imported post
Alright, didn't want to cause any bad blood here, so I'm going to break this down a bit because we
may be mixing up our arguments here. My question is what would be considered distasteful open carry.
Which leads me a bit to the whole purpose of this website and these forums, which is: Why open carry, vs. concealed carry.
So let's start with a few premises here, folks - if any of these are off, feel free to say so, I'm just throwing them out there as the way I think about things, subject to change and evolution.
- Some concealed carry makes deployment slower than open draw from a holster, but I suspect the way most people conceal, this isn't much of an issue. In my case, I am wearing a loose shirt over an OWB holster to conceal, which barely makes a difference. I am going to therefore assume for the rest of this discussion that people do not open carry specifically for tactical reasons in terms of speed of deployment.
- One reason to open carry (vs. concealed) is deterrence. I've heard arguments that open carry "invites people to try to take your gun," but I don't buy this. It could happen, but more likely an open carry gun just deters people around you from committing a violent crime in your vicinity. Not worth the risk. I am fairly convinced open carry is a deterrent, especially if you are particularly clean cut in which case people will tend to assume you're a cop. I've read the stories of you bikers and longhairs, and that obviously isn't what happens in your case, but if you are clean cut and fairly fit, that seems to be an assumption people *tend* to make.
- Another reason to open carry, and I suppose this is what I'm getting at, is to make a point. That doing so is a right, that it can be done responsibility, and that people are going to exercise that right.
- Lastly, to get people used to the idea that there are responsible armed people in our society.
Now I've had a lot of arguments with the Left about protests. I've made the point that if you want to make a statement, the more ridiculous you look, the less people are going to listen. If you compare footage of the Civil Rights movement, where men tended to wear suits and ties and march quiety, to the black bloc or hippie cat-in-the-hat stuff, the difference is apparent.
Who would you take more seriously - or at least be willing to listen to - Martin Luther King and the SCLC, or the anarchists at the Battle of Seattle?
Now the counterargument I get is they're fighting for "all kinds of things," including the right to be a freak of sorts. My position always is that to end a war or legalize drugs or whatever the cause, seems to be more important than "the right to express oneself absurdly" because people are dying or going to prison over it - that there is a hierarchy of concerns and expressing yourself in a flamboyant way, however valid, should be at the bottom of that list.
Now let's talk about open carry for the purposes of making a point. I don't want to speak for anyone here, but I am going to make the assumption that the right to own and carry and display a "big scary black gun" is probably one we all ultimately believe in, even if we personally find it silly or impractical or whatever. I don't *think* (if you disagree, feel free to say so) anyone here is trying to say that you should be legally prohibited from owning or carrying around a large military weapon.
Gun rights are, unfortunately and illegitimately, subject ultimately to the whims of voters. If voters decide that they want a class of weapons banned, they will elect politicians who will do that for them. Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that voters will elect politicians who will infringe your right to own weapons if they so choose.
So is it in our interest, therefore (I'm asking) to make an impression on people in such a way that they do not vote for more restrictive gun laws? Is PR worth it, and is open carry a form of PR? Is that why most people carry openly - to make a point and set an expectation?
So that's the first question.
Can we assume that the average undecided or moderate individual may be turned off by the display of what they perceive to be aggressive weapons (the big black guns). If so, does displaying them then work at cross purposes of normalizing the concept of carrying weapons around? Does the way we present ourselves in public impact public opinion and therefore public policy by the way people vote, and should this concern us, or be an issue in what and how we choose to carry openly?
If it ever came down to me having to take a stand for or against someone carrying an unpopular weapon, it wouldn't even be an issue - I'd be on the side of people carrying whatever the hell they want within the context of the Second Amendment.
At the same point I understand Sonora Rebel's point. Carrying a handgun openly presents a "typical," even "prudent and practical" scenario of an individual carrying an appropriate weapon for self-defense. Like a plumber with a wrench; in any case - the right tool for the job. My own subjective opinion tends to indicate that a practical handgun serves this purpose for general civilian carry. I also believe the public is more amenable to being okay or comfortable with this - polls tend to indicate that almost everyone believes there is a right to self defense, even if they disagree with the idea that just about anything ought to be allowed.
My first question if I encountered ixtow would be to wonder why he was carrying that particular weapon, which seems to be purposed as a weapon of war. I wouldn't *oppose* him doing so and I wouldn't give him any crap about it. As a fellow gun owner I'd probably say, "hey ixtow...what's the deal with that gun?" because I'd be curious as it *seems to me subjectively* to be impractical.
So to kind of tie up this long post, I would ask:
- Why open carry vs. concealed carry?
- Should we be concerned about making a point, statement, or presenting an image when we do so? Or are there other reasons people tend to want to open carry (I just thought of another one: a lot of people resent being in a government database for the CCW permit, which is valid).
- If a fellow gun owner is exercising his Constitutional Rights in a way which may turn off the general public, is that something we should be concerned with? To what extent should we care what the general public thinks?
- How much of anything we do as gun rights advocates should be concerned with outreach and changing minds?
My own suggestion here is that in this forum, we're all gun owners and I presume most of us don't have any issue with people responsibly owning and carrying guns of their choice. So there's no need for hostility, bitterness, or whatever. At least in terms of the regional assault on the right to basic self-defense, we're kind of all in this together.
Incidentally, when I saw the picture of KP with that gun, my thought wasn't, "What a nut," but, "He did that to be a bit of a smart-ass" and I kind of chuckled, amused - that was my assumption. But then again, I'm at a forum about open carry and I understand the context of doing so. If I was in that restaurant, that might not be immediately clear.
Should we care?
On a day to day basis, I am not sure I could take a person who carried a massive weapon seriously. But I wouldn't begrudge him the right, either. I feel the same about people with tons of facial piercings.
