IBCoupe wrote:Of course a big burly guy is more imposing than a scrawny guy. Of course any person with a gun on their belt is more imposing than a burly guy. Of course any person with a gun in their hands if more imposing than a person with a gun on their belt. How is an accurate perception of potential threat not in line with reality?

Well, I suppose if you put it that way... An armed individual is certainly more threatening than one who isn't. Wouldn't criminals see it this way too, though? And if we're going to worry about laws to reduce potential threats, I think motor vehicles need to be the first target.

IBCoupe wrote:As for the gun control law's effect, let's bring it back to Chad's arguments: would you rather have your wallet taken, or be dead and have your wallet taken?

I'd rather just have my wallet taken. But, playing on that argument, if you were being attacked, would you rather have a chance to defend yourself or not?

IBCoupe wrote:

AppleBonker wrote:I suppose. Out of curiosity (not being a d***, seriously), if defending yourself with a firearm is the exception to the rule, what is the rule?

EDITED for clarity: If you are mugged and violently resist, you'll probably get hurt. If the mugger has a gun, you'll probably get hurt a lot.

So the issue isn't actually carrying a weapon. It's your choice of defending yourself or not?

AppleBonker wrote:Well, I suppose if you put it that way... An armed individual is certainly more threatening than one who isn't. Wouldn't criminals see it this way too, though? And if we're going to worry about laws to reduce potential threats, I think motor vehicles need to be the first target.

We definitely need stricter controls on driving, but a gun won't get me to work. Utilitarian concerns will always affect the balance of where the law falls.

AppleBonker wrote:I'd rather just have my wallet taken. But, playing on that argument, if you were being attacked, would you rather have a chance to defend yourself or not?

Can't say that I always would. If I could disarm the situation without increasing my risk of death, I'd happily pay to do so.

AppleBonker wrote:So the issue isn't actually carrying a weapon. It's your choice of defending yourself or not?

I thought that was the context you were describing it. Why bring up the anecdotes of people successfully defending themselves? Got a concealed weapon? Well, there's a choice now, isn't there? Got an open weapon? You've made your choice.

So, I suppose the counter argument is that by brandishing your weapon at all times, you reduce the frequency of your muggings. I have to say though, I think the frequency of muggings for most people is likely to be low enough that it's not worth the extra risk of getting only the most ballsy of muggers coming at them.

IBCoupe wrote:I have to say though, I think the frequency of muggings for most people is likely to be low enough that it's not worth the extra risk of getting only the most ballsy of muggers coming at them.

Openly carrying would not affect the likelihood of one of those "ballsy muggers" coming at you though, would it?

IBCoupe wrote:We definitely need stricter controls on driving, but a gun won't get me to work.

It could certainly help get you to work. But then you wouldn't be using it legally.

AppleBonker wrote:Openly carrying would not affect the likelihood of one of those "ballsy muggers" coming at you though, would it?

No; I realize how that can be read into my statement. I meant to say that if open-carry reduces your likelihood of being mugged, it doesn't do it completely, and in the event that you open-carry and are mugged, it's more likely to be from only the most ballsy (most violent?) of criminals, because you've weeded them out. That may just be a function of statistics and might not mean much in the real world, but I thought it was worth noting.

You see similar statistical oddities all over the place. Antibacterial-resistant strains of MRSA appear in hospitals because everything else has been killed off. The more successful we are in Afghanistan, the harder the battle gets, because we're left fighting the people who've managed through their cunning to not die yet. Anybody making mistakes gets killed, so you only have people who don't make mistakes. Like training Klingons.

AppleBonker wrote:It could certainly help get you to work. But then you wouldn't be using it legally.

Touche!

Open-carrying is tactically stupid. The only advantage is being able to carry a larger sidearm, rifle, or shotgun. You attract attention, and give the would-be adversary an opportunity to steal your weapon more easily.

This law doesn't bother me. Get a CCW if you want to legally carry.

CCW permits require you to understand the value, danger, and very few applications in which your firearm may be presented and/or discharged. The certification class is only 8 hours long, and does not require much intelligence (in relative terms). I see it as a very low, yet efficient barrier to keep firearms in the hands of those who should be carrying. All non-felon adults who haven't committed any violent crimes whatsoever can take the class in most states.

you cant get a CC in California as a normal person.
Open carry was the last bastion of being able to legally carry a firearm.

I'm not so sure that it justifies its legality, though. Open-carry is only suitable for law enforcement and armed security. Any private citizen that open-carries is just asking for trouble.

Perhaps CA needs to fight for the right to concealed carry. If I could extend my WA vote over to CA, I'd vote for your right to obtain a CCW.

I bought my car from a CHP, and he explained to me that you need to apply through your local Sheriff's Dept. and give them a good reason to let you carry. To me, that is a bit much.

AppleBonker wrote:If you were being attacked, would you rather have a chance to defend yourself or not?

I suppose, for me, "it depends".

At one time, I was a damn good marksman and could get 20 out of 20 shots into a 2 inch circle at 50 feet (using a .22 Daisy Feinwerkbau target pistol) without hardly trying very hard. With a single-shot .22 marksman pistol, 15 shots out of 20 would be within one bullet width of dead-center and all 20 out of 20 would be in a 1.0 inch circle.

And, ny Dad brought me up correctly. I would NEVER consider shooting at any living thing - human or otherwise - for the wrong reasons. Regardless of which, in a criminal situation where I felt that my life, or a loved ones life, was threatened for certain (and this is not always clear, of course) and if I had a gun handy, I would definitely defend my life or my loved ones life. Because I would trust myself to get it done right - with a minimal likelihood of an issue.

And, yes, I would shoot to kill (the only kind of self-defense that works) if confronted with a definitive life threatening situation ... movie "shoot the hand/gun" artifices or "shoot to disable" crap espoused by some is utter nonsense.

BUT, here's the silly kicker: I don't even own a gun now, let alone carry it around - concealed or open is thus irrelevant.

So the question may be mostly moot for many of us.

Z

AppleBonker wrote:I'd rather just have my wallet taken. But, playing on that argument, if you were being attacked, would you rather have a chance to defend yourself or not?

Dude, stop arguing with them. If they want to pass laws in their state to restrict carrying firearms let them. As long as they dont move to OUR great state and f it up for us. Indiana Code leaves us the freedom to choose to conceal or open carry and we dont have to be accountable to any of Issac's, Matt's or Encryptshun's views.
I had some much needed perspective tonight as we went out with Repoman and a few friends to celebrate our friend's birthday (with beer) because he is serving in Afghanistan right now and cant enjoy...

Cold_Zero wrote:Indiana Code leaves us the freedom to choose to conceal or open carry and we dont have to be accountable to any of Issac's, Matt's or Encryptshun's views.

I never said I would vote in favor of restricting open-carry. I'm just saying that I can see some sense in limiting that to select individuals.

I think I even said that CA residents should be fighting for their right to conceal weapons.

Care to elaborate on your recent alcohol-induced epiphany?

There is a big difference between perspective (what I said) and an epiphany. It was nice to throw back a few beers with my buddies and celebrate our buddy's birthday (while he is current deployed in Afghanistan and can't enjoy a beer for his birthday) and have conversation with people that will actually listen. AppleBonker, anytime you want to get a beer, you let me know.

Deflect as you must, I suppose. I have yet to see you actually provide a legitimate argument in favor of open-carry.

It's the least-desired way to carry a weapon for private citizens, which I'm sure you are well aware of. It's reckless and tactically deficient. Can you agree to that?

I would argue that it is you who will not listen to others, good sir, as you have yet to respond to any of my points.

So you are telling me that conceal carry answers every problem about carrying a firearm and fits EVERY application in the real world? The police, military and paramilitary groups typically open carry. I don't know, it may be easier and faster for some to draw their weapon? It can be a deferent for some criminals not to commit a crime. I just don’t see a benefit for limited something like this, especially when your claim of tactics I suspect really comes down to your preference.
I prefer my state not to limit my choices especially when I have/am doing nothing wrong. I am also very skeptical as to the rationale behind the legislation; I think it is a bogus reason. I conceal carry personally, because of the choice I (not the state or someone else) have made. I have no problem if my buddy or fellow Hoosier doing so.
No I can't agree with your assessment that open carry is reckless, I just outright disagree with you there. Could you expand on that for me?

Bud, I'm sorry if I gave you or anyone the impression that I don't "actually listen". I thought I was trying to listen as much as possible, which is why I was asking questions.

Is ok.. I think it is the forum (pun intended). It is much easier to discuss these things in person and over beer. Which I extend the invitation to any of you guys.

mattblancarte wrote:Deflect as you must, I suppose. I have yet to see you actually provide a legitimate argument in favor of open-carry.

And I've yet to see anyone provide a legitimate argument against it.

mattblancarte wrote:It's the least-desired way to carry a weapon for private citizens, which I'm sure you are well aware of. It's reckless and tactically deficient.

While this may be true (and as I've stated is part of the reason I don't), how does it harm you if someone else chooses to open carry? If they decide to put themselves at more risk, what does that change for you?

To be clear, I don't see any reason to open carry, but that doesn't mean others should be forced into the same position. I will always oppose measures that restrict MY freedom of choice.

mattblancarte wrote:Deflect as you must, I suppose. I have yet to see you actually provide a legitimate argument in favor of open-carry.

It's the least-desired way to carry a weapon for private citizens, which I'm sure you are well aware of. It's reckless and tactically deficient. Can you agree to that?

I would argue that it is you who will not listen to others, good sir, as you have yet to respond to any of my points.

The point is not if concealed carry or open carry is more appriate. The point is that concelaed carry is already illegal in California .. so if you make open carry illegal too , even if the gun is unloaded, you make ALL carry illegal...

Concealed-Carry is not illegal in California. It may be difficult to obtain a permit, but it isn't illegal.

IBCoupe wrote:Concealed-Carry is not illegal in California. It may be difficult to obtain a permit, but it isn't illegal.

Since nearly no one can get one of thiose permits, concelaled carry is illegal for nearly 100% of the population.
hence making open carry illgela even if its unloaded makes carrrying arms nigh impossible.

Like I said before the thing that sparked effort are the 2nd amendment demosntrations where PPL were carrying openly.
Now these demonstrations are illegal which is why the law was passed

Even if that's the case, might it be that the protests were making security a problem? Where were they protesting? Outside the statehouse?

Protesters would still have to abide by California code and I would be shocked if California code does not have restrictions on where people can carry.
You see Isaac’s rationale (it may not be your specific rationale, but you are supporting it)? We have a security issue, with people carrying firearms in and around government buildings. How do we fix it? Bad all open carrying of firearms. Makes perfect sense.
I suspect the issue, as stated much earlier was they were trying to prevent gang bangers or teens from carrying unloaded weapons around and threatening people (which really would be covered under California code dealing with intimidation with a firearm). This is how government fixes a problem.. they go overboard and hurt the law abiding citizen.

Cold_Zero wrote:So you are telling me that conceal carry answers every problem about carrying a firearm and fits EVERY application in the real world? The police, military and paramilitary groups typically open carry. I don't know, it may be easier and faster for some to draw their weapon? It can be a deferent for some criminals not to commit a crime. I just don’t see a benefit for limited something like this, especially when your claim of tactics I suspect really comes down to your preference.

For self defense, it fits 99% of scenarios. If I'm not mistaken, in Texas, concealed carry is the only permitted type of carry, unless you need to handle a rifle.

Of course law enforcement and military open carry for ease-of-use. They carry all kinds of crap on the outside of their person. However, it's not significantly slower to draw from a concealed holster when you are properly dressed. If you're worried about how quickly you can brandish your weapon, you should practice your draw.

I don't think the argument of "Open carry should be legal because I can draw my firearm 500ms faster than when I conceal" holds much weight.

I'm sorry, but open carry produces the opposite effect of what any smart gun owner would want to happen in public. You bring attention on yourself, even from criminals. You scare people who aren't used to seeing firearms. You'll be the first to be shot at if said criminal is armed and ready to fire.

If you want to keep things cool in a bad situation, you do NOT want to produce a firearm. That can escalate the situation beyond the point of return. When you open carry (not being law enforcement), it's always going to escalate.

And to your point of open carrying your weapon to have it cleaned or repaired... are you serious? Put it in a gun case! Why the hell would you want to open carry an empty weapon? lol That is just crazy.

The benefit is for the peace of the general public. MOST people don't carry or want anything to do with guns. It's just a fact. Would you want to open carry through a playground of children? Have you thought of why most public places do not allow firearms (as their rights provide the ability to prohibit such items)? How about you open carry through the mall. See how fast you get detained or asked to leave. Guns upset people, whether you like it or not.

Concealing your weapon provides YOU protection, and OTHERS peace of mind. Pretty simple. Consider it a close cousin to public decency.

Cold_Zero wrote:I prefer my state not to limit my choices especially when I have/am doing nothing wrong. I am also very skeptical as to the rationale behind the legislation; I think it is a bogus reason. I conceal carry personally, because of the choice I (not the state or someone else) have made. I have no problem if my buddy or fellow Hoosier doing so.
No I can't agree with your assessment that open carry is reckless, I just outright disagree with you there. Could you expand on that for me?

You're overlooking public decency when deciding whether or not you're doing something wrong.

Hell, you even admit that you prefer to conceal carry! I bet you conceal carry for some or all of the reasons I stated above, too.

Again, why open carry is reckless:
1. You are always brandishing a firearm. Even though you aren't waving it around, you are displaying potential deadly force.
2. You frighten average people. MOST people do not want to see guns, especially on random people. You are affecting every single person who sees you, whether you like it or not.
3. Although highly unlikely, you make yourself a target for theft.
4. You make yourself a target for any criminal who is ready to shoot people. If you're in a line at the ATM, and some armed criminal pulls a gun... Guess who gets to stare down the barrel? Most likely, you.

Open carry is reckless, and it almost always makes more sense to conceal your weapon(s). I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I can produce off the top of my head.

AppleBonker wrote:While this may be true (and as I've stated is part of the reason I don't), how does it harm you if someone else chooses to open carry? If they decide to put themselves at more risk, what does that change for you?

To be clear, I don't see any reason to open carry, but that doesn't mean others should be forced into the same position. I will always oppose measures that restrict MY freedom of choice.

I personally don't mind if someone wants to open carry here in WA. You bet I'm going to watch them like a hawk while they are within visual range.

However, there are increased risk factors for everyone within firing distance of an open carry individual. How do we all know that this person has had training to use and carry safely? For all we know, it could be some 21 year old kid who likes guns, but doesn't have the sense to get a CCW.

If you carry a gun and put yourself at more risk for a violent incident, you put everyone within firing distance at risk. Does that make sense? Even the most trained individual can make a deadly mistake.

I'm not even saying that I would vote in favor of restricting open carry... but it sure seems like you guys think open carry is just a walk in the park for the owner and all people within firing distance. :P

PalmerWMD wrote:The point is not if concealed carry or open carry is more appriate. The point is that concelaed carry is already illegal in California .. so if you make open carry illegal too , even if the gun is unloaded, you make ALL carry illegal...

I think CA residents should fight for their right to conceal carry.

mattblancarte wrote:You'll be the first to be shot at if said criminal is armed and ready to fire.

This is the argument I have a problem with. If it only takes the sight of a gun to cause someone to go off shooting, I'd say the likelihood of preventing them from shooting in the first place is pretty slim.

I'd also like to think there are a fair amount of criminals out there who would see the firearm and think, "you know, trying this crime here is almost certainly going to lead to a shoot out. I don't really want to die, so I think I'll hold off until the coast is clear".

mattblancarte wrote:The benefit is for the peace of the general public. MOST people don't carry or want anything to do with guns.

Eff em? Most people don't want to marry a same-sex partner. Most people don't want to have an abortion. Most people don't...

mattblancarte wrote:Guns upset people, whether you like it or not.

Blacks upset some people too, whether they like it or not. That doesn't make the person "doing the upsetting" wrong.

mattblancarte wrote:I personally don't mind if someone wants to open carry here in WA. You bet I'm going to watch them like a hawk while they are within visual range.

Fair. And if you want to watch everyone who appears to be from the mid-east like a hawk (because they may just be terrorists), feel free. What I think you'd find (in both cases) is that the person will go along their way and cause no harm.

mattblancarte wrote:However, there are increased risk factors for everyone within firing distance of an open carry individual. How do we all know that this person has had training to use and carry safely? For all we know, it could be some 21 year old kid who likes guns, but doesn't have the sense to get a CCW.

What if CCW isn't permitted? And am I to assume that anyone who is concealing their firearm is a better shot? Or has had better training?

mattblancarte wrote:If you carry a gun and put yourself at more risk for a violent incident, you put everyone within firing distance at risk. Does that make sense? Even the most trained individual can make a deadly mistake.

See the part I bolded. How can one prove that open carrying puts one more at risk of a violent incident?

IBCoupe wrote:Concealed-Carry is not illegal in California. It may be difficult to obtain a permit, but it isn't illegal.

Not just difficult ... it is downright impossible in some CA areas where local law enforcement chooses to ignore the requests.

Z

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:If you carry a gun and put yourself at more risk for a violent incident, you put everyone within firing distance at risk. Does that make sense? Even the most trained individual can make a deadly mistake.

See the part I bolded. How can one prove that open carrying puts one more at risk of a violent incident?

I think I agree.

In fact, I might even believe that the open carry is more of a deterrent to a criminal (who is, in all likelihood, concealing their weapons - illegal or not, licensed or not) who sees the open carry. The criminals are not stupid ... the vast majority of them will want to avoid putting themselves into a position of deadly danger.

So, it is more likely to reduce crime than increase violence.

Of course, I don't know whether this is true or not ... just my belief.

Z

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:You'll be the first to be shot at if said criminal is armed and ready to fire.

This is the argument I have a problem with. If it only takes the sight of a gun to cause someone to go off shooting, I'd say the likelihood of preventing them from shooting in the first place is pretty slim.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that you put yourself at greater risk, and you give the criminal a heightened sense of danger.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:The benefit is for the peace of the general public. MOST people don't carry or want anything to do with guns.

Eff em? Most people don't want to marry a same-sex partner. Most people don't want to have an abortion. Most people don't...

Ok that is not a valid argument. You are talking about private choices vs public choices. You can juggle your guns in your own home for all I care, although I hope you don't have any close neighbors.

When you open carry, you are doing so in public. Does the difference make sense?

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:Guns upset people, whether you like it or not.

Blacks upset some people too, whether they like it or not. That doesn't make the person "doing the upsetting" wrong.

Again, you aren't producing a valid argument. Fear or black people is bigotry. Fear of deadly weapons carried openly by strangers is legitimate. They can easily kill you.

Furthermore, you can't choose to be black. You CAN choose whether or not to brandish a weapon.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:I personally don't mind if someone wants to open carry here in WA. You bet I'm going to watch them like a hawk while they are within visual range.

Fair. And if you want to watch everyone who appears to be from the mid-east like a hawk (because they may just be terrorists), feel free. What I think you'd find (in both cases) is that the person will go along their way and cause no harm.

No argument there. Most of the time, it's no big deal at all. The concern is that the rare occasions in which incidents occur, you have a potentially deadly situation on your hands.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:However, there are increased risk factors for everyone within firing distance of an open carry individual. How do we all know that this person has had training to use and carry safely? For all we know, it could be some 21 year old kid who likes guns, but doesn't have the sense to get a CCW.

What if CCW isn't permitted? And am I to assume that anyone who is concealing their firearm is a better shot? Or has had better training?

Ok you are focused on the wrong issues. It's not an issue of who can shoot more accurately, it's an issue of whether or not the person has been trained to properly handle a weapon.

In most open carry states, you can buy a gun and use it without any training whatsoever. At least with a CCW you have a minimum amount of safety training and range time with the weapon. More often than not, someone with a CCW will be better trained that someone without a CCW.

So yes, you can probably assume they are better trained.

AppleBonker wrote:

mattblancarte wrote:If you carry a gun and put yourself at more risk for a violent incident, you put everyone within firing distance at risk. Does that make sense? Even the most trained individual can make a deadly mistake.

See the part I bolded. How can one prove that open carrying puts one more at risk of a violent incident?

You'll have to re-read all the points I've already made. If you want me to cite specific incidents in which casualties have occurred, I'm not sure I'm going to have the time today. I'm in the middle of writing a script that exports data to CVS files.

Bottom line is this: Sensible gun owners conceal their weapons. Those who open carry are either untrained, or just trying to make a statement.

mattblancarte wrote:

AppleBonker wrote:This is the argument I have a problem with. If it only takes the sight of a gun to cause someone to go off shooting, I'd say the likelihood of preventing them from shooting in the first place is pretty slim.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that you put yourself at greater risk, and you give the criminal a heightened sense of danger.

Or maybe it could give the criminal a stronger deterrence.

Z

szh wrote:Of course, I don't know whether this is true or not ... just my belief.

I'm in the same boat. I don't know if this is the case or not. It seems logical, but I'm not sure there is data to support either side (hence my reservations at the claims that open carry will increase violence).

mattblancarte wrote:You're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that you put yourself at greater risk, and you give the criminal a heightened sense of danger.

Based on the argument I have presented, I'm not sure that this is true. In the interest of self-preservation, I'd like to think that MOST criminals do not want to be involved in a gun fight. It stands to reason that you are more likely to walk away from a non-violent confrontation than a violent one, so why not avoid it?

If, however, the criminal is hell-bent on violence, you're already in a great deal of danger REGARDLESS of whether you're open carrying or not.

mattblancarte wrote:Again, you aren't producing a valid argument. Fear or black people is bigotry. Fear of deadly weapons carried openly by strangers is legitimate. They can easily kill you.

A stranger can kill me with or without a gun. The odds of me being shot and killed by an unfamiliar person are far lower than the plethora of other ways they are likely to kill me. I'll buy into the fear of strangers, but they don't need to be carrying a weapon for me to fear them.

mattblancarte wrote:Ok you are focused on the wrong issues. It's not an issue of who can shoot more accurately, it's an issue of whether or not the person has been trained to properly handle a weapon.

FWIW in Indiana this isn't true. To obtain a carry permit there is no training requirement. Just a standard background check.