Texas open carry demonstration nearly causes riot

[CJ]

There was at least 1-2 threads over the last couple of years. I remember being mildly surprised that you were not open to open carry. I'm not going to sit here and reiterate the whole thing - if you chose not to want it, fine. You don't have to open carry.

It's not that I choose not to open carry, I would not want anyone to open carry. It's dangerous, and it's a liability to all gun owners. How can you protect other people if your gun is visible? You're the first one who's going to be shot, the biggest target in any situation. Not only that, someone can take your weapon. Everything about it seems like a terrible idea. I've never heard any good reasons for it. I'm all about freedoms, but open carry just seems like too much of a liability for gun owners.

[ELVIS]

It's not that I choose not to open carry, I would not want anyone to open carry. It's dangerous, and it's a liability to all gun owners. How can you protect other people if your gun is visible? You're the first one who's going to be shot, the biggest target in any situation. Not only that, someone can take your weapon. Everything about it seems like a terrible idea. I've never heard any good reasons for it. I'm all about freedoms, but open carry just seems like too much of a liability for gun owners.

how do cops do it daily?

god bless.

[CJ]

how do cops do it daily?

god bless.

They wear armor, deterring people from firing at them first. I think that would be obvious. And in any event, a police officer will be the biggest target in any situation. Police officers respond to situation after the initial event has taken place, it is rare they are present during a shooting. Which strengthens my point. You're a criminal and see someone carrying in a public area. You'll wait for them to leave (since you can identify them), or you'll shoot them first. Concealed carry is effective because no one can be identified, criminals do not know who or who is not a threat. You also allow an event to take place where some nutcase takes your pistol and starts shooting. Search google for how many times some crazy asshole has taken a police officer's pistol. Lastly, most duty holsters are quality made and only allow the pistol to be pulled out in a certain direction, some have locks. Your average yokel (see above) is not going to have that kind of holster, or be able/willing to afford it.

[ceyko]

CJ - I'm actually not trying to turn this into a debate thread on this topic. I should have kept the original comment to myself. Also note that in past threads I did not say I'd actually do it all that often myself. However, there are times I'd like the option to do it.

My stance is not going to change and neither is yours. At the end of the day we're both pro-gun and not complete dumb asses. However, I support open carry and you do not. We can point/counterpoint until we're blue in the face.

[CJ]

CJ - I'm actually not trying to turn this into a debate thread on this topic. I should have kept the original comment to myself. Also note that in past threads I did not say I'd actually do it all that often myself. However, there are times I'd like the option to do it.

My stance is not going to change and neither is yours. At the end of the day we're both pro-gun and not complete dumb asses. However, I support open carry and you do not. We can point/counterpoint until we're blue in the face.

I know it wasn't your intention. My stance could change, but I just haven't seen anything convincing. That's why I tend to engage in the discussion because it seems like I'm missing some essential part of the discussion. I like the idea that it prevents me (a CHL holder) from being prosecuted for printing or an unintentional error, but the trade off of liability is too great in my opinion. These lunatics ^^^ are what I'm concerned about. Most of the open carry advocates I've met would better relate to cowboys than citizens.

[ceyko]

I know it wasn't your intention. My stance could change, but I just haven't seen anything convincing. That's why I tend to engage in the discussion because it seems like I'm missing some essential part of the discussion. I like the idea that it prevents me (a CHL holder) from being prosecuted for printing or an unintentional error, but the trade off of liability is too great in my opinion.

Roger. Rather debate the fine points over beers than on here. When it comes to these things my posts turn into 4 page things that really don't get my point across anyway. Essentially though, I'm not sure I agree with the liability side of the argument. On top of that, even if it is true at that point I still don't like laws dictating what I do in this regard.

I let myself just ramble on again and nuked it all. Way too much for this thread on this board. Maybe one day we can have a discussion in person. I think even if we do - we'll see each other's side and understand it. The preferences will be different though.

[sc281]

It's not that I choose not to open carry, I would not want anyone to open carry. It's dangerous, and it's a liability to all gun owners. How can you protect other people if your gun is visible? You're the first one who's going to be shot, the biggest target in any situation. Not only that, someone can take your weapon. Everything about it seems like a terrible idea. I've never heard any good reasons for it. I'm all about freedoms, but open carry just seems like too much of a liability for gun owners.

You've used this argument in the past, but you haven't made a compelling case for it. If it is so dangerous, why aren't people in Arizona, oregon, etc dying in droves?

In my mind it's an excellent deterrent and that seems to bear out in the real world. I have yet to see a good reason not to have it that is anything other than conjecture. There are just as many "cowboys" in az as texas, and they aren't shooting up the place at every loud noise.

Like you, my view could change, but I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.

[CJ]

In my mind, it's an excellent deterrent, and that seems to bear out in the real world. I have yet to see a good reason not to have it that is anything other than conjecture. There are just as many "cowboys" in az as texas, and they aren't shooting up the place at every loud noise.

If it's an excellent deterrent, and it "bears out in the real world" shouldn't there be some evidence? You didn't touch on any of the points that someone can steal the gun, or they would be the first to get shot?

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/5972-man-open-carrying-robbed-his-gun.html

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/dec/03/1/teen-homicide-suspects-had-felony-convictions-ar-1510369/

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-carry-guy-held-up-for-his-gun.html

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/man-accused-of-stealing-gun-from-conceal-and-carry-holder/

Here is evidence that it's a liability. Guns stolen, people killed with their own guns, and people being made a target of crime BECAUSE their gun was visible. Having a visible gun didn't deter any of these crimes, it caused all of them. This isn't what I want drawn into the gun discussion with the liberal media. I don't want the liability it clearly has.

[TeeShock]

What does the open carry law say about handling/touching the weapon in public. Even with mine hidden I find myself checking it frequently. I haven't been packing very long either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[sc281]

If it's an excellent deterrent, and it "bears out in the real world" shouldn't there be some evidence? You didn't touch on any of the points that someone can steal the gun, or they would be the first to get shot?

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/5972-man-open-carrying-robbed-his-gun.html

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/dec/03/1/teen-homicide-suspects-had-felony-convictions-ar-1510369/

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-carry-guy-held-up-for-his-gun.html

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/man-accused-of-stealing-gun-from-conceal-and-carry-holder/

Here is evidence that it's a liability. Guns stolen, people killed with their own guns, and people being made a target of crime BECAUSE their gun was visible. Having a visible gun didn't deter any of these crimes, it caused all of them. This isn't what I want drawn into the gun discussion with the liberal media. I don't want the liability it clearly has.

Everything in life has a liability CJ. Does open carry? Absolutely. But again, you don't see an epidemic of open carriers getting shot with their own guns or shot period. You have pointed out a few over a three year period. Are there more than the examples you've posted? I'm sure there are and you picked a few to make your point. Are there that many that liberals in open carry states have been able to make a compelling case for more gun control? Nope, aside fro liberal bastions like CA and the like.

You state the liabilty of OC, yet fail to mention the liabilities of cc.

Take the gun choice for example. I am very comfortable with my p226. I can shoot it quickly, accurately, and trust it fully..... but it is too big to conceal. So I have to compromise with guns that are themselves a compromise.

Small,
less accurate,
lower round capacity.
and usually a smaller caliber because of the kick a .40 or .45 gives a compact/subcompact, making them even less accurate for followup shots.
Under clothing, which makes it harder to withdraw, especially when your adrenaline is spiked.

Every one of those liabilities can get me killed, but it better than nothing, I suppose.

I understand where you are coming from. It's a risk. It's a risk many states have dealt with for years, and are no worse off for it. Why should Texas not have the same?

All any open carry advocate wants is the choice.

You CHOOSE to not want to open carry. That's fine. I respect that. But why do you feel your choice should affect my and others ability to do so if we wish to?

[CJ]

Everything in life has a liability CJ. Does open carry? Absolutely. But again, you don't see an epidemic of open carriers getting shot with their own guns or shot period. You have pointed out a few over a three year period. Are there more than the examples you've posted? I'm sure there are and you picked a few to make your point. Are there that many that liberals in open carry states have been able to make a compelling case for more gun control? Nope, aside fro liberal bastions like CA and the like.

You state the liabilty of OC, yet fail to mention the liabilities of cc.

Take the gun choice for example. I am very comfortable with my p226. I can shoot it quickly, accurately, and trust it fully..... but it is too big to conceal. So I have to compromise with guns that are themselves a compromise.

Small,
less accurate,
lower round capacity.
and usually a smaller caliber because of the kick a .40 or .45 gives a compact/subcompact, making them even less accurate for followup shots.
Under clothing, which makes it harder to withdraw, especially when your adrenaline is spiked.

Every one of those liabilities can get me killed, but it better than nothing, I suppose.

I understand where you are coming from. It's a risk. It's a risk many states have dealt with for years, and are no worse off for it. Why should Texas not have the same?

All any open carry advocate wants is the choice.

You CHOOSE to not want to open carry. That's fine. I respect that. But why do you feel your choice should affect my and others ability to do so if we wish to?

So despite that fact you haven't supplied any evidence that it deters anyone, and I've supplied evidence that it actually causes crime you've come to the conclusion that it's irrelevant. That's why I feel the argument for open carry is weak. I understand your argument that you can't carry bigger guns with higher capacity, but that's comfort you're arguing. I could conceal carry my smith and wesson 500 if I wanted to, it's just a comfort thing. It's a weak argument in my opinion. Someone who conceal carries has all of the same benefits as someone who open carries. However, people who open carry have far more liabilities. It seems like common sense to me which is better for the public, and for gun owners.

why do you feel your choice should affect my and others ability to do so if we wish to?

I've said it three times. Because it increases the liability of everyone involved, and it puts gun rights at risk. It affects me and every other legal gun owner.

[ceyko]

I love it! Having a gun technicality debate - not whether we should be allowed to have guns or not. It's what I envision Reps/Dems debating at one time - not even questioning that we should be allowed to have guns or not. haha

Sorry, been a day of some liberal posts on facebook.

[sc281]

So despite that fact you haven't supplied any evidence that it deters anyone, and I've supplied evidence that it actually causes crime you've come to the conclusion that it's irrelevant. That's why I feel the argument for open carry is weak. I understand your argument that you can't carry bigger guns with higher capacity, but that's comfort you're arguing. I could conceal carry my smith and wesson 500 if I wanted to, it's just a comfort thing. It's a weak argument in my opinion. Someone who conceal carries has all of the same benefits as someone who open carries. However, people who open carry have far more liabilities. It seems like common sense to me which is better for the public, and for gun owners.

Evidence?

Two can play the google game...

http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...armed-citizens

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138894094.html


We can go all day to find examples that back up eachothers arguments.

I asked you why your choice to not open carry shoukd be forced upon me and others? If it's so bad, then why does every state that borders us have it in some form or fashion? In fact, why do 45 states allow it in some form or fashion?



Which one do you think is more likely to get hit up by a criminal, an open carrier or someone who isn't carrying?
If he had the choice, which he does, he'd go for the one with no obvious defense against him 99 times out of 100.

Some faq's

1 But what if the victim is actually cc'ing?
2 But with concealed carry the bad guys don't know who is carrying and that makes the scared.

Answer


584k chls in texas

http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm

3% of the population. So for alllll our texan gun love, only 3% of us can carry. 3% chance, at most, of a robber getting shot by a chl holder when robbing. That's assuming that
everyone that can carry DOES carry 100% of the time, which we know is true , especially during the 100 degree summer
Can get to his cc quickly enough from its concealed position
Is proficient enough with his compromise of a firearm to get the job done.

Heck, That's better odds of survival for the criminal than if he ran the redlight on the way to the robbery.

A psychological threat is only effective if there is a reasonable chance that the threat will be followed through on. A mugger has likely mugged dozens of people before ever seeing a gun other than his own. For this guy, the criminal, it would be reasonable to assume he'd be affected by normalcy bias just like you and I, that since it hasn't happened yet, he'd probably assume consciously or unconsciously, that it won't happen this time.

When this happens, that psychological deterrent we are banking on ends up being little deterrent at all.


I'd rather bet on the 90+% chance that a robber will pass me by than bet on the feeling that since 3% carry concealed, that it is enough to deter criminals and give everyone some sort of herd immunity. (Being facetious there, but you get the point.


Since we've established that no carry is more dangerous to your health than open carry, and based on the numbers, concealed carry isn't as big a detterent as it's touted to be, i ask again.

Why should we be denied the choice to open carry, thereby increasing the chance of deterring a criminal from doing harm to us, when so many other states, less free ones I might add, have that choice?



It's done okay for 9/10 of the rest of the country. It's not a zero sum game here. It's not like we are taking away cc to have oc. I'm not seeing much of a downside.

[David]

Argument could be made on whether someone who conceal carries will actually use the thing when it comes down to it. If they pull it an not use it, the the links provided above could come into play anyways.

[IHaveAMustang]

Argument could be made on whether someone who conceal carries will actually use the thing when it comes down to it. If they pull it an not use it, the the links provided above could come into play anyways.

That's a good point. I am not drawing to stop a 7-Eleven from getting robbed unless it puts myself or my wife in danger.

I'm not a cop, nor do I play one on TV.