Open carry versus concealed carry

[Donald H]

Absolute nonsense.
There's no necessary relationship between the posession and use of firearms by the "good guys" and the possession and misuse of firerams by the "bad guys".
That is, the fact I have a gun in no way enables someone else to commit murder with a gun.

Perhaps there's no point in attempting a discussion with you after all. You're far too entrenched in your dogma to even accept the obvious. Others do.

It wasn't me who brought up the suggestion that carrying a gun that is visible to others could enable a bad guy to shoot a good guy dead and then get away with it.

However, I would prefer to continue the discussion I was having with 2A because I think I witnessed a naivety that I wasn't previously aware of. This explains the reason for the bolstering that was evident. Nuff said for now.

 

[marvin martian]

You can tell me you bought your glock for $200, and I'd believe it. There are great deals out there.

Normally, you'd pay $500 for a glock, and about $380 for a Ruger or a S&W. Similar models.

Plus you'll have to buy mods for your glock to get it work like you want that come standard with the S&W.

My experience.

Your glock will shoot when you pull the trigger and that's all that's required.

WTF? Where do you live?

What mods are you talking about?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps there's no point in attempting a discussion with you after all. You're far too entrenched in your dogma to even accept the obvious.

Thank you for proving me correct.
But hey - keep pushing your hasty generalization fallacy with the hope no one else will call you on it.

 

[Donald H]

I am -fully- appreciate of how broad and deep the gun issue is.
I also-fully- appreciative of the fact you have no intention of discussing the issue beyond the point where your position is effectively challenged, you are challenged to support your claims with something other than your opinion, and/or you are not allowed to take the conversation past a point you know you cannot defend.

If you think you are able to prove me wrong with regard to the above, then say so, and then I'll be happy to join your 'discussion'.

That deserves a final reply. You need to state the position on which we disagree and which you effectively challenge. If you're capable of doing that in a rational way then you will hear more replies on the issues, from me. And if you can't do that then you will once again receive what you deserve. It's always your choice.

Suggestion for you: Someone suggests that a bad guy with a gun could murder with a gun, a good guy with a gun, providing there was no cameras or other evidence to support an accusation of murder.

You can at least agree that it's possible, as your opening position.
I could then pursue the question by suggesting that it's possibly already happening in America.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That deserves a final reply. You need to state the position on which we disagree and which you effectively challenge.

I did:
Absolute nonsense.
There's no necessary relationship between the possession and use of firearms by the "good guys" and the possession and misuse of firearms by the "bad guys".
That is, the fact I have a gun in no way enables someone else to commit murder with a gun.

If you're capable of doing that in a rational way then you will hear more replies on the issues, from me.

And yet, you won't meaningfully do so...
...because you have no intention of discussing the issue beyond the point where your position is effectively challenged, you are challenged to support your claims with something other than your opinion, and/or you are not allowed to take the conversation past a point you know you cannot defend.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's why, one American guy pedals a fallacy and the sheep follow.

You need to go back to school and learn about American independence. If you took the time to learn at school, it was about trade and taxation, guns were never mentioned. And as Americans were getting beat, the French stepped in to help you guys. How do I know? When I was in Paris, I took a photo of a French general statue and read up on him when I got home. So stop lying you slimy weasel. You surely can't be that thick over your own history.

View attachment 590680View attachment 590681

We weren't being beaten any worse than we had been we had for the past seven years. We had defeated the British will to fight. The American war had become so unpopular at home that Britain's best generals wouldn't come over here to fight despite having an unbroken record of out numbering and out equipping the Continental Army and the various Militias. We kept getting beaten and losing battles, but we never stopped fighting. The French finally decided to end their cold war with Britain and declared war adding actual French forces to our fight. The French land forces weren't important, but the French Navy stopped the RN from lifting Cornwallis's forces out of Yorktown by sea. He was already beaten having retreated to a defensive position that could be supplied and relieved by sea and the Contintential Navy lacked the force to blockade the Yorktown Peninsula.
There are a lot of similarities between the American Revolutionary War and the Vietnamese War. In both cases the much weaker force eventually prevailed with logistical support from another world power and an unwillingness to accept defeat being the ultimate deciding factors.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Rights and privileges are only brought up by gun nuts because you don't have a valid arguement. Having a gun for defence is a fallacy, at best. Just like in any country, you have a gun because you simply like guns. A farmer may need a gun to control vermin, same as a gamekeeper, that's about it. Everyone has a gun for leisure.

What you guys need to talk about is responsibilities. Whichever founding father bolted on the 2nd amendment fucking screwed your country up. Gun nuts ever since.

But that's where you guys are at. You need guns because you have too many nut jobs with guns. So you have to protect yourself from guns. What a dreadful state of affairs.

But at least you're free (whatever that means)

Most Americans DON'T have guns. Guns are expensive. However, those of us with guns tend to have anywhere from several to upwards of a hundred. For instance, I only have two, one of which would even be legal in the UK (a Ruger 10/22). The other is a legal 9mm handgun that I have a CCW for but almost never carry.

 

[OKTexas]

I think conceal carry is best.


Say you and your neighbor don't like each other. One day you're out mowing the lawn with your Glock 19 9mm on your hip.

Your neighbor walks up, pulls a gun and shoots you dead. He then takes a handkerchief and removes your gun from your holster and lays it next to you.

Perfect murder?

Or you could have people saying he was open carrying, I believed he was going to shoot me. And they get off because of self-defense, even though the conflict was 100% their fault.

A third problem happens when suicidal kooks who want to die come up to you and threaten you, hoping you'll use your open carry gun to shoot them dead.


When you conceal carry, you avoid all these problems. Others can't see that you're armed.

Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry: The Great Debate

Concealed Carry Holsters by Urban Carry

webcache.googleusercontent.com

You're nucking futs.

.

 

[AZrailwhale]

1. Why is Glock "a joke"? They're used worldwide by police and military, including tons of elite units, not to mention millions of civilians.
2. Comparable how? Reliability? Functionality?

I'm not trying to be combative, just honestly curious. I've owned and shot Glocks for 25+ years, as well as other makes, and unless you're just fundamentally against the brand for some personal reason (totally your right to be, btw), I don't see the problem.

Glocks tend to be made fun of because they are "plastic pistols" just like M-16s were made fun of when they were new because they were small and looked like plastic toys. They were often called "Mattie Mattels" in Vietnam. An M-16 was about half the weight and two thirds the size of the M-14 it replaced (Mattel was a toymaker back then).

 

[AZrailwhale]

That deserves a final reply. You need to state the position on which we disagree and which you effectively challenge. If you're capable of doing that in a rational way then you will hear more replies on the issues, from me. And if you can't do that then you will once again receive what you deserve. It's always your choice.

Suggestion for you: Someone suggests that a bad guy with a gun could murder with a gun, a good guy with a gun, providing there was no cameras or other evidence to support an accusation of murder.

You can at least agree that it's possible, as your opening position.
I could then pursue the question by suggesting that it's possibly already happening in America.

A bad guy with a gun could murder an unarmed good guy under the same circumstances and get away with it. The problem is that there are almost always witnesses or cameras around anymore unless you are out in the boondocks.

 

[woodwork201]

The homeowner death statistics don't bear that out. Home burglaries in Canada most often by far don't end in death.

No guns or fewer guns is always preferable to more guns from my perspective as a Canadian. I appreciate that most Americans don't agree. My relatives living in America don't all agree with me either, but some do.

You voted for Trudeau. Nuff said.

 

[Woodznutz]

The homeowner death statistics don't bear that out. Home burglaries in Canada most often by far don't end in death.

No guns or fewer guns is always preferable to more guns from my perspective as a Canadian. I appreciate that most Americans don't agree. My relatives living in America don't all agree with me either, but some do.

The point is...what I said.

 

[woodwork201]

Now that you made yourself feel better - can you tell us why you think -anyone- claimed they need a gun to mow the lawn?

I'll bite. I admit that I don't carry as consistently as I wish I did but my want is to carry always except when in the shower and in bed, during which times a gun should be at arm's length. I do carry when mowing most of the time. In the past 30 years, I have had to shoot a couple stray dogs threatening me or my own on my property - while mowing.

My wish is also that I never have to draw my weapon on another human being; the chances are extremely high that I will get that wish. But almost all who have been robbed, their homes invaded, or otherwise attacked did not know it was coming so, for me, carrying a gun is a small thing that I do, just in case.

I never open carry in public. I wish I could. I wish more people did and, once more people are so it's commonplace, I would as well. For now, there have been some cases where the open-carry person was the target. If I'm second in line at the cash register and the first in line pulls a gun on the cashier, there's a small chance I change the outcome. But if the first in line pulls his gun on me first, I'm either surrendering my gun or possibly getting killed.

This open carry story is among the most interesting a quick DDG search yielded because the bad guy simply walked up behind the open carrier and snatched the gun from a holster - I use retention holsters even for concealed carry when I can (heavy coat winter days, for instance).

The other interesting point is that the police mentioned that the open carrier may not have a concealed carry permit because there's a year-long wait in Detroit to get an appointment with the police to get a permit so open carry can often be the only option. What a sad situation for American citizens to be put at such risk for their life and safety and this highlights the need for dropping all gun control laws restricting the constitutional carry, concealed or open, nationwide for anybody.

Suspect who stole gun from man open carrying at Detroit gas station arrested for unrelated crime

A surveillance camera at the BP at Seven Mile and Wyoming captured the perp in a red Nike hoodie walking up behind a 53-year-old man open carrying a pistol. He yanks it from the holster, points it at the victim, and takes off running.

www.fox2detroit.com

 

[woodwork201]

Yes and that’s what it said between the lines. You only can do what the government ALLOWS you to do. Your every movement is watched by cameras, anything you say that the government doesn’t like can be termed “hate speech”, banned and you can be punished for speaking about your honest beliefs. The “weapons” your government ALLOWS you to have are popguns useless against anything more dangerous than a rabbit or paper target. There was a time when a English yeomen were the backbone of your defense. Now you are a subject.

But they can cross the road without jaywalking charges. It is unbelievable the tokens that please weak-minded people while their freedom is stripped away.

 

[Woodznutz]

I'll bite. I admit that I don't carry as consistently as I wish I did but my want is to carry always except when in the shower and in bed, during which times a gun should be at arm's length. I do carry when mowing most of the time. In the past 30 years, I have had to shoot a couple stray dogs threatening me or my own on my property - while mowing.

My wish is also that I never have to draw my weapon on another human being; the chances are extremely high that I will get that wish. But almost all who have been robbed, their homes invaded, or otherwise attacked did not know it was coming so, for me, carrying a gun is a small thing that I do, just in case.

I never open carry in public. I wish I could. I wish more people did and, once more people are so it's commonplace, I would as well. For now, there have been some cases where the open-carry person was the target. If I'm second in line at the cash register and the first in line pulls a gun on the cashier, there's a small chance I change the outcome. But if the first in line pulls his gun on me first, I'm either surrendering my gun or possibly getting killed.

This open carry story is among the most interesting a quick DDG search yielded because the bad guy simply walked up behind the open carrier and snatched the gun from a holster - I use retention holsters even for concealed carry when I can (heavy coat winter days, for instance).

The other interesting point is that the police mentioned that the open carrier may not have a concealed carry permit because there's a year-long wait in Detroit to get an appointment with the police to get a permit so open carry can often be the only option. What a sad situation for American citizens to be put at such risk for their life and safety and this highlights the need for dropping all gun control laws restricting the constitutional carry, concealed or open, nationwide for anybody.

Suspect who stole gun from man open carrying at Detroit gas station arrested for unrelated crime

A surveillance camera at the BP at Seven Mile and Wyoming captured the perp in a red Nike hoodie walking up behind a 53-year-old man open carrying a pistol. He yanks it from the holster, points it at the victim, and takes off running.

www.fox2detroit.com

For those reasons I would never open carry. Too risky. I would also never use my weapon in defense of another unless I was sure of my own safety.

 

[woodwork201]

There are a lot of similarities between the American Revolutionary War and the Vietnamese War. In both cases the much weaker force eventually prevailed with logistical support from another world power and an unwillingness to accept defeat being the ultimate deciding factors.

And twice in Afghanistan.

The ability of a poor people to defeat serious military strength has been proven many times throughout history - when they have arms. No telling what happens to GB and Australia in the next generations as a rebuilt USSR moves on Europe and the Chinese move on Australia; those citizens won't have arms and their militaries will be easily beaten by those enemies. Living on Islands, it will be hard for others to send them arms - and I hope we don't arm either; they had arms and destroyed them; they chose their own destinies.

 

[woodwork201]

Well, in the UK, we cross the road. In America, it's called jaywalking. We have the right to cross the road, seems to be a privilege in America.

You must be considered a true libertarian in the UK, fighting for the right to cross the road in front of moving traffic where they won't necessarily expect you. You go you freedom fighting rebel, you.

But without your guns, how will you fight to preserve your right to jaywalk should the Crown decide it's safer to cross at the intersection?

 

[woodwork201]

For those reasons I would never open carry. Too risky. I would also never use my weapon in defense of another unless I was sure of my own safety.

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't carry with the expectation of playing cop, but I hope I'll be willing to take some measure of risk to save others. Our military do that all day every day. The police do it, firefighters, even ambulance teams do it. If I see a child drowning in a lake, I hope I'd jump in.

So there are scenarios where others put their lives at risk and where I hope I would put my life at risk to save others. I won't say what I'd do in a scenario where my gun would be required to save others because I can't predict what the scenarios would be or what my response would be. I can say that I hope my personal safety is a concern but that it is not the only concern or the only deciding factor. I hope that I remember that all lives matter.

 

[woodwork201]

Be aware that you'll be talking to somebody who has extensive knowledge on the topics related to guns.

Will you be demonstrating that knowledge any time soon? Haven't seen it just yet.

 

[Woodznutz]

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't carry with the expectation of playing cop, but I hope I'll be willing to take some measure of risk to save others. Our military do that all day every day. The police do it, firefighters, even ambulance teams do it. If I see a child drowning in a lake, I hope I'd jump in.

So there are scenarios where others put their lives at risk and where I hope I would put my life at risk to save others. I won't say what I'd do in a scenario where my gun would be required to save others because I can't predict what the scenarios would be or what my response would be. I can say that I hope my personal safety is a concern but that it is not the only concern or the only deciding factor. I hope that I remember that all lives matter.

If I saw a child drowning in a lake I'd look around for someone younger than myself to jump in (I'm 81 and haven't swum in 50 years).