unarmed. I disagree with both because I think people will not be deterred and will eliminate threats first.

 

The five stages are an interesting view on things. I again view the situation as a tactical one, where if I'm the enemy I will eliminate threats first and I will not be deterred from my goal.

I agree that suprise is typically a offensive advantage, but it can also be used in defensive situations. I for one will not let people get within arms reach of me without evaluating the situation. You have the ability to avoid going into a dangerous location just as much as you have the ability to maintain distance and still allow yourself time to deploy your weapon in a hostile situation. If you let yourself get surrounded and allow enemies to enter your safety zone, that is a mistake on your part.

Going on patrol is a offensive action. It can be met by further offensive actions, but there is a good reason weapons are exposed. You expect to encounter conflict.

 

I agree people will not target you to steal your weapon. It can be a secondary goal, but not a primary one. A good retention holster and some situational awareness will go a long way to protecting your weapon. But if you end up in a situation where you can not deploy your weapon then the enemies will take it from you and you lose the defensive capabilities you could have had.

 

I really couldn't give a shit if people are scared by an openly carried weapon. I agree that the sheep will be afraid of the weapon if it is concealed or exposed. However, my purpose in carrying is a defensive one. I'm not out there the change people's minds or acclimate them to weapons. Carrying a weapon as a political statement or PSA is not what I believe they should be carried for.

 

I can see some people not being comfortable with carrying a weapon openly. But that is why it is a choice. I select my wardrobe for that day to include articles that conceal my arms. I carry a 1911 year round and have no problems concealing it and still being comfortable. I'm far more frustrated that half of the places I want to go have signs that prohibit me from carrying a weapon there.

 

 

I agree that you should tailor your kit to your needs. I have multiple layers of weapons and objects that I can use for a variety of situations. You have to use what is comfortable and what works for you. I may disagree with carrying openly, but that is not to say I wouldn't do it if the situation demanded it. (However, that would usually mean I'm in a PC with an M4 and a sidearm in a drop holster.)

 

I'm also never in support of any degredation of our firearm rights.

 

Just carry, that is what is most important. 

 

+1

 

 

And stop buying all my .22LR ammo fuckers.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I'm just here for the gang bang. 

[idodishez]

Where'd you get that article Chevy?

NoBama 2012

[chevysoldier]

Where'd you get that article Chevy?NoBama 2012

Heck, I have no idea. Been on my computer for a while. Probably from an OC or CC forum.

[idodishez]

No problem. Forwarded it to my family members. Just curious where it came from.

This space intentionally left blank to avoid offending anyone

2012

[chevysoldier]

No problem. Forwarded it to my family members. Just curious where it came from. This space intentionally left blank to avoid offending anyone 2012

Pretty sure this is where I got it from.

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