Open carry at Cabela's

[NateIU10]

Same difference.

Now we have the real purpose and the true cause of the situation you described. Had nothing to do with self defense, better access to the weapon, comfort or any thing else other than to give your self an opportunity to preach to the "less informed". To "educate" those who need "educating" by you. Pure and simple, just as I knew from your very first post all along.

Now we have that all cleared up.

Explain to me how you accomplished that goal in ANY WAY. You were unaware of your rights or even what the store policy was and cow toed in to compliance at the first mention of dissent from the first 5 dollar an hour store clerk with the nerve to comment.

What did it accomplish?

To each his own, I am glad we have the choice here in Indiana!

Exactly! We obviously don't agree on CC vs OC, but you identify that it should be others choices. Thank you.

its quite clear that even gun owners have such a strong reaction to oc and cc...this should be a sign that the general public is going to have an even stronger reaction...so I would choose to exercise my right to carry but not create an issue with any individual or private business.

He said that in public he has answered a multitude of questions from people. Just because one store clerk doesn't like it he should abandon all hope? Oh, and he also said that the only place he has ever run into so much chastising is HERE.

Again. Division = WE ALL LOSE!

 

[melensdad]

ATM asked "why would surprise be logical" let us take the store shooting in Indy the other day, the criminal was brandishing a handgun to rob the place, pointing it at a customer and her child! A store clerk reacted and shot the robber, had the robber seen a gun on that guys hip the store clerk may have not gotten the chance to pull it and save innocent lives! ...

Not intended to offend, but let me raise the BULL$HIT flag on you.

Please show me EVEN 1 REAL LIFE EXAMPLE of a situation where a civilian was shot for open carry by a criminal.

...

chirp chirp

....

I hear crickets but no evidence from you!

....

FBI crime data doesn't show any examples.

So how is it that you can cite something as PROBABLE when there is ZERO evidence to support your position? I'm really getting tired of 'know it alls' who seem to wax on eloquently about what happens in OC scenarios but they don't use ANY evidence to support their made up little stories.

Let me give you a couple other scenarios that are MORE LIKELY to have occurred:

1) criminal walks in and does not notice the guy with the gun, criminal gets shot.
2) criminal walks in and does notice the guy with the gun, walks out, nobody is harmed.
​

 

[waloidian]

He said that in public he has answered a multitude of questions from people. Just because one store clerk doesn't like it he should abandon all hope? Oh, and he also said that the only place he has ever run into so much chastising is HERE.

I get your point, but remember this is the intarweb where people freely express opinions that they usually would not. Most people arent going to chastise someone in public, especially if that person is OC. Dont get me wrong, he has every right to OC, and do as he pleases, but you need to be prepared to deal with ignorant folks and situations.

 

[4sarge]

Exactly! We obviously don't agree on CC vs OC, but you identify that it should be others choices. Thank you.

He said that in public he has answered a multitude of questions from people. Just because one store clerk doesn't like it he should abandon all hope? Oh, and he also said that the only place he has ever run into so much chastising is HERE.

Again. Division = WE ALL LOSE!

 

[melensdad]

its quite clear that even gun owners have such a strong reaction to oc and cc...this should be a sign that the general public is going to have an even stronger reaction...so I would choose to exercise my right to carry but not create an issue with any individual or private business.
. . .
but you need to be prepared to deal with ignorant folks and situations.

The store clerk was ignorant and the Original Poster should have had a bit more information about the company policy so he could have dealt with the clerk's ignorance better. But we need to separate his intent from his failure to achieve it.

You have argued against his motive, but now you seem to be switching your point to his failure to achieve. We must not get those two things confused. Just because he failed to achieve his goal does not mean his goal was wrong. Seems to me you are talking with a forked tongue?

 

[Field King]

I was just contributing my prefrences and way of thinking, I respect your right to state your beliefs and I thought this was a civil discussion! Not to offend each other!

 

[Crystalship1]

I bet Scutter is just itchin' to "pull the trigger" on this thread.

 

[melensdad]

I was just contributing my prefrences and way of thinking, I respect your right to state your beliefs and I thought this was a civil discussion! Not to offend each other!

I was not trying to offend. Stated so clearly.

But you wrote some statements in your post. The statements cannot be defended in fact. Therefore they are baseless statements. In fact there is evidence to show your statements are wrong.

You claim to respect my beliefs. My post is based on fact. Not belief.

I can respect your personal opinion of what is best for you, but I can simultaneously point out that your opinion is based on falsehoods. That is simply correcting your error.

 

[Field King]

not to offend? chirp chirp? ******** flag?

 

[Michiana]

Let me give you a couple other scenarios that are MORE LIKELY to have occurred:

1) criminal walks in and does not notice the guy with the gun, criminal gets shot.
2) criminal walks in and does notice the guy with the gun, walks out, nobody is harmed.
​

You forgot these:

3) criminal walks in with weapon in his pocket, sees person with gun on hip, waits until that person turns away and sticks his gun in that persons ear and takes his weapon.
OR
3)criminal walks in with weapon in his pocket, sees person with gun on hip, waits until that person turns away and shoots OC person in the back of his head.
​

 

[waloidian]

The store clerk was ignorant and the Original Poster should have had a bit more information about the company policy so he could have dealt with the clerk's ignorance better. But we need to separate his intent from his failure to achieve it.

You have argued against his motive, but now you seem to be switching your point to his failure to achieve. We must not get those two things confused. Just because he failed to achieve his goal does not mean his goal was wrong. Seems to me you are talking with a forked tongue?

No, my point is that if you are going to OC, you need to be prepared to deal with ignorant people and situations. Im not judging his decision, as it's his right to do as he pleases with a LTCH...but one should be ready to deal with these situations and not be surprised that OC may bring unwanted attention; good or bad. My last post was only responding to a specific question from Nate, so dont go jumping to conclusions.

 

[melensdad]

You forgot these:

3) criminal walks in with weapon in his pocket, sees person with gun on hip, waits until that person turns away and sticks his gun in that persons ear and takes his weapon.
OR
3)criminal walks in with weapon in his pocket, sees person with gun on hip, waits until that person turns away and shoots OC person in the back of his head.
​

Actually no sir I did not.

But if you can provide any evidence that shows that either of those has EVER happened, then I will add them to the list of PROBABLE scenarios.

The FBI crime data on shooting never showed your last example. There is apparently NO CASE of a civilian doing OC ever being shot for OC. So that one is easy enough to debunk. The myth of the gun grab is often talked about, seldom accomplished. It most often happens to police officers and to people who pull a gun with the intent to 'scare away' the bad guy. I've never seen any evidence to show that it has happened to an OC carriers. Please provide any bit of crime data to support it and I'll add it.

Why not deal in facts? Or at very least LIKELY scenarios?

I love the folks who defend CC by citing examples as likely when those example have NEVER occurred. How can something that never happened be likely?

not to offend? chirp chirp? ******** flag?

Hmmm, so now you are attacking the way I replied but still not providing any evidence to support your claims. Seems to me that is the same tactic that Obama used during his campaign. Defer the attack, change the topic, repel the attack by redirecting it . . . but never state the evidence to support his position.

Hmmm. 'nuf said about your claims?

 

[Michiana]

CC person has the advantage

Actually no sir I did not. But if you can provide any evidence that shows that either of those has EVER happened, then I will add them to the list of PROBABLE scenarios.

If I am CC in a store and a situation arises I have the option of taking action or standing by; if I am OC I have to assume that the bad guy has seen my gun and that immediately drags me into the situation. I would rather have the option be left to me.

As for "facts" we can talk facts all day like you have more of a chance of getting hurt falling down stairs at home than from someone with a gun. I base my personal protection needs on what I believe is the best for myself and my family, not what I read on the internet here or on gun web sites.

 

[Rookie]

Although I'm not going to look up a source, there are many examples of police officers walking up to a car/person and getting shot/killed. I know people will say that this doesn't apply, but my point is that a criminal that is hell bent on breaking the law will not allow a person with a gun to deter him. Look at a bank robbery. The criminal's first thought is to neutralize the treat (whether it's an armed guard or the bank teller). His first thought is not whether the person he just walked by has a gun or not. If he were to see a gun, that would be his first task to neutralize.

The loudest person gets the most attention. Look at nature - most animal's first line of defense is camoflage. You don't see them galloping through the woods with neon orange fur for a reason.

Once again, my reason for concealed carry that you are entitled to disagree with.

 

[Field King]

You stated in earlier post that you typically carry concealed, but you think it causes more harm than good, you seem to be at odds with yourself even though you have all the FBI stats and all, I now understand why you are the keeper of the BULL$HIT flag! No intention to offend!

 

[rhino]

Many interviews have been done with criminals in prisons who stated that the presence of a gun or the expectation of a gun cause them to find easier prey.

Find one documented incident of a non-police officer being specifically targeted first because they were openly carrying a gun. Good luck with that.

People being targeted first because they have an exposed gun is based on unsubstantiated fear and myth. Criminals being deterred by the presence of a weapon is documented fact.

 

[Field King]

Rhino, what about gang members doing drive by, they are doing drive by because they know the target is armed and the car provides quick get away and cover? There are many documented cases of that, are there not? This thread seems to be way off original post and I was just contributing by stating my preference and not citing a million statistics from the FBI and such to change minds to my way of thinking, I will again state " I am glad we have the choice in Indiana to o.c or cc)

 

[Scutter01]

Rhino, what about gang members doing drive bys, they are doing drive by because they know the target is armed and the car provides quick get away and cover? There are many documented cases of that, are there not? This thread seems to be way off original post and I was just contributing by stating my preference and not citing a million statistics from the FBI and such to change minds to my way of thinking, I will again state " I am glad we have the choice in Indiana to o.c or cc)

A drive-by is almost always targeted against a specific individual (an assassination attempt) and anyone else involved is collateral damage. It's not just gang members driving up and shooting a random individual. It's a completely different class of crime with completely different psychology.

 

[Field King]

A drive-by is almost always targeted against a specific individual (an assassination attempt) and anyone else involved is collateral damage. It's not just gang members driving up and shooting a random individual. It's a completely different class of crime with completely different psychology.

I understand and my original intent in my original reply was to contribute my choice to o.c or cc, I am not an expert on crime stats, criminal intent or what is more likely to take place in any given situation. But the drive by is still done in a way that protects the assassin against return fire and that is an example of a known armed citizen being shot, again many scenarios and examples can be made to support ones choice to o.c or cc. I have allowed my self to veer off course due to another members reply to one of my post and now choose to just drop it.

 

[melensdad]

As for "facts" we can talk facts all day like you have more of a chance of getting hurt falling down stairs at home than from someone with a gun. I base my personal protection needs on what I believe is the best for myself

I understand. You prefer to ignore fact and base your choices on unsubstantiated opinion.

The loudest person gets the most attention.

Is that why Michiana uses such big print?

You stated in earlier post that you typically carry concealed, but you think it causes more harm than good...

Yes, and I also stated that the older I get the more I realize that CC is wrong. You simply edited and parsed my words to suit your needs. Obama, if you listen to him carefully, did the same thing. I have no respect for him because of that.


-------


Strikes me that many here are staying with the theme of being off topic. They can't defend the facts. Many also seem to blame the O.P.'s motive and assess his failure as proof that his motive was wrong. That is nothing more than faulty logic by these people. Yes, the O.P. failed to achieve his goal, please don't be so confused that you believe his failure had anything to do with his motive being incorrect.