Open carrying AR15 at Tulsa Gathering Place

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
So maybe we could say one of the responsibilities that might be on the list is “Don’t draw attention to your weapon for any purpose other than defense.” Sounds good to me.

I’m not saying this is why this guy was carrying an AR, but for the sake of discussion, what if someone has a medical condition or disability that makes using an actual pistol (not an AR or AK “pistol”) safely and effectively difficult/impossible, but they can handle a rifle adequately? Should they just not carry? Should they carry a pistol anyway, even though it’s potentially an ineffective or even dangerous option for them? Should they be encouraged to choose the weapon that suits their physical capabilities, even if it’s something we wouldn’t normally advise someone to carry? Questions posed to everyone, not just @dennishoddy.

I think much of the time the gun community doesn’t put much consideration into varying physical capabilities and forms when talking about weapon choices, and I’m curious to hear what people think about hypothetical outliers. It’s not hard to imagine that someone with carpal tunnel syndrome or arthritis may be able to handle a rifle but not a pistol and it seems to me they have all the more need for an equalizer in a fight.

Your first post is a yes/no post. I'm ok with an open carry of an actual pistol, though that draws a small amount of attention. The argument being circulated by some in here is that AR pistols will be like when open carry first started. People got freaked out for a bit then it became somewhat normal to see people open carry. The difference is that pistols were never demonized by the liberal media like the AR has been and while the public knows that a glock 19 is a pistol they have no clue that a AR with a 4" barrel and a collapsible brace is technically a pistol as well. They see the gun that is on the news because it is so dangerous and used in so many mass shootings (really only a handful) and here is this guy walking a park filled with kids with one strapped to his back. This is why its counterproductive. I would say your "Don't draw attention to your weapon for any purpose other than defense" is close, but it would be better to say "Don't use your firearm as a way to get attention".

As far as physical capabilities go if you can not handle a pistol safely and accurately then you shouldn't be carrying a rifle for the simple fact that you might not have the use of both hands in some situations. While a pistol is easier to shoot one handed it can be done, a rifle (and yes, as dennis put it, a dressed down SBR passing as a pistol) would be extremely difficult to shoot one handed.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,778
Reaction score
62,418
Location
Ponca City Ok
So maybe we could say one of the responsibilities that might be on the list is “Don’t draw attention to your weapon for any purpose other than defense.” Sounds good to me.

I’m not saying this is why this guy was carrying an AR, but for the sake of discussion, what if someone has a medical condition or disability that makes using an actual pistol (not an AR or AK “pistol”) safely and effectively difficult/impossible, but they can handle a rifle adequately? Should they just not carry? Should they carry a pistol anyway, even though it’s potentially an ineffective or even dangerous option for them? Should they be encouraged to choose the weapon that suits their physical capabilities, even if it’s something we wouldn’t normally advise someone to carry? Questions posed to everyone, not just @dennishoddy.

I think much of the time the gun community doesn’t put much consideration into varying physical capabilities and forms when talking about weapon choices, and I’m curious to hear what people think about hypothetical outliers. It’s not hard to imagine that someone with carpal tunnel syndrome or arthritis may be able to handle a rifle but not a pistol and it seems to me they have all the more need for an equalizer in a fight.


I’m not talking about a brace. I’m talking about an actual rifle with butt stock. Come on man. Why can’t you get braces off your mind? Did a pistol brace kick your dog or something? :rotflmao:
This entire story is about a guy carrying a SBR with a brace that some call a pistol. If you want to vary off into MSR's I'd think that would need a different thread to address that aspect of carrying a full sized rifle vs a "pistol", and yes I have a burr in my a$$ about gimmicks the accessory industry has introduced into the gun market items that has done nothing but bring embarrassment and disparagement into the gun owners that wish to keep their guns and not subject them to legislative oversight by those that use them for nefarious reasons as the history of those accessories have proven to do.
Spare me the outlier comments about cars, smokes, drugs, etc that have nothing to do with gun gimmicks.
Start a thread about MSR's in the context you commented on, and I'll be more than willing to discuss that issue.
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
14,758
Location
Southern Oklahoma
There will always be folks lacking common sense (which, as it turns out, is extremely uncommon).

Do I defend the guy's rights in this case?
EDIT: To clarify - I mean his right to legally carry the weapon.

Yes, I do. IMO, he/we should legally be allowed to carry an AR/Mac-10/RPG or whatever, anywhere we want to. I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed."

However.... given our current political and anti-gun environment, do I think it's the appropriate and/or smart thing to do?

No, I do not (see first paragraph above).

But you can't legislate against poor judgement (providing no criminal act is being committed) without affecting regular folks.

I don't want someone else's idiotic behavior to limit my right to defend myself, by whatever means I deem necessary.

Just my 2¢. :drunk2:
 
Last edited:

Ethan N

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
487
Reaction score
313
Location
OKC Area
As far as physical capabilities go if you can not handle a pistol safely and accurately then you shouldn't be carrying a rifle for the simple fact that you might not have the use of both hands in some situations. While a pistol is easier to shoot one handed it can be done, a rifle (and yes, as dennis put it, a dressed down SBR passing as a pistol) would be extremely difficult to shoot one handed.
If someone’s carrying a rifle and for some reason they only had the use of one hand during an attack, nothing is forcing them to fire the gun if it wouldn’t be safe. Everyone who carries has to know their limitations and the limitations of their weapon and not try to overreach if it would be dangerous to do so. That’s like saying you shouldn’t carry a pistol because you might get mud in your eye and that would make it extremely difficult to shoot. How about you carry a pistol on the off chance your vision is clear, and maybe the gal who can’t effectively grip a pistol because of arthritis can carry a rifle on the off chance she has both hands free.

This isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s story time. A very dear friend had great trouble late in life gripping and managing recoil of handguns but could still handle a rifle practically as well as ever, even if it was painful. He had pretty bad arthritis in his hands, which I assumed was the source of the problem, but I never really analyzed it much at the time. He survived some pretty bad situations earlier in life, like his shop being robbed at gunpoint multiple times (with pistol whips just for fun), and a home invasion where he was tied up and tortured so he would give up cash in his home waiting to be deposited at the bank after the weekend. For most of his life he didn’t feel safe unless he was armed (and even then, I think). Anyway, for the last few years before he died I’m certain not being able to effectively use a pistol kept him at home more than he wanted to be. He loved nature and used to spend a lot of time by fields and streams in rural Oklahoma watching wildlife and enjoying sunrises and sunsets. He stopped doing that as much, and I assumed it was just because he was getting tired in his late 80s. Nope. He said he felt exposed knowing if some depraved person set upon him he probably wouldn’t be able to defend himself. If rifle carry had been lawful then, I believe the last few years of his life would have been happier than they were, and it would easily have been worth some soccer mom’s eyes growing wide while driving by a crazy-looking old man sitting across the ditch with a rifle slung over his shoulder watching deer in a field or even eating at his favorite grocery store deli “in town.”

Didn’t my grandpa deserve to be able to carry a weapon suited to his abilities? Or should only those who can carry a gun neatly out of view have the means to defend themselves?
 
Last edited:

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
If someone’s carrying a rifle and for some reason they only had the use of one hand during an attack, nothing is forcing them to fire the gun if it wouldn’t be safe. Everyone who carries has to know their limitations and the limitations of their weapon and not try to overreach if it would be dangerous to do so. That’s like saying you shouldn’t carry a pistol because you might get mud in your eye and that would make it extremely difficult to shoot. How about you carry a pistol on the off chance your vision is clear, and maybe the gal who can’t effectively grip a pistol because of arthritis can carry a rifle on the off chance she has both hands free.

This isn’t entirely hypothetical. It’s story time. A very dear friend had great trouble late in life gripping and managing recoil of handguns but could still handle a rifle practically as well as ever, even if it was painful. He had pretty bad arthritis in his hands, which I assumed was the source of the problem, but I never really analyzed it much at the time. He survived some pretty bad situations earlier in life, like his shop being robbed at gunpoint multiple times (with pistol whips just for fun), and a home invasion where he was tied up and tortured so he would give up cash in his home waiting to be deposited at the bank after the weekend. For most of his life he didn’t feel safe unless he was armed (and even then, I think). Anyway, for the last few years before he died I’m certain not being able to effectively use a pistol kept him at home more than he wanted to be. He loved nature and used to spend a lot of time by fields and streams in rural Oklahoma watching wildlife and enjoying sunrises and sunsets. He stopped doing that as much, and I assumed it was just because he was getting tired in his late 80s. Nope. He said he felt exposed knowing if some depraved person set upon him he probably wouldn’t be able to defend himself. If rifle carry had been lawful then, I believe the last few years of his life would have been happier than they were, and it would easily have been worth some soccer mom’s eyes growing wide while driving by a crazy-looking old man sitting across the ditch with a rifle slung over his shoulder watching deer in a field or even eating at his favorite grocery store deli “in town.”

Didn’t my grandpa deserve to be able to carry a weapon suited to his abilities? Or should only those who can carry a gun neatly out of view have the means to defend themselves?

I'm sorry your grandfather went through that and I can see how you would feel the way you do, but objectively I would have to say no. You say he could handle a rifle practically as well as ever, but in what setting? At a range where he felt comfortable? What would happen if he was attacked again and had to try and pull the trigger properly while under stress? What would his reaction times be given his arthritis? Granted, neither one of us could probably answer that question now, but its questions like that which should be asked before carrying a firearm in public. If he felt uncomfortable even carrying a smaller caliber, say a .380 or even a .22, then he probably wouldn't have carried a rifle. Not to mention its bulkier and heavier.

While I agree that carrying a rifle should be allowed, that is completely different from being able to carry based on disabilities. I know a guy with no arms that can shoot a pistol with his feet just as well as most people can with two hands. Its pretty amazing to watch. But should he be able to carry that firearm in public? With watching him struggle to get into a shooting position while in a controlled environment I would say no.

You may disagree with me on this, and thats fine. This is just my honest opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom