2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on June 08, 2016, 07:17:16 AM
-
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13412957_1002850449797778_8157389443491048624_n.jpg?oh=a350c0fcc1dbf392b734956427e49de7&oe=57D02F3E)
I can hardly wait for a Hawaii legislator to introduce an Open Carry bill. Preferably a Permitless Open Carry bill. And get it passed. Unfortunately, I won't be alive a million years from now... :crazy:
-
Puna guy,
You and I can make snowballs, that take months to melt, it
is not so in the rest of Hawaii, the snowball melts right away.
Thinking Oahu gun guys can have any impact is crazy.
They are too busy trying to snuggle up to HPD,
so they don't get hunted down and lose their privileges of
gun ownership.
Our HPD is even more useless., and nobody listens to our
representatives.
When and if Peruta gets decided things will happen, or not.
-
Puna guy,
You and I can make snowballs, that take months to melt, it
is not so in the rest of Hawaii, the snowball melts right away.
Thinking Oahu gun guys can have any impact is crazy.
They are too busy trying to snuggle up to HPD,
so they don't get hunted down and lose their privileges of
gun ownership.
Our HPD is even more useless., and nobody listens to our
representatives.
When and if Peruta gets decided things will happen, or not.
I figured that if we got 10,000 people to open carry protest in front of the legislature that the prison overcrowding situation would mandate the legislature to act (but they'd just create "early release" programs, NOT CCW or permitless open carry). The arms rights community can barely get 100 people (usually far far fewer) to send emails to the legislature when they are considering passing egregious arbitrary and capricious laws that would only impact law-abiding citizens and have no effect on crime whatsoever. Only, what, 6 six people showed up all day at the opening legislature day "demonstration"? I've put out "feelers" here (Big Island Hilo side) about organizing some kind of public demonstration against Hawaii's preposterously infringing laws (mostly CCW no-issue, but also "registration" in general, mag limits, etc.) and never really hear anything but from one or two people. That's why I said a million years.
In the meantime, speaking of open carry, the law geeks can now watch today's (June 8, 2016) Florida Supreme Court oral arguments in Norman v. State seeking to create permitless open carry there. (Note: "Wild West" only mentioned about 8 times... :wtf:)
http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2364
(first 40 minutes is Norman v. State)
Re Peruta: 1. It won't be decided in our favor (and if not, an appeal to SCOTUS would be iffy given the current makeup of the court, and likely not granted cert anyway), 2. If the case is remanded back to district court it'll be another 5 years to get to another Ninth Circuit appeal decision. And then it'll be the same decision against us. Just sayin'... I have no idea what could be done that would have any influence on the firmly entrenched tyrants that run this place...
-
Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.
-
Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.
Everytime I see a cop, I make up a plan to survive. I'm not afraid of open carry.
I'm afraid of badges that have a license to kill, without any possibility of them
suffering for bad decisions.
Tactical? I would rather see cops off duty disarmed like the rest of us.
Politicians also. That would be a powerful message.
-
Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.
Yeah, the only thing that "works", as we see here in Hawaii, is to "compromise" our rights away incrementally, where people seem to think that if the really really really egregious, arbitrary and capricious anti-arms bills are defeated, it's a "victory" because only the really really egregious, arbitrary and capricious anti-arms bills managaed to pass (usually almost unanimously). Yeah, we wouldn't want anyone here in Hawaii to get upset about people carrying openly, that would definitely "hurt" the cause. (I'm not sure how... you mean the "infringing" bills would get 99% of the votes in the legislature instead of only 92% like now? I wouldn't want that to happen!)
By the way, I wrote both Senators Slom and Gabbard both last year and this year asking them to introduce and sponsor both "permitless carry" and "open carry" bills, and neither responded, and obviously did not introduce such bills. What they did introduce were "shall issue" CCW bills that included high costs, training, bureaucratic oversight, and long lists of "prohibited places" where carry would not be allowed. So, yeah, open carry would definitely ruin the sterling program we've got going on here to protect our arms rights. :crazy:
-
Sorry, but I don't think people open carrying their firearms will have any positive effect on gun rights. Open carry, tactically speaking, should be limited to very few situations.
Such as when living in a free country?
Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.
If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.
-
Everytime I see a cop, I make up a plan to survive. I'm not afraid of open carry.
I'm afraid of badges that have a license to kill, without any possibility of them
suffering for bad decisions.
Tactical? I would rather see cops off duty disarmed like the rest of us.
Politicians also. That would be a powerful message.
What many police in America fail to understand is that once all the citizens are disarmed, they (the police) will be too.
It will be like in the UK and I think Australia as well.
You have the option of calling for "Armed Police" reinforcements but only afterwards. You will NOT be armed when walking your beat, or going to check up on things. No guns in your police car. No shotgun in the trunk. No bladed weapons either, just a baton.
(Of course, you can still tactically and loudly announce to the criminal that it is illegal for them to be armed).
And when the police retire or get laid off, they will become disarmed citizens the rest of their lives.
The only way to keep the guns around for law abiding people is to maintain the gun culture of America so it is an everyday thing.
-
Such as when living in a free country?
Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.
If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.
That's one way to think about it. If a bad guy knows you're armed, he/she/it may choose someone else to target, like someone who is unarmed (or appears to be unarmed). However, openly carrying a firearm could also make that person a target as well.
I have a bunch of good friends who live in Texas where open carry became legal earlier this year. There are lots of articles for and against. I have yet to ask them what their personal experiences are, but I believe all/most of them carry concealed. Well, one is a cop just outside of Houston and even he carries concealed when off duty.
-
I think there will be a period of adjustment, until everyone gets used to everyone open carry. Then it will be fine.
I actually support open carry more than concealed carry. Concealed carry, the perp might find out too late that he targeted an armed person.
Open carry, the perp won't even initiate the crime, and end up being frustrated, and have to find a job.
-
1) I think there will be a period of adjustment, until everyone gets used to everyone open carry. Then it will be fine.
2) I actually support open carry more than concealed carry. Concealed carry, the perp might find out too late that he targeted an armed person.
3) Open carry, the perp won't even initiate the crime, and end up being frustrated, and have to find a job.
1) I believe that's pretty much what folks in Texas have noticed since their laws changed. I've heard feedback that initially, restaurants and certain business were posting some signs that said open carry wasn't permitted on the premises. I think something about that's how the law was written, where businesses could post code on the entrance that signifies no carry allowed. That gradually, many businesses removed that restriction. Kind of knee jerk reaction and panic at first over unknowns and then as people found out that nothing really changed at least in terms of increase in crime after open carry, then things sort of seemed to return to "normal".
2) I support concealed carry over open carry for the reason that the subject will not know who is or isn't armed. They won't know. I would at least have the element of surprise. Or they might not care to be frank. In the that case, they are going to do whatever anyways. If one is going to open carry, it is my opinion that they had better train and be prepared for stuff like going hands on and retaining their firearm. That said, I generally think most subjects/perps would tend to pick an easier target, but I would still rather not advertise that I am armed. If they find out "too late" that they picked an armed person, then that's on them.
3) Find a job! :thumbsup:
-
I know this is a public forum.
I won't violate any laws,
but this ruling just painted a target
on the back of every cop in Hawaii
and California. You wear your
body armor on the front side.
I got your back. Be safe!
-
Such as when living in a free country?
Open carry is an excellent deterrent for all manner of crimes.
If there are any crazies around, they would probably be eliminated by natural selection within a year or two, leaving only the law abiding and polite people.
Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.
Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.
Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?
-
Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.
Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.
Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?
Is there any proof of anything at all you claim in your first two paragraphs? Funny (peculiar funny, not humorous funny) that you'd ask for proof from someone else when you just blurt out uncorroborated hypotheses/cliches.
-
Open carry makes you a target. Sure it will deter some, but for others who have made their minds to commit the crime, they are just going to shoot at you first. It also makes you a target for someone wanting to steal your gun because they know you have it but you have no idea they are coming.
Open carry has a faster draw but concealed carry has the element of surprise. If I were already known to be a target, such as a cop, armored car driver, security guard, etc. then open carry makes sense, otherwise I would take the element of surprise over that extra half second needed to lift the shirt before the draw.
Now as for the deterrent factor I understand the line of reasoning but is there any proof open carry is a deterrent?
Have you notified HPD that all their uniformed officers are in danger? Better let them know that carrying a gun visibly makes them all targets!!
-
Have you notified HPD that all their uniformed officers are in danger? Better let them know that carrying a gun visibly makes them all targets!!
Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.
-
Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.
You seem to be saying "I don't want to talk about it or explain it, but just trust my official pronouncement unsupported by any argument and/or evidence, it's "different" and "it's dangerous".
-
You seem to be saying "I don't want to talk about it or explain it, but just trust my official pronouncement unsupported by any argument and/or evidence, it's "different" and "it's dangerous".
I guess I should have read EEF's post that was being replied to closer before adding my own reply. Changes my impression of the other poster's reply. That said...
I suppose the overall risks of open carry for an LEO is the same as for as any armed citizen. I was just sharing my opinion (not any sort of official proclamation or anything) that LEO are more aware of the risks and consequences. Also that there will be many armed citizens who will/would open carry "just because they can" and not be as aware of the risks. Their choice to do so in any case. I'm not going to tell anyone what they can and can't do, not that anyone would listen anyways.
-
Ok. That's a different subject. Let's not get into training, but open carry for LE officers is way different from open carry for the general public.
I only see two differences:
1. Cops are already targets by wearing the uniform. The gun doesn't make them more of a target, but it has a deterrent effect -- same effect as with non-LEO open carriers.
2. Cops are allowed to carry standard capacity mags, where slaves of the state are limited to 10 rds or less.
I watched half a dozen students from Front Sight Training walk into the first gas station between the site and LV where I stopped each day. Each was open carrying their training pistol. No customers or employees freaked or called 911. Most didn't even give them or their guns a second glance.
I would prefer carrying concealed assuming it's legal, but a group of customers open carrying is NOT going to be targeted for execution at the start of a hold up. 4-6 people with holstered weapons would deter most criminals and send them looking for a softer target to rob. So, if you want to talk tactical advantages of concealed carry, maybe you should also consider tactics that work when open carrying like carrying as a group or family?
-
I only see two differences:
1. Cops are already targets by wearing the uniform. The gun doesn't make them more of a target, but it has a deterrent effect -- same effect as with non-LEO open carriers.
2. Cops are allowed to carry standard capacity mags, where slaves of the state are limited to 10 rds or less.
I watched half a dozen students from Front Sight Training walk into the first gas station between the site and LV where I stopped each day. Each was open carrying their training pistol. No customers or employees freaked or called 911. Most didn't even give them or their guns a second glance.
I would prefer carrying concealed assuming it's legal, but a group of customers open carrying is NOT going to be targeted for execution at the start of a hold up. 4-6 people with holstered weapons would deter most criminals and send them looking for a softer target to rob. So, if you want to talk tactical advantages of concealed carry, maybe you should also consider tactics that work when open carrying like carrying as a group or family?
1) Yeah. I'm with you there. I do think the gun can be effective as a deterrent in both cases.
2) Didn't really consider that aspect. I was just considering open carry or unarmed. Glock 17 standard cap is 17 and CZs are 17 and 18, where I have 10 rounders.
Like the Texas example that I shared above, I think once people get over the initial knee jerk reaction, then things would settle down. Or at least I would hope. That said, guns are almost a way of life in Texas, so the "reaction" curve would be much steeper here where I can't get into the elevator with my rifle bag without having another resident give me a shocked look that I am headed to the range with a firearm.
From the deterrent stand point, I would agree/think that criminals would choose a softer target if they saw a bunch of armed individuals. I was more thinking along the lines of the individual who is open carrying could be targeted for people wanting the gun. I remember when I first carried concealed (in a different state), I felt super self conscious about it, even if it was concealed.
Never really considered tactics of open carrying in a group or with family. I've slowly gotten other family members to enjoy shooting, but only my dad and I have guns in my immediate family. I have other relatives that have guns, but don't really shoot. I try to share my passion for shooting with friends and family when I can, but I would say maybe a few friends would be interested in carrying, the rest likely either not interested to irrationally afraid of guns.
-
Here is a slightly lengthy article (otherwise I would have posted the whole thing right in this space) that addresses some of the "myths" about open carry, including the ones we've seen posted here. Granted this is barely even "academic" or hypothetical here in the land of the legally-disarmed, but maybe some people are considering moving to a free state...
The Pro Liberty Choice: Dispelling The Myths Of Open Carry
By Dan Griffin, Michigan Open Carry
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/the-pro-liberty-choice-dispelling-the-myths-of-open-carry/
Excerpt:
Open carry has been around since before the birth of this nation. Open carry has been legal in Michigan, my state of residence, ever since it became a state over 175 years ago and as a territory before that. In fact, open carry is currently legal in 44 states, and in 30 states you don’t need a license to openly carry a holstered pistol. Open carry used to be the norm, and one had to be licensed to hide your gun. Over the years various restrictive gun laws have been created state by state, largely in an effort to suppress the ability of minorities and criminals to carry guns. The ability to lawfully carry a hidden gun became a symbol of status and privilege. In some states it still is.
Today people carry their firearms openly for different reasons. Some people open carry as a political statement and to publicly show that “I have a right to keep and bear arms, and I accept that I am solely responsible for the safety of myself and my family.” Some open carry to normalize it among the populace and to show that good people can carry guns. Some just carry openly because it is easier and they think that works best for them.
Topics ("myths") addressed:
“Open carry gives away a citizen’s greatest tactical advantage, stealth and surprise.”
“Open carry tips your hand. I want to reveal my gun on my own terms.”
“Open carry sets you up as the first target to be eliminated by bad guys.”
“I don’t want the hassle from law enforcement for open carrying.”
“Open carry makes the average citizen very nervous.”
“Open carry is bad pro-gun PR and will likely lead to stricter gun control.”
“No well-known firearms instructor recommends open carry.”
“Other than a desire to show everyone how big yours is, what is the advantage to open carry?”
and
The deterrent value of open carry
Ease of carry
Ease and safety of use
The right to open carry and the right to keep and bear arms
Open carry as a public statement
There is a saying among backpackers: “Each person has to hike his own hike.” It is the same with self-defense. If some choose to carry concealed, that’s fine. It’s up to each person to provide for his or her own self-defense in the way best suited to that individual. This may be carrying a firearm, pepper spray, employing martial arts, or using nothing at all, simply choosing to rely on law enforcement for protection.
[Law enforcement] (s)topping a violent crime before a criminal injures a citizen is practically unheard of. It simply is not humanly possible, no matter how dedicated the police force. In the end, you must take responsibility for your own safety, and you are the only one who can guarantee that safety. How you choose to do so is up to you. Open carry is one option for carrying a firearm for self-defense, concealing is another. Finding the balance is an exercise for the reader. To those gun owners who are anti-open carry and overly vocal on the subject, I say to them that I choose to open carry, but I do not begrudge you to carry however you wish. Please allow me the same courtesy. As far as I’m concerned, you are either pro-gun and pro-liberty or you’re not. If you are, then stop drawing division lines and let people enjoy their liberty and choose for themselves.
As someone once said, I am not a vigilante, I am not a hero. I simply want to protect myself and my family. There will always be predators, and there will always be prey. But not me. Not today.
-
Is there any proof of anything at all you claim in your first two paragraphs? Funny (peculiar funny, not humorous funny) that you'd ask for proof from someone else when you just blurt out uncorroborated hypotheses/cliches.
It was posited that there would be a significant deterrent effect, this is something that would require a bit of study to prove. Just because there is a bit of logic behind the thinking doesn't mean it would play out in real life. I am not saying it wouldn't be a good deterrent, rather I am saying I haven't seen much actual evidence supporting that assertion. Furthermore I see no reason to accept the premise of the meme, that open carry will prevent gun rights from being taken away. You have made two assertions about how open carry would affect people psychologically and socially but have provided no proof.
My other comments about ccw vs open carry are not on the same level. I am talking tactics, not psychological effect. Open carry means people can see your gun, thus there is no element of surprise. I figured this was common sense, do you need me to find a study to prove this? Open carry allows for a faster draw, again I figured this is common sense given simple mechanics. Do you need me to produce a study to show that drawing from an exposed holster is faster than a covered holster?
If I had said that concealed carry is better because mystery was a good deterrent then sure, I could be expected to produce some level of proof, but I didn't. I said that open carry means people will see you have a gun and that this could make you a target.
-
That one has a gun making one a target, is too simple a statement.
It must be given context, which means one must also keep in mind that millions (billions?) of people every day are targeted, despite not having a gun on them.
It's also possible some people are targeted BECAUSE they carry a gun.
-
It was posited that there would be a significant deterrent effect, this is something that would require a bit of study to prove. Just because there is a bit of logic behind the thinking doesn't mean it would play out in real life. I am not saying it wouldn't be a good deterrent, rather I am saying I haven't seen much actual evidence supporting that assertion. Furthermore I see no reason to accept the premise of the meme, that open carry will prevent gun rights from being taken away. You have made two assertions about how open carry would affect people psychologically and socially but have provided no proof.
My other comments about ccw vs open carry are not on the same level. I am talking tactics, not psychological effect. Open carry means people can see your gun, thus there is no element of surprise. I figured this was common sense, do you need me to find a study to prove this? Open carry allows for a faster draw, again I figured this is common sense given simple mechanics. Do you need me to produce a study to show that drawing from an exposed holster is faster than a covered holster?
If I had said that concealed carry is better because mystery was a good deterrent then sure, I could be expected to produce some level of proof, but I didn't. I said that open carry means people will see you have a gun and that this could make you a target.
Researcher Gary Kleck found that 92 percent of criminal attacks are deterred when a gun is merely shown (or, rarely, a warning shot fired). By inference, this means that open carry would have the effect of deterring crime in the same way that a thief might choose another restaurant when he sees police eating at his intended target.
Also, larger handguns with more potent ammunition are easier to carry openly.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-people-be-allowed-to-carry-guns-openly/open-carry-deters-crime
-
That one has a gun making one a target, is too simple a statement.
It must be given context, which means one must also keep in mind that millions (billions?) of people every day are targeted, despite not having a gun on them.
It's also possible some people are targeted BECAUSE they carry a gun.
Agreed, and I did say that I think open carry should only be practiced in certain situations. I wasn't saying open carry is always a bad idea, I was saying I think CCW is preferable in most cases. In other cases open carry is definitely preferred.
Of course there is no way we can perfectly predict what a criminal would do so we cannot tailor our carry choices perfectly but when it comes to a tactical decision you never have the perfect option, you are always just choosing the option you think works best given the risk assessment.
-
Agreed, and I did say that I think open carry should only be practiced in certain situations. I wasn't saying open carry is always a bad idea, I was saying I think CCW is preferable in most cases. In other cases open carry is definitely preferred.
Of course there is no way we can perfectly predict what a criminal would do so we cannot tailor our carry choices perfectly but when it comes to a tactical decision you never have the perfect option, you are always just choosing the option you think works best given the risk assessment.
Dude, first you said we need to study the deterrent effect of open carry to prove it exists. I showed where it has been studied, and now you want to talk about not being able to perfectly predict a criminal's behavior?
Do you even research your opinions before posting, or are you making shit up just to argue? "Can't perfectly predict what a criminal would do" sounds like a weak attempt to just argue against the study you said needed doing! :wtf:
-
Dude, first you said we need to study the deterrent effect of open carry to prove it exists. I showed where it has been studied, and now you want to talk about not being able to perfectly predict a criminal's behavior?
Do you even research your opinions before posting, or are you making shit up just to argue? "Can't perfectly predict what a criminal would do" sounds like a weak attempt to just argue against the study you said needed doing! :wtf:
Nonsense. What I am explaining there is that no deterrent effect can be perfect because human beings do not follow neat rules. There will always be someone who won't follow conventional behaviors, this is what makes sociology and psychology complicated. For example, as a general rule people avoid being shot but there are those exceptions to the rule where someone wants to be shot, suicide by cop would be the most obvious instance. So what I am saying is that even though a deterrent might deter 99% of people, there will always be that 1% who won't react in the same manner. Thus no statement that one tactic will always be better can ever hold true. I am basically inserting a disclaimer in my argument because I know that no tactical choice is foolproof.
I am glad that you brought in some actual data to the conversation. I absolutely expect that presenting a gun is a good deterrent though I am surprised 8% would not be deterred! My only issue with the excerpt you posted is that I hesitate to concur with the authors inference. The author is equating a gun being shown to having a gun visible which may be stretching the results of the study.
-
Nonsense. What I am explaining there is that no deterrent effect can be perfect because human beings do not follow neat rules. There will always be someone who won't follow conventional behaviors, this is what makes sociology and psychology complicated. For example, as a general rule people avoid being shot but there are those exceptions to the rule where someone wants to be shot, suicide by cop would be the most obvious instance. So what I am saying is that even though a deterrent might deter 99% of people, there will always be that 1% who won't react in the same manner. Thus no statement that one tactic will always be better can ever hold true. I am basically inserting a disclaimer in my argument because I know that no tactical choice is foolproof.
I am glad that you brought in some actual data to the conversation. I absolutely expect that presenting a gun is a good deterrent though I am surprised 8% would not be deterred! My only issue with the excerpt you posted is that I hesitate to concur with the authors inference. The author is equating a gun being shown to having a gun visible which may be stretching the results of the study.
Do you think there are surveys asking people who decided not to commit a crime what made them change their minds? LOL! Inference is the best you can do, since there has to be some kind of event to be reported. Scaring a crook off by having a holstered sidearm isn't a reportable event, but presenting a firearm in the direction of a bad guy is a confrontation that might be reported.
and if you want to keep saying this or that isn't perfect, I suggest you read over some of your own comments! Nothing about human behavior can be measured or predicted any where close to perfect.
and the 8% shouldn't surprise most people. There are lots of criminals with psychological and pharmaceutical issues that alter their judgement. I doubt some tweaker can be expected to act rationally when he's looking for his next fix.
-
Do you think there are surveys asking people who decided not to commit a crime what made them change their minds? LOL! Inference is the best you can do, since there has to be some kind of event to be reported. Scaring a crook off by having a holstered sidearm isn't a reportable event, but presenting a firearm in the direction of a bad guy is a confrontation that might be reported.
and if you want to keep saying this or that isn't perfect, I suggest you read over some of your own comments! Nothing about human behavior can be measured or predicted any where close to perfect.
and the 8% shouldn't surprise most people. There are lots of criminals with psychological and pharmaceutical issues that alter their judgement. I doubt some tweaker can be expected to act rationally when he's looking for his next fix.
I don't know how many surveys on deterrent factors have been done but it is possible someone did one that would specifically address the issue in question. Absent a specific study then we are left to draw inferences. I don't necessarily agree with the authors inference.
Since we cannot predict human behavior perfectly we can only attempt to make the best decision given a risk assessment. Now I am not saying that people have to concealed carry or have to open carry in certain situations, what I am saying is that, in my opinion, CCW is preferable in most average person situations. If you want to open carry day to day that is fine but in my risk vs reward analyses I would choose CCW.
-
That is not really saying much. Because in MY risk vs reward analyses I would choose Open Carry.
With Open Carry, the visible gun serves a continuous purpose all day long when visible to others, AND serves a further purpose if it is necessary to be drawn from holster.
CCW serves no purpose EXCEPT when drawn from concealed, when the situation has deteriorated to requiring it, with a further penalty of delay compared to open drawing.
-
That is not really saying much. Because in MY risk vs reward analyses I would choose Open Carry.
With Open Carry, the visible gun serves a continuous purpose all day long when visible to others, AND serves a further purpose if it is necessary to be drawn from holster.
CCW serves no purpose EXCEPT when drawn from concealed, when the situation has deteriorated to requiring it, with a further penalty of delay compared to open drawing.
Fish guy seems to only focus on one scenario to make general conclusions. He thinks it's always going to be a mugging or armed robbery, and the open carrier will be killed to take out that threat to the bad guy. Or someone will target him for his gun.
The truth is, if you are in public place, that jerk that wants to start a fight with someone might think twice before starting in on you when he sees you have a visible gun. That wannabe thug on the subway harassing strangers asking for money might skip you because, well, you have a gun and he doesn't. That group of teens picking knock out game targets might not pick you because they don't want to get shot!
One thing I've considered, though, is maybe it's smart to wear a body cam if you intend to open carry. One thing you have to protect against is a confrontation with some idiot who lies to the police that you pointed your gun at him. It's tough to dispute any lie without witnesses, and that's a serious charge, especially if he has friends saying the same thing. In that case, the deterrence factor is still preventing them from getting violent, but it might also give the would-be attacker the opening to lie about you brandishing in public.
-
Fundamental rule:
Do not draw your gun unless it is in a life threatening situation where you fear imminent death or severe injury to yourself or another innocent, and if you do draw your weapon then use it with full effectiveness.
[Corrected typing mistake from "unless you draw your weapon" to "if you draw your weapon"]
-
Fundamental rule:
Do not draw your gun unless it is in a life threatening situation where you fear imminent death or severe injury to yourself or another innocent, unless you draw your weapon and use it with full effectiveness.
I know that. But if someone SAYS you drew on them when you didn't, the Cops will need proof of something you didn't do. That's always a tough one without other witnesses or video.
-
I know that. But if someone SAYS you drew on them when you didn't, the Cops will need proof of something you didn't do. That's always a tough one without other witnesses or video.
OK you're right. I forgot that they can lie that you drew, when you did not.
-
That group of teens picking knock out game targets might not pick you because they don't want to get shot!
To me, when that was getting common (I hope it's not common anymore), that was one of the more scary threats or attacks. Seemingly random and that they catch the target/victim unawares and usually from behind. Not that you can see all threats coming, but in the other two scenarios you mentioned, there is usually some indicators of trouble coming. That's not to say that a mugger or someone picking a fight can't come randomly at you from behind, but those stupid knock out game punks seemed to be just another level in my mind with the randomness and sort of ambush-like attacks.
With regards to open vs concealed carry in the knockout game scenario, if they say one was armed could certainly be deterrent. But that they typically catch one off guard, if they notice that you are armed and go after you anyways that would tell me that they don't care if you are armed that they can get away with it regardless. They may even do it to get your gun. However, if one were carrying concealed, there is no obvious opportunity for deterrence. Interesting one where even if I am typically in favor of concealed carry, where I don't think it would matter that much in this case if you one was carrying concealed.
It's not like we would be able to poll these punks and ask them what they would or would not do. That and when you try to rationalize or find reason in a given situation, you can't really rationalize with an unreasonable person. Or at least who doesn't follow the same line of reasoning as you. Getting off topic here, but I used to work with a guy from Syria and a few coworkers used to have some good discussions with him about this. He lived in that culture for most of his childhood even when he tried to explain some of the thinking of the Syrian people from someone who had lived in the US for decades and I remember those conversations leaving me thinking "you can reason with an unreasonable person". And that was all before 9/11.
-
Sorry you meant to type you CAN'T right, not CAN.
-
To me, when that was getting common (I hope it's not common anymore), that was one of the more scary threats or attacks. Seemingly random and that they catch the target/victim unawares and usually from behind. Not that you can see all threats coming, but in the other two scenarios you mentioned, there is usually some indicators of trouble coming. That's not to say that a mugger or someone picking a fight can't come randomly at you from behind, but those stupid knock out game punks seemed to be just another level in my mind with the randomness and sort of ambush-like attacks.
With regards to open vs concealed carry in the knockout game scenario, if they say one was armed could certainly be deterrent. But that they typically catch one off guard, if they notice that you are armed and go after you anyways that would tell me that they don't care if you are armed that they can get away with it regardless. They may even do it to get your gun. However, if one were carrying concealed, there is no obvious opportunity for deterrence. Interesting one where even if I am typically in favor of concealed carry, where I don't think it would matter that much in this case if you one was carrying concealed.
It's not like we would be able to poll these punks and ask them what they would or would not do. That and when you try to rationalize or find reason in a given situation, you can't really rationalize with an unreasonable person. Or at least who doesn't follow the same line of reasoning as you. Getting off topic here, but I used to work with a guy from Syria and a few coworkers used to have some good discussions with him about this. He lived in that culture for most of his childhood even when he tried to explain some of the thinking of the Syrian people from someone who had lived in the US for decades and I remember those conversations leaving me thinking "you can reason with an unreasonable person". And that was all before 9/11.
https://youtu.be/gzptOuQ0M9U
-
Fundamental rule:
Do not draw your gun unless it is in a life threatening situation where you fear imminent death or severe injury to yourself or another innocent, unless you draw your weapon and use it with full effectiveness.
Never heard this one before, particularly the last part.
So, if you draw your gun and it's not a life threatening situation, what does "(using) it with full effectiveness" entail?
Not being a smartass or argumentative here. Really just trying to understand that statement.
-
Never heard this one before, particularly the last part.
So, if you draw your gun and it's not a life threatening situation, what does "(using) it with full effectiveness" entail?
Not being a smartass or argumentative here. Really just trying to understand that statement.
Don't draw your gun unless it is a life threatening situation.
If it is a life threatening situation, use the gun effectively to stop the threat (the purpose of the gun, which is to stop the threat).
[Oh I made a typing mistake, now corrected.]
-
https://youtu.be/gzptOuQ0M9U
Well, he picked the wrong person to target. :thumbsup:
"didn't on a dare, was high" Doesn't sound like he cared if someone was armed though. One would hope that he'll think twice now with "his two bullet holes in him".
Thanks for sharing. I'll check out more of his videos.
-
Don't draw your gun unless it is a life threatening situation.
If it is a life threatening situation, use the gun effectively to stop the threat (the purpose of the gun, which is to stop the threat).
[Oh I made a typing mistake, now corrected.]
Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Yeah, I got the first part, but your original version (mistake) of the second part was the part that confused me. I mean, I had an iced coffee, but I was thinking maybe it hadn't kicked in just yet. :rofl:
-
Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Yeah, I got the first part, but your original version (mistake) of the second part was the part that confused me. I mean, I had an iced coffee, but I was thinking maybe it hadn't kicked in just yet. :rofl:
LOL maybe that is because MINE has not kicked in yet haha