Open Carry

[rcnich]

You can't compare police with the average person.

I use it as an example to assert that more than 15,000 times in one year an openly carried gun did not deter an assault.

A bad guy truly intent on doing you harm (justifying a lethal force response) may not be impressed by your handgun -- whether you're a cop or an average citizen.

So you'd better know how to use it and hold on to it.

 

[RedTape]

I use it as an example to assert that more than 15,000 times in one year an openly carried gun did not deter an assault.

A bad guy truly intent on doing you harm (justifying a lethal force response) may not be impressed by your handgun -- whether you're a cop or an average citizen.

So you'd better know how to use it and hold on to it.

That is true....he may not (note my last paragraph...it all depends on the individual). However, trying to use those police statistics still doesn't work. There are very strict procedures police have to follow in regards to when they can use their firearms. Police are often injured in fights where they cannot use their weapons. Again...officers are going into those situations on purpose.

 

[rcnich]

There are very strict procedures police have to follow in regards to when they can use their firearms.

Actually, police lethal force policy is no different than the legal requirements for ordinary citizens.

Police are often injured in fights where they cannot use their weapons.

We're injured in fights because lethal force is not warranted -- in the same way an ordinary citizen would not be warranted to use lethal force in those situations.

Again...officers are going into those situations on purpose.

Police officers always have the discretion to back out of a dangerous situation, or call for assistance before approaching a dangerous situation -- just as an average citizen does. Just like you, we won't go into a fight we don't think we can win.

Yes, police do go "looking for trouble," but I would suggest this:

If trouble finds you, it's not going to be on your terms.
And when it comes, the violence is no different than for a police officer.

So if you've decided to deal with trouble (however unlikely) by carrying a gun, I believe you should be mentally & physically prepared. Anything less is irresponsible.

So should America have laws designed to inhibit some of that irresponsible behavior? Apparently, for the last 200+ years, US citizens have been okay with that concept. Our statute books just keep getting bigger and bigger.

Folks that feel their 2A rights are being so infringed upon here in the U.S. might prefer a government with a more Libertarian gun policy. I think maybe Somalia has pretty lax gun laws. (sarcasm)

bag5 says "i would like to go out an not have to dress around it ALL the time. i would like to wear a t shirt that actually FITS me than having to wear a size larger to cover up my weapon."

Carrying a pistol on your hip has real consequences and inherent danger. Respect the power.
It's not a fashion statement. Or a political statement.

 

[RedTape]

Actually, police lethal force policy is no different than the legal requirements for ordinary citizens.

Really, I didn't realize you knew every police SOP in the country. I know of departments where that is not the case. Less lethal options are to be used first in certain situations whereas a 78 year old CCW holder would be justified in using his firearm. There is a difference in the training and tools available to an officer than that of other citizens.

We're injured in fights because lethal force is not warranted -- in the same way an ordinary citizen would not be warranted to use lethal force in those situations.

Again, you're lumping all situations together, not allowing for individual circumstances.

Police officers always have the discretion to back out of a dangerous situation, or call for assistance before approaching a dangerous situation -- just as an average citizen does. Just like you, we won't go into a fight we don't think we can win.

I don't even know what to say to this. I have yet to encounter a situation in my experience with the department where officers didn't respond. Whether there was one officer available of the entire shift. If there is a physical domestic in progress, a man with a gun, ADW just occurred, whatever, we are going.

A citizen isn't going to call for backup before entering a dangerous situation. They are going to leave.

We serve search/arrest warrants. If they resist, we aren't "backing out." Police put themselves in dangerous situations everyday. Trying to say they operate under the same circumstances as other citizens is simply ignorant.

If trouble finds you, it's not going to be on your terms.
And when it comes, the violence is no different than for a police officer.

No, but then again citizens aren't serving warrants, breaking up fights, arresting criminals, etc. etc.

So if you've decided to deal with trouble (however unlikely) by carrying a gun, I believe you should be mentally & physically prepared. Anything less is irresponsible.

I completely agree.

So should America have laws designed to inhibit some of that irresponsible behavior? Apparently, for the last 200+ years, US citizens have been okay with that concept. Our statute books just keep getting bigger and bigger.

200+ years? People open carried guns well into the 1900s throughout the US. Just because politicians and lawmakers want to control every facet of society (and have a history of trying to do just that) doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean the majority of the population wants it. Who are you to say I'm too irresponsible to open carry a firearm? If that's the case you can't honestly support concealed carry because there is NO training involved in the class-you aren't even required to hit the target. People get their license and have never even shot a gun before that day.

Folks that feel their 2A rights are being so infringed upon here in the U.S. might prefer a government with a more Libertarian gun policy. I think maybe Somalia has pretty lax gun laws. (sarcasm)

That's rational. Lets compare a law abiding citizen or a police officer who is carrying a handgun OWB under a jacket to corrupt third-world government.

bag5 says "i would like to go out an not have to dress around it ALL the time. i would like to wear a t shirt that actually FITS me than having to wear a size larger to cover up my weapon."

Carrying a pistol on your hip has real consequences and inherent danger. Respect the power.
It's not a fashion statement. Or a political statement.

Agreed. It's not a fashion statement and it is a responsibility, however, saying that concealed carry is responsible and open carry isn't just doesn't hold water. There are too many variables.

Again, I would like to see any statistics/documented cases where a citizen has been targeted or attacked where open carry was the direct cause.

I'm not saying it can't happen, and as I've posted earlier, it's going to depend on the attacker and the circumstances. There are very few situations where I would open carry. However, I don't think that a possible risk justifies stripping citizens of a Constitutional right. What can I say. I guess I just like the idea of individual rights and responsibilities.

 

[rcnich]

You make good points, Red.

Really, I didn't realize you knew every police SOP in the country. I know of departments where that is not the case. Less lethal options are to be used first in certain situations whereas a 78 year old CCW holder would be justified in using his firearm. There is a difference in the training and tools available to an officer than that of other citizens.

No I don't know every SOP for every department in the universe, but I know the CLEET use of force continuum and when a guy has punched me from behind, knocked me down, stomped my head and is tugging at my gun, I DO NOT have to exhaust all my less lethal options FIRST. I get your point; in other situations we do have other options. But I'm specifically referring to lethal force situations -- which is exactly the scenario if bad guy makes a gun grab with Mr. 78 year old.

you're lumping all situations together, not allowing for individual circumstances.

Yes, I guess I am; and I'm getting tired of splitting hairs on this issue. One has to look at the totality of the circumstances.

I have yet to encounter a situation in my experience with the department where officers didn't respond. Whether there was one officer available of the entire shift. If there is a physical domestic in progress, a man with a gun, ADW just occurred, whatever, we are going.

I didn't say officers have the discretion to NOT respond. You're damn right we're going. But we're also trained to assess the situation before we blindly barge into a domestic, man with gun, etc. We can't do our job if we get ourselves killed as soon as we arrive on scene.

Trying to say [police] operate under the same circumstances as other citizens is simply ignorant.

No, police don't operate under the same circumstances as citizens. And citizens, if they're prudent, don't try to break up fights, make arrests, etc. But that doesn't change *the nature of the potential violence* for either of them. Surely you're not saying Mr. Average Joe should be held to a lower expectations of responsibility if he chooses to use the same lethal force tools as a police officer?

you can't honestly support concealed carry because there is NO training involved in the class-you aren't even required to hit the target. People get their license and have never even shot a gun before that day.

Surprise, I do support CCW. Honestly. With a some reservations, mainly pertaining to the ridiculous firearm proficiency standards required for the license, as you so aptly point out. Does that make you feel safer knowing that the guy standing behind you in the McDonald's line may be just as likely to shoot you in the back of the head as shoot the robber? Since we both support CCW, I guess you and I have resigned ourselves to live with that probability. But is that the best way to deal with the risks?

Just because politicians and lawmakers want to control every facet of society (and have a history of trying to do just that) doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean the majority of the population wants it.

Last time I checked, politicians and lawmakers are elected by a MAJORITY of voters. These elected representatives then represent citizens' interests to make the laws we all agree to live by. It's been a long time since my 8th grade civics class, but that's how I remember it. (Of course the system today is totally warped by corporate and special interest lobbyists, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

I don't think that a possible risk justifies stripping citizens of a Constitutional right.

I'm sorry, I never said that I advocate "stripping citizens of a Constitutional right." Please don't assume that's my position.

As MouserMike has already pointed out, the Bill of Rights and Constitution have "been infringed, regulated and codified since the ink dried." That's simply historical fact, and was done with the majority consent of "We the People."

I try to be a realist and deal with things as they are, not how they "ought to be." It's entirely plausible that a majority of Oklahomans would vote against an open carry law. IMHO, it might be a LITTLE more likely that such a law could be approved by voters if such a law included some requirements similar to the CLEET firearms qualification. But when it comes right down to it, I doubt if we have many politicians in the state legislature who have much interest in the issue, or who are willing to stick their neck out on such a "controversial" idea.

I am so done with this topic. If I continue this mental masturbation, I'm afraid I'll go blind.

 

[RedTape]

rcnich-I think you and I probably agree on more than we disagree. Its just some of the details we differ on regarding how those statistics apply to this topic!

As the current licensing system stands, I don't totally disagree with requiring more stringent testing for a carry license (either concealed or open carry). If you have to test and pay for the right to bear arms, you might as well require the applicant to be able to hit their target.

Ultimately, if you are responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon you should be responsible enough to open carry that weapon as well. I have yet to see any proof from states that allow open carry where it resulted in the armed citizen's attack or death.

But I think I'm just spitting out the same thoughts over and over, so until I come up with something new I'll let the debate continue.

 

[rogertoliver]

Very interesting reading here. Several points I can agree with and a few I can't, but for the sake of not beating a dead horse, I'll leave it at that.

For myself, I agree with open carry in the regard that it should protect me from accidently exposing my concealed weapon. If I understand the current OK law now, a concealed weapon means just that, concealed. If that weapon is accidently exposed I would face possible legal issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the open carry law would protect me if exposure of a concealed weapon occurs.

 

[Commander Keen]

I'd like to see open carry being made legal myself, but I doubt that I would do it.
I just prefer flying under the radar, especially where weaponry is involved. And besides, sheeple are generally best when completely unawares (not that many of them would notice an openly carried weapon anyways).

 

[bilboben]

I am for open carry so that I can go from one place to another when checking cows. I ccw so is not as big of a deal anymore, but I would like to just put a side arm on where it is easily grabbed when needed. Open carry is not so important for BG as it is for protection from wildlife and stray dogs which have been dropped off in the country and form packs. CCW is the best for self protection from BG because I want to see the shock and fear on their face when they realize they should have been more selective in their choice for a carreer.

 

[shootinpreacher48]

when are we going to wake up as a people and see, that the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" that means no laws of any kind, and yes i do want a libertarian government, because that is what my founding father were, and our constitution is, so any law (prepare yourself) is a terroristic attack on our rights and anyone who enfores such is one. (am i now the enemy because i tell you the truth), what happened to the oath of I promise to protect the constitution from both foreign and domestic attackers.