Guns: Why Not Non-Concealed Carry?

[Revoltingest]

Having weapons in a vicinity increases the risk of my death, intentionally or unintentionally. I should have the right to know what weapons are around me, and who is armed.

This would be balanced against competing interests:
- Fearful people who really really don't want to know.
- Privacy of those carrying concealed.
I'm not saying that your concern is wrong, just that it's complicated.

 

[lunamoth]

This would be balanced against competing interests:
- Fearful people who really really don't want to know.
- Privacy of those carrying concealed.
I'm not saying that your concern is wrong, just that it's complicated.

If I am in a situation where a person who is known to carry a weapon suddenly starts behaving erratically, the police will be on the scene much faster than if I think I am only dealing with a person having an emotional breakdown.

This happens, in classrooms, offices, hospitals... you name it.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I am in a situation where a person who is known to carry a weapon suddenly starts behaving erratically, the police will be on the scene much faster than if I think I am only dealing with a person having an emotional breakdown.
This happens, in classrooms, offices, hospitals... you name it.

Such a person might carry concealed, defeating a law requiring open carry.
There's no easy or complete solution to this.

 

[Tarheeler]

Having weapons in a vicinity increases the risk of my death, intentionally or unintentionally. I should have the right to know what weapons are around me, and who is armed.

I disagree that you should have that right. As I've aready stated, I agree that those who purchase and carry firearms should be fully vetted and trained, but I disagree that open carry should be mandated in order to make it public knowledge.

If you really are that worried about it, you should simply assume that there is always someone around you who is armed. Yes, people do get shot. And, yes, guns are very effective as killing weapons. But, on average, the person who is a threat to your life isn't the average law-abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit. It's the mentally unstable or otherwise deranged guy hell-bent on causing harm. And that guy shouldn't be in possession of a firearm, concealed OR in the open.

If it is the fact that guns present a risk that concerns you, then you should be arguing against carry of any sort rather than for mandated open carry. Whether you can see the gun or not is irrelevant; it is still there and posses the same threat.

 

[lunamoth]

I disagree that you should have that right. As I've aready stated, I agree that those who purchase and carry firearms should be fully vetted and trained, but I disagree that open carry should be mandated in order to make it public knowledge.

If you really are that worried about it, you should simply assume that there is always someone around you who is armed. Yes, people do get shot. And, yes, guns are very effective as killing weapons. But, on average, the person who is a threat to your life isn't the average law-abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit. It's the mentally unstable or otherwise deranged guy hell-bent on causing harm. And that guy shouldn't be in possession of a firearm, concealed OR in the open.

If it is the fact that guns present a risk that concerns you, then you should be arguing against carry of any sort rather than for mandated open carry. Whether you can see the gun or not is irrelevant; it is still there and posses the same threat.

People keep trying to paint me as 'worried,' and I recognize this as a rhetorical strategy to shift the added burden of risk to me, as if my increased risk is now somehow my own fault.

I don't buy it. I'm not nervous and worried, a shrinking woman scared that there are big bad guns all around me. I am only asking that I be informed of this increased risk so I can make better decisions. Yes, I do, and still would always assume that there are concealed weapons around me. This, in fact, is something that gets instilled in most people these days regardless of where you grow up, and, sadly, especially if you are woman. We always must assume increased risk.

Those mentally unstable people can and do get guns legally, and right now they can legally conceal the fact that they do so. The people who live, work, attend class with the unstable folks will see the cracks in the person much sooner and more clearly than the authorities who only need to be convinced for the duration of an exam or other kind of check before registration.

Open carry is the best protection against gun violence by the mentally unstable.

 

[lunamoth]

Such a person might carry concealed, defeating a law requiring open carry.
There's no easy or complete solution to this.

I see this, of course.

But, in the case of people who fly off or end up killing in anger, they are not out at the start to hide the fact that they own guns. They are law abiding citizens, and up until they start to lose it, people will know they have guns if they must follow open carry.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see this, of course.
But, in the case of people who fly off or end up killing in anger, they are not out at the start to hide the fact that they own guns. They are law abiding citizens, and up until they start to lose it, people will know they have guns if they must follow open carry.

It would be useful then if a good guy with a concealed weapon were there to limit the carnage.

 

[lunamoth]

It would be useful then if a good guy with a concealed weapon were there to limit the carnage.

Or equally a good guy/gal with an openly carried weapon, who might deter the firefight to start with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or equally a good guy/gal with an openly carried weapon, who might deter the firefight to start with.

Of course, I use "guy" as a unisex term.
(Very modern of me, eh?)

 

[lunamoth]

Of course, I use "guy" as a unisex term.
(Very modern of me, eh?)

I think we should just say 'gul' or 'gay.' Wait, I think that second one might be spoken for.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we should just say 'gul' or 'gay.' Wait, I think that second one might be spoken for.

Now that the Red Chinese have taken over RF, we could use "ren" (person).

 

[Tarheeler]

People keep trying to paint me as 'worried,' and I recognize this as a rhetorical strategy to shift the added burden of risk to me, as if my increased risk is now somehow my own fault.

Not at all. Firearms do pose a risk to life. They are designed to be so, and are effective at it. You have every right to be concerned about your safety and the safety of your family. It's your job to do so.

I don't buy it. I'm not nervous and worried, a shrinking woman scared that there are big bad guns all around me. I am only asking that I be informed of this increased risk so I can make better decisions. Yes, I do, and still would always assume that there are concealed weapons around me. This, in fact, is something that gets instilled in most people these days regardless of where you grow up, and, sadly, especially if you are woman. We always must assume increased risk.

Those mentally unstable people can and do get guns legally, and right now they can legally conceal the fact that they do so. The people who live, work, attend class with the unstable folks will see the cracks in the person much sooner and more clearly than the authorities who only need to be convinced for the duration of an exam or other kind of check before registration.

Open carry is the best protection against gun violence by the mentally unstable.

Open carry is irrelevant to someone who wants to do harm; they will conceal it if they want to. If you know someone who is unstable, you should let someone know regardless of them carrying a weapon.

Increased reporting and enforcement of gun laws is the best protection against gun violence by the mentally unstable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those warnings are to prevent you from causing an accident involving those materials by making you aware and mindful in instances where you may come into contact or interact with them. So what exactly are you doing to come into direct contact with someone's gun while it's concealed on their person? I suppose you should be made aware if you had legitimate reason to stick your hands in their pockets, purses, etc.

They're there for a number of reasons: along with telling people "don't hit the vehicle carrying dangerous goods", they also give relevant information to emergency responders who might be responding to an incident, they make enforcement of restrictions on dangerous goods easier (for instance, dangerous goods aren't allowed on some highways around here, so having a big sign on the side of your truck would tell the cops on that highway that you're breaking the law), and they give the public information that lets them decide their own level of risk (e.g. "I don't feel comfortable driving near those dangerous goods - I'll back off so there's more space between us.")

All the same rationales would apply to a prohibition on concealed carry:

- knowing whether there are firearms in a situation is important information for emergency responders.

- if a property owner decides not to allow firearms on his premises, prohibiting concealed carry makes it easier to enforce this.

- like lunamoth has already touched on, it allows people who care about the risk that a firearm poses to make an informed decision about what to do.

It obviously depends on what exactly is being done with either of them.

Let's say that in either case, the person with the cylinder or firearm has no malicious intent and is meeting the bare requirements of the law. Which do you think poses a greater risk to the people around it?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Open carry is much more dangerous. Why not wear a sign that says "shoot me first"?

Police that open carry must have a level 3 holster which basically locks the gun in place.

Gun take away situations have always been the biggest inherent issue with open carry.

Open carry presents a challenge to ignorant people.

You have to be able to fight off a gun take away and that requires much more physical strength and training.

Bad guys see an expensive gun that they cannot obtain themselves makes the open carry person a target.

Most of all, many people would crap their pants if they realised just how many folks are carrying a gun these days.

Lastly and more importantly, CCW gives you the element of surprise. You need this edge to be effective otherwise you both pull your weapons and you both get shot many times.

This is not the wild west and fast draw gunmen where always just a legend.

If I was required to open carry, then I need to carry two guns which most police do.

It is called a "BUG" back up gun.

Trust me, you don't want to see open carry. It might be fine for some folks, but the elderly man or woman would be at a disadvantage and become a target for every teenager that wanted a gun and could care less about the law.

If the object is less gun play and keeping guns away from criminals, CCW is your best answer.

This is why we have requirements for who can become a cop and who is physically limited from a dangerous job.

Put very simply, open carry is much more dangerous for everyone involved.

 

[Wirey]

You should all move to Canada. You don't need a gun to feel safe walking outdoors. Cuts down on pointless firearm spending.

 

[Tarheeler]

You should all move to Canada. You don't need a gun to feel safe walking outdoors. Cuts down on pointless firearm spending.

That's actually not a bad idea, at least not in theory.

When the comment was made that we needed to have armed guards in every school, my wife asked me if I thought it was a good idea or not. Since we have armed sheriff deputies in many North Carolina schools already (they're called Resource Officers), I said it was one way to deal with the situation, but I would much rather live in a society where taking that step wasn't needed.

I feel the same was about publicly carrying a firearm (whether it is open or concealed). It is one way to deal with personal protection in our current society, but I would much rather live in a society where it was not needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Open carry is much more dangerous. Why not wear a sign that says "shoot me first"?

... in a situation with an armed attacker who's cased the place thoroughly. How many recent shooting incidents can you give where the attacker was in a position to know where any holstered gun was?

Also, if you plan to draw your gun and shoot the attacker, then any such difference in that regard between concealed and open carry has disappeared after the first few seconds.

And in situations without an attacker (i.e. the vast majority of the time, even in the worst parts of the US), which do you think creates more risk of accidental discharge: a handgun in a proper holster or one loose in a purse or pocket?

Police that open carry must have a level 3 holster which basically locks the gun in place.

Gun take away situations have always been the biggest inherent issue with open carry.

Those holsters sound like a good thing to have. Why wouldn't you want to require those for civilians, too?

Open carry presents a challenge to ignorant people.

You have to be able to fight off a gun take away and that requires much more physical strength and training.

Bad guys see an expensive gun that they cannot obtain themselves makes the open carry person a target.

Those nuclear densometer gauges I mentioned early are very expensive. A TDG placard on a testing company truck can be seen as a message to thrives saying "expensive equipment here!" If this worry isn't enough to outweigh the public's right to know, then why would it be in the case of guns?

Also, there are other ways to address the issue of gun theft. You mentioned one earlier: holsters that prevent the gun from being grabbed by someone else. Other ideas that come to mind would be a firearm registry and increased sentences for crimes involving guns. Measures like these would describes the desirability of illicit firearms, and thereby help to take away the motive a person would have to steal one.

And again, the difference between concealed and open carry is only a difference of degree. Once a person with a concealed weapon draws it, they would have all the problems you describe anyway.

Most of all, many people would crap their pants if they realised just how many folks are carrying a gun these days.

You think the fact that a lot of people care a great deal about whether there are firearms around them is a reason to keep them secret? Bizarre.

Lastly and more importantly, CCW gives you the element of surprise. You need this edge to be effective otherwise you both pull your weapons and you both get shot many times.

If it really came down to shooting, why would having a gun concealed in a hard-to-reach place be an advantage in speed over having it in a proper holster? Do you think a person rattling through her purse for her gun would have more of a surprise advantage than someone who just quickly and cleanly drew her gun from a properly designed holster on her hip?

This is not the wild west and fast draw gunmen where always just a legend.

Frankly, the idea of carrying handguns in public, whether concealed or open, always struck me as suggestive of a Wild West mindset.

If I was required to open carry, then I need to carry two guns which most police do.

It is called a "BUG" back up gun.

So if the law prohibited concealed carry, you'd break the law with a second, hidden gun?

Trust me, you don't want to see open carry. It might be fine for some folks, but the elderly man or woman would be at a disadvantage and become a target for every teenager that wanted a gun and could care less about the law.

If the object is less gun play and keeping guns away from criminals, CCW is your best answer.

This is why we have requirements for who can become a cop and who is physically limited from a dangerous job.

Put very simply, open carry is much more dangerous for everyone involved.

If it dissuades people from carrying firearms at all, then it may very well keep things safer.

Also, even if it doesn't eliminate concealed carry altogether, if the person with a concealed "BUG" knows that they'd be looking at prison time if theur gun was discovered, this might give some strong incentive to stop them from escalating a situation by drawing their weapon.

 

[Apex]

You should all move to Canada. You don't need a gun to feel safe walking outdoors. Cuts down on pointless firearm spending.

So you are telling me that violent crime is non-existent in Canada?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are telling me that violent crime is non-existent in Canada?

There's a heck of a lot less of it here than in the US.

 

[Apex]

There's a heck of a lot less of it here than in the US.

But is it non-existent?

Whoa, I always knew Canada had a very small population, but I did not realize just how small till I just looked it up, 34M!? In the second largest country on the planet?