Concealed vs. Open

[Bassbob]

I will bow down Sir to your obviously more passionate position, and your knowledge of what I meant and said.

My apologies.

Relax Sid, I'm not trying to prove my superior knowledge on anything. We are having a discussion. The point of those is to express our opinions. You are encouraged to elaborate on your original point and/or correct or attempt to correct any of my errant thought processes.

 

[Bassbob]

Based on the proliferation of constitutional carry states and the accompanying lack of " Serious incidents" of untrained people carrying firearms, my position is that your fears are unfounded. And I stand by that. I am perfectly willing to entertain your thoughts or opinions on that my friend.

 

[Sld1959]

Based on the proliferation of constitutional carry states and the accompanying lack of " Serious incidents" of untrained people carrying firearms, my position is that your fears are unfounded. And I stand by that. I am perfectly willing to entertain your thoughts or opinions on that my friend.

Ok one last attempt. Where did I say I had fears of anything. I am not opposed to open carry. I simply do not do it because I do not wish to advertise the fact I have a firearm. I think those who wish to SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.

That does not change that the possibility of untrained people carrying increases the possibility of more accidents through simple ignorance.

This does not also change the fact that accidents will happen to trained individuals either, often through carelessness.

Itt is a simple statement of a possible consequence of more people carrying.

 

[Bassbob]

Ok one last attempt. Where did I say I had fears of anything. I am not opposed to open carry. I simply do not do it because I do not wish to advertise the fact I have a firearm. I think those who wish to SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.

That does not change that the possibility of untrained people carrying increases the possibility of more accidents through simple ignorance.

This does not also change the fact that accidents will happen to trained individuals either, often through carelessness.

Itt is a simple statement of a possible consequence of more people carrying.

I agree with this. I also don't open carry for the same reason.

Yes, it is a simple statement you made. You made it though so

A) YOU DON"T HAVE TO SAY YOU HAVE FEARS OF ANYTHING, MAKING THAT STATEMENT ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES IT.

B) If you make a statement on an open forum you should expect people to respond to it. So what exactly about me responding to it is frustrating you ?

C) I am using empirical data to support my opinion that the unintended consequences YOU state are a possibility are minute and do not compare to other allegedly more benign activities which are not constitutionally protected.

So by your own words you are not afraid of anything and you support the rights of people to carry ( assumably concealed or open) without government mandated training. So what was the point of saying there is a possibility of unintended consequences then?

 

[Sld1959]

Ok, again, I bow to your wisdom of what I meant and feel. Thank you for setting me straight on what I believe. And how misguided that is.

 

[C. Sumpin]

I had the thought that some sort of "training" be required for open carry, but quickly thought the better or it, as that would require "government" involvement.
At my stage in life I will probably remain with CC. But I delight in the culture of the Western states where open carry is just a fact of life and accepted without alarm. And, where firearms safety/responsibility still is taught where it should be; in the home.

At this moment in the debate, I'm leaning in favor of open carry by more citizens because the "unintended consequences" of a mishap appears minimal and the "intended consequences" of criminal types would likely be reduced.

I also say it is wise for anyone who open carries that if they are involved in an incident or even a nearby incident to put that thing out of sight before LE shows up.

 

[Bassbob]

Ok, again, I bow to your wisdom of what I meant and feel. Thank you for setting me straight on what I believe. And how misguided that is.

You haven't told us what you believe. You are flip flopping around it. Saying it and then saying you didn't say it.

I'm sure you had a point in saying anything about it in the first place, I just wish you would spit it out already.

 

[Bassbob]

I had the thought that some sort of "training" be required for open carry, but quickly thought the better or it, as that would require "government" involvement.
At my stage in life I will probably remain with CC. But I delight in the culture of the Western states where open carry is just a fact of life and accepted without alarm. And, where firearms safety/responsibility still is taught where it should be; in the home.

At this moment in the debate, I'm leaning in favor of open carry by more citizens because the "unintended consequences" of a mishap appears minimal and the "intended consequences" of criminal types would likely be reduced.

I also say it is wise for anyone who open carries that if they are involved in an incident or even a nearby incident to put that thing out of sight before LE shows up.

Or at a minimum when LEO shows up, have your hands up where they can see them and clearly explain to them you are not a threat.

 

[BobM]

I had the thought that some sort of "training" be required for open carry, but quickly thought the better or it, as that would require "government" involvement.
At my stage in life I will probably remain with CC. But I delight in the culture of the Western states where open carry is just a fact of life and accepted without alarm. And, where firearms safety/responsibility still is taught where it should be; in the home.

At this moment in the debate, I'm leaning in favor of open carry by more citizens because the "unintended consequences" of a mishap appears minimal and the "intended consequences" of criminal types would likely be reduced.

I also say it is wise for anyone who open carries that if they are involved in an incident or even a nearby incident to put that thing out of sight before LE shows up.

"I had the thought that some sort of "training" be required for open carry, but quickly thought the better or it, as that would require "government" involvement." - Agreed.

Required or mandated training to carry to me is unconstitutional, is an infringement or requirement. But, guaranteed training by government, say for example by competent individuals in average high schools and colleges, could be better and a good thing?

EDIT: Government mandated to guarantee firearms training may be the best answer?

 

[cico7]

I do think there is a case to be made for mass open carry.
Any existing documentation on this?

Following you home to see where you live for future burglary? Slim.
Gun snatch? What's the rate on this?

I for one would like further discussion/education on the topic of open carry.

I do not know of any documentation on the subject. I do believe in the idea.

 

[m1911jim]

I have run into several people open carrying in big box stores . When I asked them why their response was "because I can". One guy advised he did have a concealed license. When I suggested he would be a bad guys first target, he advised, "My wife has a concealed permit and would shoot him". I truly believe the majority of people who open carry here in Michigan are only doing it to draw attention to themselves or to instigate a confrontation. Getting a Concealed Carry License is relatively easy as long as you have not been convicted of a misdemeanor or worse. Open carrying while hunting is a different matter. Just my 2 cents.

I would likely give you a similar response under the circumstances you describe. You describe yourself as being nosy, condescending and very impolite. You made an uninvited critique of a stranger's behavior, just like I am doing to you right now. It's the same as asking a stranger, "Why are you so fat? Don't you know it's bad for you?" You might be right, but it's the wrong thing to do.

See how it feels? Gets your back up, right?

 

[BobM]

I would likely give you a similar response under the circumstances you describe. You describe yourself as being nosy, condescending and very impolite. You made an uninvited critique of a stranger's behavior, just like I am doing to you right now. It's the same as asking a stranger, "Why are you so fat? Don't you know it's bad for you?" You might be right, but it's the wrong thing to do.

See how it feels? Gets your back up, right?

Can see your point, but? Can also see Sasquash's point too. It can go both ways? Some others can have reasons for doing or not doing things sometimes even though they may know of better ways and while some others don't understand why?

Maybe, they do what they can at the time and is best they can do at that moment in time because of other things? And, those things aren't always so obvious, visible or apparent to others at times or need to always be explained to complete strangers either?

Many things can be alleviated by using a better diplomatic approach by being more subtle and not so blunt at times? Many things can also be turned sweeter with better choice of words and into more palatable lemonade? - Some people can not CC while they can OC and is sometimes better than no type of carry at all? Sometimes OC is for medical or other reasons. - Same as with medical reasons and obesity for example? Many diseases can cause obesity for example. - There are many things that can cause it besides eating more than a person possibly should. Things, especially personal things, aren't always as they may seem to others may come to mind? More understanding may be an important key point?

 

[Ranger715]

Thinking upon the subject I think there could be unintended consequences from mass open carry. How critical those consequences would be might only become apparent over time.

With most concealed carry permits there is some type of training requirement which at least introduces the basics to those who get the permit. Be it right or wrong to put requirements on the 2nd is not the point of this thought, it is the end result of the required training. With open carry no such requirement exists, thus there would be many more completely untrained neophytes running around armed. This might result in some serious incidents. An issue? Only time would tell.

I think we have conducted the experiment thoroughly enough to conclude there is nothing to worry about. In my state of Washington, open carry is not prohibited, we have "shall issue" for concealed pistol permits, and there is no training requirement. This has been the case for many, many years. There is simply no significant number of negative incidents which are caused by citizens carrying guns for self defense and driven by lack of training. Other states bear out the same result. Could you find some incidents? Of course. But they don't represent any kind of widespread, ongoing problem.

So, we've done states with stringent training requirements, and states with none. No difference. People motivated to carry for self defense tend to be responsible, self governing types. Anomalies are rare. Don't worry. Be happy.

 

[cico7]

I think we have conducted the experiment thoroughly enough to conclude there is nothing to worry about. In my state of Washington, open carry is not prohibited, we have "shall issue" for concealed pistol permits, and there is no training requirement. This has been the case for many, many years. There is simply no significant number of negative incidents which are caused by citizens carrying guns for self defense and driven by lack of training. Other states bear out the same result. Could you find some incidents? Of course. But they don't represent any kind of widespread, ongoing problem.

So, we've done states with stringent training requirements, and states with none. No difference. People motivated to carry for self defense tend to be responsible, self governing types. Anomalies are rare. Don't worry. Be happy.

My biggest concern is turning the incident into a shooting gallery.
If everyone carried open or concealed and badguy starts shooting, I think a lot of people would join in and soon everyone is shooting at everyone else.

 

[BreakingWind]

I think we have conducted the experiment thoroughly enough to conclude there is nothing to worry about. In my state of Washington, open carry is not prohibited, we have "shall issue" for concealed pistol permits, and there is no training requirement. This has been the case for many, many years. There is simply no significant number of negative incidents which are caused by citizens carrying guns for self defense and driven by lack of training. Other states bear out the same result. Could you find some incidents? Of course. But they don't represent any kind of widespread, ongoing problem.

So, we've done states with stringent training requirements, and states with none. No difference. People motivated to carry for self defense tend to be responsible, self governing types. Anomalies are rare. Don't worry. Be happy.

I would posit that part of the problem is the perception of the non-informed. I read an article gleaned from LE records US wide and was astounded by the number of times daily that legal gun carriers stop a crime in process by being armed. It is thousands of times per day in this country. Those are only the ones that are reported. They get no press but have a bad shoot and within minutes its viral on social media and news, many times before all the facts are even out. The non-informed, only seeing one side of the coin are obviously going to see a problem where one does not exist.

 

[David N.]

My biggest concern is turning the incident into a shooting gallery.
If everyone carried open or concealed and badguy starts shooting, I think a lot of people would join in and soon everyone is shooting at everyone else.

My experience is when the shooting starts most people scatter.

 

[cico7]

I would posit that part of the problem is the perception of the non-informed. I read an article gleaned from LE records US wide and was astounded by the number of times daily that legal gun carriers stop a crime in process by being armed. It is thousands of times per day in this country. Those are only the ones that are reported. They get no press but have a bad shoot and within minutes its viral on social media and news, many times before all the facts are even out. The non-informed, only seeing one side of the coin are obviously going to see a problem where one does not exist.

I think back a bit and recall 2 shootings here recently. Both cases cited one party shooting at another but the details released mentioned nothing of armed citizens getting involved. If you are in a shopping mall, odds are someone is probably carrying a firearm wouldn't you agree? But I do not recall any mentioning of someone else getting involved.

 

[BreakingWind]

I think back a bit and recall 2 shootings here recently. Both cases cited one party shooting at another but the details released mentioned nothing of armed citizens getting involved. If you are in a shopping mall, odds are someone is probably carrying a firearm wouldn't you agree? But I do not recall any mentioning of someone else getting involved.

I think this was meant in response to chic 7's comment. I agree with David N., "when the shooting the starts most people scatter". The classic "gun fight" is more the exception then the norm.

 

[Bassbob]

My biggest concern is turning the incident into a shooting gallery.
If everyone carried open or concealed and badguy starts shooting, I think a lot of people would join in and soon everyone is shooting at everyone else.

What? Dude that's more than a little far fetched. In fact it's the same argument democrats in Missouri made when we went constitutional carry. It's ridiculous. Show me one single example of this happening. Where people suddenly lose their minds and everyone starts shooting at someone.

 

[surveyordave]

I think we have conducted the experiment thoroughly enough to conclude there is nothing to worry about. In my state of Washington, open carry is not prohibited, we have "shall issue" for concealed pistol permits, and there is no training requirement. This has been the case for many, many years. There is simply no significant number of negative incidents which are caused by citizens carrying guns for self defense and driven by lack of training. Other states bear out the same result. Could you find some incidents? Of course. But they don't represent any kind of widespread, ongoing problem.

So, we've done states with stringent training requirements, and states with none. No difference. People motivated to carry for self defense tend to be responsible, self governing types. Anomalies are rare. Don't worry. Be happy.

The idea of open carry has actually become more liberal in WA over the last 30 years (read more allowable, not making a political statement), which is strange in light of the move to the left in politics here.

I remember when I first moved here in the 90's police would regularly harass people for open carry of a pistol in a holster (if you did so in an urban setting). Still perhaps unwise to open carry in the Bell Square in downtown Bellevue...

That said, it is nice to be able to carry concealed, and not have to stress about becoming a criminal if the wind blows your shirt around or whatever. And 99.9% of people do not notice a handgun under a shirt, even if it prints a bit. Most people just are not looking. Concealed carry for me means pulling my shirt down over my handgun before walking in the store.