LEO and open carry

[Glocktogo]

I accept the responsibility of my actions with no problem. I will not however accept responsibility for what others may think that I might do. To many of our freedoms are taken away, not for what we do with them, but for what we might do. I can not accept that thinking.

Michael

Nor should you. I was merely pointing out that the perceptions of the public at large do work against OC gaining a foothold. The more we educate ourselves and act responsibly, the more it works in our favor.

I composed a poem in honor of your post...hope you like!
______
Two or three raisins does not a cake bake,
nor two or three anecdotes a pattern make.

--Copyright abajaj11, 2012.
______
But i agree with you, anyone open carrying needs to watch their six and be aware of their weapon and who may grab it.
I just find it disconcerting that some people think the average citizen is incapable of exercising the open-carry God given right responsibly.
These same folks must have REALLY been against concealed carry, with horror stories of pistols going off in pockets IWB holsters and blowing off people's body parts,. But we find average people are quite capable of exercising concealed carry rights responsibly! And it definitely has deterred crime.

Again, for the person who thinks open carry makes you a target, what if 2-3 people are open carrying in the same crowd...does that deter the bad guys from starting something? I think so!

Regardless of what their capable of, is the average person who would open carry in a public area going to do so responsibly? When you see people on TV or the internet protesting for OC, how often do the have an empty holster consisting of a floppy $10 nylon gun show special with a mag pouch attached to the front and a velcro thumbstrap? In an open environment with a 360 degree threat zone, that isn't being responsible.

I'm not saying our rights should be curtailed because of these people, I'm saying that public opinion and the general safety of the public at large are not enhanced by this type of behavior. So I postulate a question. OC passes and you see someone like this out in public. They are obviously wearing an unsafe holster. They appear oblivious to their surroundings and are expecting the magic shield effect their OC gun produces to protect them from harm. Do you strike up a conversation with them and hope for an opportunity to educate them? Or do you go about your business, hoping desperately that they don't wind up on the 6PM newscast as fodder for the anti-gunners as to why OC is a terrible idea?

It's a tough call. Do you suffer his potential wrath for getting in his business? Do you suffer the potential wrath of society at large for the incompetence of one of your fellow gun owners? There are no free rides on this subject. We should all do what we can to educate and inform both the non-gun public and our fellow gun owners on the subject. The more we minimize the risk, the more accepted our rights will be. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the reality of our rights as they stand today.

 

[MLR]

The more we educate ourselves and act responsibly, the more it works in our favor.

I fully agree. The trouble is that many consider the act of carrying or sometimes even owning a weapon to be irresponsible.

Michael

 

[Glocktogo]

I fully agree. The trouble is that many consider the act of carrying or sometimes even owning a weapon to be irresponsible.

Michael

I consider most of those people irresponsible for failing to provide for their own safety. Sadly, they've frequently decided that agreeing to disagree is inadequate for their emotional needs.

 

[Norman]

Why is it people get their panties in such a wad? There are so many extremists on the issue from the pro OC side.

I made you a poem:
When you don't see it coming,
Some people will try to take your gun.
This was what spd sad showing,
But you wanted to make fun.
a very small fraction of people train weapon retention,
cause they think OC scares bad guys.



No, in a 'crowd' a couple OC'rs wouldn't stop a bad but from being bad. If they decide to do evil they will. That is no evidence to suggest otherwise, but there is a large amount of examples to the contrary.

 

[MLR]

I am not a LEO

But I am against open carry

Because the bad guys know who to shoot 1st then.

I believe you made this post in jest, but I will play along.

Wouldn't this be a good thing for you then? The bad guys attention would be drawn away from you and directed at the open carrier. The open carrier might just have saved your life by distracting the bad guy.
To many of our laws are no longer based on making us safe. Instead they are based on trying to make our neighbors quit doing things that we don't want to do. If I don't want to climb a mountain then we need a law to prevent everyone from climbing it.

Michael

 

[abajaj11]

Nor should you. I was merely pointing out that the perceptions of the public at large do work against OC gaining a foothold. The more we educate ourselves and act responsibly, the more it works in our favor.



Regardless of what their capable of, is the average person who would open carry in a public area going to do so responsibly? When you see people on TV or the internet protesting for OC, how often do the have an empty holster consisting of a floppy $10 nylon gun show special with a mag pouch attached to the front and a velcro thumbstrap? In an open environment with a 360 degree threat zone, that isn't being responsible.

I'm not saying our rights should be curtailed because of these people, I'm saying that public opinion and the general safety of the public at large are not enhanced by this type of behavior. So I postulate a question. OC passes and you see someone like this out in public. They are obviously wearing an unsafe holster. They appear oblivious to their surroundings and are expecting the magic shield effect their OC gun produces to protect them from harm. Do you strike up a conversation with them and hope for an opportunity to educate them? Or do you go about your business, hoping desperately that they don't wind up on the 6PM newscast as fodder for the anti-gunners as to why OC is a terrible idea?

It's a tough call. Do you suffer his potential wrath for getting in his business? Do you suffer the potential wrath of society at large for the incompetence of one of your fellow gun owners? There are no free rides on this subject. We should all do what we can to educate and inform both the non-gun public and our fellow gun owners on tc
zhe subject. The more we minimize the risk, the more accepted our rights will be. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the reality of our rights as they stand today.

good question GTG. I wonder if improper OC is that big a problem in the other 40+ states, though.
But to answer your question...guess it depends on the person doing the OC improperly. If he or she seems friendly and approachable, no harm in talking to them.
Otherwise, none of our business....ability and training are NOT prereqs for the right to keep and bear arms. there will always be some folks who screw up, just like some folks drive DUI but we don't ban alcohol or cars.
I heartily support OC because it reduces the "gun toting folks are a small section of the population" us versus them mentality, and makes guns more "normal". Not that I expect too many people to OC, but just the passing of the law will signify acceptance that OK is a free-er State than we have been.

 

[russcook]

Why is it people get their panties in such a wad? There are so many extremists on the issue from the pro OC side.
.

I wouldn't say I've got my "panties in a wad", but I DO feel strongly about my Constitutional rights. Having our 2nd amendment rights restored
does not mean we all have to carry openly. But I want the RIGHT to carry openly in those instances when concealed carry is impractical or
inconvenient. I don't understand why so many opponents of open carry cite the possibility of the carrier being disarmed and injured with his
own weapon. Many of us choose to drive automobiles. In Oklahoma, that is a privilege, not a right. Yet, even Mothers Against Drunk Driving
don't try to remove that privilege from me simply because I might become careless and injure myself. I think it's an insincere argument on the
part of the opponents of OC to say that we might be injured or killed, so we shouldn't be allowed the option of OC.

It should be my choice to carry openly or concealed. The responsibility would then be mine. The consequences, if any, would be on my head.
No one else should make that choice for me.
There really shouldn't be anything more to say on the matter.

 

[oklacowboy]

I wouldn't say I've got my "panties in a wad", but I DO feel strongly about my Constitutional rights. Having our 2nd amendment rights restored
does not mean we all have to carry openly. But I want the RIGHT to carry openly in those instances when concealed carry is impractical or
inconvenient. I don't understand why so many opponents of open carry cite the possibility of the carrier being disarmed and injured with his
own weapon. Many of us choose to drive automobiles. In Oklahoma, that is a privilege, not a right. Yet, even Mothers Against Drunk Driving
don't try to remove that privilege from me simply because I might become careless and injure myself. I think it's an insincere argument on the
part of the opponents of OC to say that we might be injured or killed, so we shouldn't be allowed the option of OC.

It should be my choice to carry openly or concealed. The responsibility would then be mine. The consequences, if any, would be on my head.
No one else should make that choice for me.
There really shouldn't be anything more to say on the matter.

Very well said. I agree 100%.

 

[ruckerduck]

I wouldn't say I've got my "panties in a wad", but I DO feel strongly about my Constitutional rights. Having our 2nd amendment rights restored
does not mean we all have to carry openly. But I want the RIGHT to carry openly in those instances when concealed carry is impractical or
inconvenient. I don't understand why so many opponents of open carry cite the possibility of the carrier being disarmed and injured with his
own weapon. Many of us choose to drive automobiles. In Oklahoma, that is a privilege, not a right. Yet, even Mothers Against Drunk Driving
don't try to remove that privilege from me simply because I might become careless and injure myself. I think it's an insincere argument on the
part of the opponents of OC to say that we might be injured or killed, so we shouldn't be allowed the option of OC.

It should be my choice to carry openly or concealed. The responsibility would then be mine. The consequences, if any, would be on my head.
No one else should make that choice for me.
There really shouldn't be anything more to say on the matter.

Exactly!

 

[Werewolf]

There seems to be a common theme espoused within this thread's posts. They mostly seem to be concerned with a bad guy taking away an OC'rs weapon. That may be a legitimate concern.

Is it possible that a bad guy might walk up and take an OC'rs gun out of a LIII retention holster? Maybe - but probably not and probably not without a struggle. Add to that, that so far in the many, many threads that have covered this topic no one has yet to produce a single case where a bad guy took a gun away from an OC'r anywhere.

That said: There are a variety of holsters that sport Level III retention. I own one made by Blackhawk. I'm here to tell ya that if you don't know what you're doing you aren't gonna get that gun out of that holster. A bad guy certainly isn't gonna be able to do it without knowng how. Point being: A wise man who chooses to OC will at the very least get a retention holster and get training in how to retain it if necessary.

But as we all know, being wise is not a universal quality within the human race.

And wise or not: Open Carry isn't about being wise nor whether or not it is the best strategy for self defense. OC is about the right to keep and bear arms and that right not being infringed. It's about choice - a choice the founders protected by enumerating it within the 2nd Amendment; a choice that has been taken away for many reasons, in contradiction to the prohibition of the government from doing so. Most, if not all of which, boil down to the control of law abiding responsible citizens. They have nothing to do with crime (we all know that gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns) or the bogus argument of safety.

More people need to remember that: OC is about being able to exercise a natural right enumerated in the very foundation of our system of laws. Whether or not one chooses to exercise the right is irrelevant. Having the right is all that matters.