Where will you open carry, if anywhere?

[tm8634]

I'll never open carry, but won't complain about those that want to strut around.
My only reason for wanting this for me, is that if something occurs that makes my CC show.

AGREE 100% with DenH...

 

[Mirge]

I read through the vast majority of this thread, if not all of it. At least I am pretty sure heh... fairly lengthy.

Are there specific reasons not to open carry? I would think that a potential attack could be avoided entirely if the criminal saw you were armed in the first place.

I suppose at the same time, it could in some situations escalate an attack to deadly force from the attacker a lot quicker... but, I'm not sure. I'm still waiting for my CCW permit, just sent in the application etc, so obviously I'm not experienced in ANY type of carrying yet

 

[thayton]

Kind of a moot point now.

 

[kcatto]

I've been wondering when and if this would happen. Seems like the logical defense however is that you did NOT have to enter the store to begin with. Now, if it was someplace you had to be?? Then it would be different. But I really don't know where one has to be except if called to court and your own funeral.

yes this is true, but then why did lubys in Texas pay HUGE court appointed settlements when that gunman went through the restaurant shooting people, even those that had CCL's but were unable to carry due to the companies policy.... It was found that Luby's stripped the people with CCL's the right to defend themselves, thereby accepting responsibility for their safety while dining there...

I am not saying this is right but If I come to your house and your dog bites me then I can hold you and your homeowners insurance liable.... even if you have a beware of dog sign... we all have heard stories of burglars breaking into a house and getting hurt in the process and the homeowner/company are held liable for damages.... same thing applies here....Similar situation....

Sure you do not have to go in the store... but if they are open for business you go in to get a gallon of milk.... their policy states NO weapons of any kind... then they have disarmed you while you are in the store and they are taking on the responsibility of your protection.... this was the CIVIL outcome of the Luby's shooting.... the jury saw it this way as they made the ruling....

I am not saying this is right or wrong just something to think about....

 

[gerhard1]

yes this is true, but then why did lubys in Texas pay HUGE court appointed settlements when that gunman went through the restaurant shooting people, even those that had CCL's but were unable to carry due to the companies policy.... It was found that Luby's stripped the people with CCL's the right to defend themselves, thereby accepting responsibility for their safety while dining there...

I am not saying this is right but If I come to your house and your dog bites me then I can hold you and your homeowners insurance liable.... even if you have a beware of dog sign... we all have heard stories of burglars breaking into a house and getting hurt in the process and the homeowner/company are held liable for damages.... same thing applies here....Similar situation....

Sure you do not have to go in the store... but if they are open for business you go in to get a gallon of milk.... their policy states NO weapons of any kind... then they have disarmed you while you are in the store and they are taking on the responsibility of your protection.... this was the CIVIL outcome of the Luby's shooting.... the jury saw it this way as they made the ruling....

I am not saying this is right or wrong just something to think about....

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the Luby's massacre happened before the Texas legislature enacted RTC. It was not necessarily Luby's policy that prevented Suzanne Gratia Hupp from carrying her handgun, but Texas law. So, the jury finding Luby's liable (if indeed they did) on this basis is incorrect.
The massacre happened in 1991, and Texas did not allow CCW until five years later in 1996. It was, in fact Dr. Hupp's testimony that many on our side credit as a very critical factor in the legislature's passing RTC in the first place.
The Brady Bunch, because they have a very sympathetic media, can get away with incredible sloppiness. The people on our side don't have that luxury. If we make a factual error, the media will be more than happy to hand our heads to us.
To recap: we have to be accurate, the Brady Bunch doesn't.

 

[gerhard1]

On-topic, unlike my last post, but I would not open carry unless I am target shooting on my own 80 acres half a mile from my house, or hunting or something similar.
To be blunt, with very few exceptions, I personally think that open carry is foolish, so while I was slightly disappointed in Gov. Henry's veto, I think that on balance it was not that bad, as it might have resulted more businesses posting their premises, and that would not be a good thing.
That said, I support the right of open carry, but I am a lot more skeptical about it than a lot of you seem to be, as I see the disadvantages outweighing the benefits.

 

[gerhard1]

~snip
Are there specific reasons not to open carry? I would think that a potential attack could be avoided entirely if the criminal saw you were armed in the first place.
~snip~

Yes, there are.
Granted, OC will deter some criminals from an attack, but if it doesn't, congratulations: you have just made yourself more of a target. If an armed robbery does take place, in a store or a bank or whatever, who do you think the bad guys are going to take out first?
Then there is the PR angle. For some reason, OC makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, especially at first, and a lot of people will see OC as akin to exhibitionistic, paranoid, wanting to call attention to their having a gun, etc. (I believe it was Badge Bunny who used the term 'Billy Bad-Ass'. That was cute, BTW.) And in spite of what some of you folks might think, this concern is not entirely without merit. In states where OC is not well-accepted, I would expect some very negative reaction. This would be my main worry aside from the tactical concerns that I addressed earlier.
This would die down in time, especially if those who decide to OC, do so wisely. Do NOT shove the gun in someone's face (figuratively speaking of course) as some on another forum seem to want to do, and tell them to 'deal with it'. Such a tactic would almost certainly assure failure.
Someone mentioned 'de-sensitization'. This process is quite simple, but it must be done correctly. In one case that I know of, a young lady had such a fear of injections that it took four orderlies to hold her down when she had to have one, having a phobia about not only injections but hypodermic needles as well. She developed insulin-dependent diabetes, and this phobia had to be overcome or she would die. The doctors did not just tell her how foolish her fears were; they did not just shove a hypodermic syringe in her face and tell her to 'deal with it'. If they had, they would most likely have failed.
They desensitized her, using standard techniques, getting her used to the idea, and pretty soon, she was handling syringes that they use to give shots to elephants, and she was givng herself injections.
What the OC advocates, in like fashion, need to do, is to gradually introduce the idea into the public awareness, showing John Q that we are not a bunch of Dirty Harry wannabee's, but that we are just plain folks that for whatever reason, choose to OC. A charity shoot might help to enhance our public image, for example.
So, yes; I think that there are valid reasons to not OC, especially now.

 

[kcatto]

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the Luby's massacre happened before the Texas legislature enacted RTC. It was not necessarily Luby's policy that prevented Suzanne Gratia Hupp from carrying her handgun, but Texas law. So, the jury finding Luby's liable (if indeed they did) on this basis is incorrect.
The massacre happened in 1991, and Texas did not allow CCW until five years later in 1996. It was, in fact Dr. Hupp's testimony that many on our side credit as a very critical factor in the legislature's passing RTC in the first place.
The Brady Bunch, because they have a very sympathetic media, can get away with incredible sloppiness. The people on our side don't have that luxury. If we make a factual error, the media will be more than happy to hand our heads to us.
To recap: we have to be accurate, the Brady Bunch doesn't.

Wow.... you are very right about Luby's.... see what happens when I repeat a lawyer hehehehe....
I was totally wrong here... that was the example that he gave me.... I think the open carry issue is not really an issue... the Governor touted businesses would not come here because of open carry... but yet multi million dollar businesses are flocking here everyday.... not..... but for some reason the Governor somehow thinks open carry would detour business from moving here... is silly because most states have open carry all ready.... it was just an excuse to deny Oklahomans more of their RIGHTS...

I would open carry... just for convenience.... conceal carry when I was in crowded place, or in a place where I did not want undo attention....
but once again that would be MY choice in how I exercise my second amendment right.... NOT the governments.... but then again I believe no license is required to keep and bear arms either... a license to carry makes a right a controlled privilege granted to you by the state of Oklahoma not the constitution....

 

[Rajder]

Yes, there are.
Granted, OC will deter some criminals from an attack, but if it doesn't, congratulations: you have just made yourself more of a target. If an armed robbery does take place, in a store or a bank or whatever, who do you think the bad guys are going to take out first?
Then there is the PR angle. For some reason, OC makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, especially at first, and a lot of people will see OC as akin to exhibitionistic, paranoid, wanting to call attention to their having a gun, etc. (I believe it was Badge Bunny who used the term 'Billy Bad-Ass'. That was cute, BTW.) And in spite of what some of you folks might think, this concern is not entirely without merit. In states where OC is not well-accepted, I would expect some very negative reaction. This would be my main worry aside from the tactical concerns that I addressed earlier.
This would die down in time, especially if those who decide to OC, do so wisely. Do NOT shove the gun in someone's face (figuratively speaking of course) as some on another forum seem to want to do, and tell them to 'deal with it'. Such a tactic would almost certainly assure failure.
Someone mentioned 'de-sensitization'. This process is quite simple, but it must be done correctly. In one case that I know of, a young lady had such a fear of injections that it took four orderlies to hold her down when she had to have one, having a phobia about not only injections but hypodermic needles as well. She developed insulin-dependent diabetes, and this phobia had to be overcome or she would die. The doctors did not just tell her how foolish her fears were; they did not just shove a hypodermic syringe in her face and tell her to 'deal with it'. If they had, they would most likely have failed.
They desensitized her, using standard techniques, getting her used to the idea, and pretty soon, she was handling syringes that they use to give shots to elephants, and she was givng herself injections.
What the OC advocates, in like fashion, need to do, is to gradually introduce the idea into the public awareness, showing John Q that we are not a bunch of Dirty Harry wannabee's, but that we are just plain folks that for whatever reason, choose to OC. A charity shoot might help to enhance our public image, for example.
So, yes; I think that there are valid reasons to not OC, especially now.

I pretty much agree with you 100% on this. I know a lot of people on this forum get upset about this but everyone knows that there will be people openly carrying just to be a "Billy Bad Ass" and get a rise out of people. I'd bet that everyone knows at least one person now who currently conceal carries just because they think it’s cool. I know that I know of a few and frankly it scares me to think what they would be like if they could open carry. I'm not saying that everyone who would open carry would be like this but it definitely would happen.

Also, I think that just because we may think we have the right to do whatever we want with firearms according to the constitution it still doesn't necessarily mean it’s a good idea. The simple fact is that gun owners and especially people who currently carry are in the vast minority. And while we may not agree with it guns freak out a lot of people. We should probably have some courtesy and do our best to conceal the guns as to not incite fear into other people then work on slowly getting the public used to firearms. It would take some time but that is the right way to do it. Just shoving firearms down people's throats and telling them to get used to it could have more of a negative impact than a positive one.

Think about it. If you were in the checkout line at Wal-Mart and a man walked up behind you with his 12 ft long pet Crocodile on a leash you would be freaking out to. And if the crocodile owner said "you just don't understand these animals and I'm just trying to get the public used to them", I would still say "I don't care, get that think away from me". Even though it’s not the best analogy, we are trying to do a similar thing.

 

[tRidiot]

Crocodiles need a leash, a muzzle AND a trained handler to keep them from maiming and/or killing bystanders.

Guns just need to be ignored.