A question for the open carry crowd

[SMS]

Naah, he misquoted someone to make a point and I pointed that out, so now he's pointing to some unnamed person who he apparently has the ability to discern their reason for OCing. I'm not even sure he's actually seen anyone OCing. If you don't like OC, then don't OC. I see some benefit to OC, and I choose to OC. If someone comes on this board and asks what the reasons are for OC, I'll respond with my reasons. If someone comes on here talking about why they don't like OC, I'll suggest that they don't OC.

What I don't understand is this compulsion that people have to keep repeating the same tired old statements about OC that some very simple internet research will bear out has not happened. The fact that it hasn't happened makes it unlikely to happen. Frankly, the only reason I responded to SMS was that he misquoted another poster to make a case that didn't jive with facts in evidence. Anyone is free to have and express an opinion, just don't twist someone's words and put quotation marks around them to try to give credence to your opinion.

I misquoted nothing...I directly quoted text. I am not even attempting to indicate that the person quoted was carrying soley for that reason, just using his words to represent an attitude that, like it or not, IS present in some people (you know, like people who show up wearing a Mare's leg at an open carry event. Tell me that was a legit self-defense choice and not someone trying to look cool.)

The compulsion to repeat statements is evident on both sides....one need only look at your endless OC posts to see that. But that's OK, it's a forum. We all give our opinions, sometimes repeatedly. You can continue to beat the OC drum and I can occasionaly comment on the aspects of OC that turn me off.

If you feel like riding in on your self-saddled OC white horse every time I post my opinion about OC, then so be it...lord knows I've done that myself in regards to other issues here. But I'm not going away.

 

[WAGS]

This guy had no clue about situational awareness. He was wearing a cheap uncle mikes nylon holster with a thin belt. It was a S&W compact with NO type of retention whatsoever. Oh well....it'll make a nice prize for someone who wants to take it from him.

I truly think that its the lack of situational awareness, of individuals that are OC'ing, that is the ultimate problem to the possibilities.. I'm starting to see a slight trend of comments about non'retention holsters bieng this "hey here have my gun" type scenario, like having a holster with retention is 100% fail safe. Cuz its not.. A 7 year old could be taught the release latch of a blackhawk, the thumb release of Safariland, any thumbed or flipped button of a leather holster, not to mention if you tie in the tactics of quickly lifting/trapping/moving thier left arm with your left hand while grabbing the weapon with your right(in the situation the carrier is right handed and your attacking from thier 6) -- have there been any reported cases in the last several years of a individual OC'ing having his weapon taken from him by surprise?(im not saying there hasn't been, i'm asking based off a lack of research) -- I feel no more comfortable OC'ing with my 92fs in a blackhawk serpa than I do with my G26 in a Raven concealment, strictly based off the fact of my mindset and situational awareness.. I truly believe when and if we hear a story of a man having his gun taken from him, it will be based off the fact that he was making himself a easy target, and not based off what kind of holster he was wearing. (but of course knowing my luck it will be a nylon uncle mikes and I'll have to eat my words, but either way I think yall understand what i'm tryin to say)

 

[BadgeBunny]

Naah, he misquoted someone to make a point and I pointed that out, so now he's pointing to some unnamed person who he apparently has the ability to discern their reason for OCing. I'm not even sure he's actually seen anyone OCing. If you don't like OC, then don't OC. I see some benefit to OC, and I choose to OC. If someone comes on this board and asks what the reasons are for OC, I'll respond with my reasons. If someone comes on here talking about why they don't like OC, I'll suggest that they don't OC.

What I don't understand is this compulsion that people have to keep repeating the same tired old statements about OC that some very simple internet research will bear out has not happened. The fact that it hasn't happened makes it unlikely to happen. Frankly, the only reason I responded to SMS was that he misquoted another poster to make a case that didn't jive with facts in evidence. Anyone is free to have and express an opinion, just don't twist someone's words and put quotation marks around them to try to give credence to your opinion.

Dang, brian ... Dude, just because it's "unlikely to happen" doesn't mean it won't happen, either. I can see how you thought SMS might have twisted someone else's words around because of your agenda, but hey! you look in the mirror much?? You know, those tired old arguments are coming from BOTH sides of the fence ...

I kinda think WAGS is right. Any type of holster can be circumvented, given a "properly motivated" individual but the particular fella GC is talking about is the CLASSIC example of EVERYTHING that is wrong with OC ... Carrying for the wrong reasons and carrying improperly (attitude and equipment wise). Quite frankly, I could have taken his gun from him and I'm nothing special.

This will stir up a firestorm in its own right but I've held this opinion even about concealed carry ever since I taught SDA classes -- there is not nearly enough training nor proper quals for folks who want to carry a weapon IMHO. The last thing I want to happen when I go out is to get shot with somebody else's gun because they weren't paying attention, had a holster that had NO opportunity for retention or had NO training in weapons retention -- or shot placement, for that matter.

And God forbid I ever have to use my firearm and then shoot an innocent bystander because I didn't "need" training ... And yes, another shitstorm is about to drop down -- MEN are a bazillon times worse about thinking they don't need any training than women are. You guys have your balls and your adrenaline -- for so many of you that seems to be enough. Problem is that's just "enough" to get you into a ton of trouble and wind up rooming with Jerome Ersland.

I've banged this drum around here for longer than a lot of you guys have been on this board -- there is NO EXCUSE for not getting training and regular practice if you are gonna carry a firearm. No excuse at all ...

If I had my way, every single person who carries a gun in public (whether concealed or open) would be required to get so many hours of CLEET-approved training EVERY YEAR AND shoot a minimum qualifier every quarter. That's right ... If it's good enough for law enforcement, it's good enough for anyone else who wants to carry ...

 

[CHenry]

If I had my way, every single person who carries a gun in public (whether concealed or open) would be required to get so many hours of CLEET-approved training EVERY YEAR AND shoot a minimum qualifier every quarter. That's right ... If it's good enough for law enforcement, it's good enough for anyone else who wants to carry ...

Let me guess, your a Liberal?
Law enforcement is trained to do a job. One that puts them in situations every day or week or whatever the frequency is based on the area they work in. They must be trained. Unlike the average Joe citizen who is more likely to never be in a situation requiring use of their weapon. I drive a car because I took a test and passed it, that doesnt qualify me to drive NASCAR.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Let me guess, your a Liberal?
Law enforcement is trained to do a job. One that puts them in situations every day or week or whatever the frequency is based on the area they work in. They must be trained. Unlike the average Joe citizen who is more likely to never be in a situation requiring use of their weapon. I drive a car because I took a test and passed it, that doesnt qualify me to drive NASCAR.

ROFLMAO!! Yep, that's me ... liberal to the bone!

Yeah, I know, I know, I know ... I don't think the driving rules are stict enough either ... But I'm not talking about driving. I'm talking about shooting a gun. And if you are gonna carry one you ought to have some decent level of proficiency with it. (And the SDA class DOES NOT address that issue ...) Just because someone is "more likely" not to need to use training in the real world doesn't mean they shouldn't get that training ... Hell, if "more likely" was the only requirement for lots of things in life there's a LOT of stuff plenty of us wouldn't be doing right now ...

You know, come to think of it, that line of reasoning (the driving analogy) sounds awfully liberal to me ... Sure YOU aren't the liberal in this conversation??

Guess you all you guys ought to be glad I don't write the rules, huh??

 

[yukonjack]

Let me guess, your a Liberal?
Law enforcement is trained to do a job. One that puts them in situations every day or week or whatever the frequency is based on the area they work in. They must be trained. Unlike the average Joe citizen who is more likely to never be in a situation requiring use of their weapon. I drive a car because I took a test and passed it, that doesnt qualify me to drive NASCAR.

Then they should NOT carry them. Firearms are insturments of death and destruction. They aren't used to make tea and crumpets.

 

[WAGS]

I drive a car because I took a test and passed it, that doesnt qualify me to drive NASCAR.

Exactly!! And just because a individual has the time and money to sit thru a 8 hour class, put 20 rounds on paper at 10 yards, and pass a background check, doesn't mean that they SHOULD be qualified to carry a gun in public with the possibility of having the decision of whether or not to use that firearm in a public setting. I want and wish everybody would excersise thier right of this great nation, and this great state to carry a firearm. But I also want everybody that DOES carry to fully understand, the responsibility not only for themseles, but everybody around them, that they are inheriting when they carry into a public setting.. and unfortuntely, the minimal requirements to be met to recieve a handgun license, doesnt create or educate that mindset responsibility.

 

[vvvvvvv]

So should we license instruments of speech?

 

[yukonjack]

So should we license instruments of speech?

Huh? You mean like a ham radio license from the FCC?

 

[CHenry]

So should we license instruments of speech?

Apparently so...according to some.