Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
An argument could be made that the fact those guns haven't had to be used proves that those firearms have provided the hoped for deterrent.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Open Carry Argument
- Thread starter ATM
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
An argument could be made that the fact those guns haven't had to be used proves that those firearms have provided the hoped for deterrent.
I don't understand why this topic gets under so many folks skin the way it does. Personally, I think we need both open and concealed carry. I tend to CC but do OC on occasion. I think the biggest benifit of OC is getting the sheep used to seeing the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf. Right now, the media has the bulk of them programmed to equate a gun with a criminal. If the sight of an otherwise normal looking person with a sidearm becomes more common, it might relax a few more of them, even to the point that may open thier minds to buying a handgun themselves.
On the other hand, if you tell a scumbag that an ever increasing number of people are CCing, then there's going to be an ever increasing risk of running into one of them when commiting a crime. Sooner or later, living at the expense of others will just become too risky for your redeemable scumbag and they may try living a decent life.
The key is that we get as many people to carry as we can. I'd love to see the day when it's common to see someone with a sidearm shopping for groceries and getting no more attention than someone without the sidearm.
On the other hand, if you tell a scumbag that an ever increasing number of people are CCing, then there's going to be an ever increasing risk of running into one of them when commiting a crime. Sooner or later, living at the expense of others will just become too risky for your redeemable scumbag and they may try living a decent life.
The key is that we get as many people to carry as we can. I'd love to see the day when it's common to see someone with a sidearm shopping for groceries and getting no more attention than someone without the sidearm.
This argument has it's parallel in the debate over whether private citizens should be able to carry a weapon with them in public at all.
1. The "logical" argument, that doesn't take real world evidence into account says, "You can't have everyone running around with a gun! You'd have people shooting each other over parking spaces."
2. The philosophical argument says that it's a right, and the practical considerations shouldn't be taken into account at all.
3. The most sensible argument, by any standard, is, "It's a right, and no one can produce evidence that it causes the ill effects you're imagining, so until then there's no good reason not to do it."
In this argument, number three always wins.
Personally, I CC. My choice has only been challenged here a couple of times. On the other hand, the folks who take the "logical" approach, claiming that you're more vulnerable by OCing, tend to get worked up and personal about how tactically disadvantageous it is to open carry.
When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
1. The "logical" argument, that doesn't take real world evidence into account says, "You can't have everyone running around with a gun! You'd have people shooting each other over parking spaces."
2. The philosophical argument says that it's a right, and the practical considerations shouldn't be taken into account at all.
3. The most sensible argument, by any standard, is, "It's a right, and no one can produce evidence that it causes the ill effects you're imagining, so until then there's no good reason not to do it."
In this argument, number three always wins.
Personally, I CC. My choice has only been challenged here a couple of times. On the other hand, the folks who take the "logical" approach, claiming that you're more vulnerable by OCing, tend to get worked up and personal about how tactically disadvantageous it is to open carry.
When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
I carry concealed 60 percent of the time. For one reason is that it is winter time and my firearm is hidden by my parka. I think the best decision should be where you are going to determine if you are going to be concealed or not. If I am going to the mall I will carry concealed simply because the mall may have a no firearms policy. If I go to a resturant I will carry open i.e. I will take my parka off and my firearm is visible. My decision is based on practicality not for some hypotheitical hearsay example of some possiblity of some event that will happen.
The way I see it, there is no perfect and right answer for this. It's gonna depend on the type of person, and what your doing, and where your going. Depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going, thats how I decide how to carry. Sometimes I just don't want anyone to know I'm carrying, other times I want people to know I am. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. No matter which one your doing, you always have to be aware of everything. Thats all that matters. You have to be aware, and be one step ahead of everyone else. If your not paying attention, and your OCing, you can still lose. You can still be too late on drawing your weapon. There shouldn't be anymore fighting on which one is best. It all comes down to being aware of everything around you.
From the essay:
In Indiana, there are relatively few locations where one is forced to choose priority between these goals.
One assumption this essay addresses is that one must always choose exclusively.
Especially if she worked in Chicago.
Glad we have the choice here.
WileECoyotee
Expert
I too am a little
by this statement .Are you saying that people that CC carry use thier guns more than people that open carry ?
That people who open carry sell more guns , than people that CC ?
I know you're a very good " Philosiphizer" , but I'm lost in your meanning .
Blue Tile Spook
Master
From reading Jack's posts in the past, I think he means that he has encountered persons that admit to OCing for the sole purpose of making a public statement of "Look! I have a firearm! Can you see it?" That they do not generally OC due to comfort reasons, that they carry a firearm more for shock value than for personal protection.I too am a little
Are you saying that people that CC carry use thier guns more than people that open carry ?
That people who open carry sell more guns , than people that CC ?
I know you're a very good " Philosiphizer" , but I'm lost in your meanning .
WileECoyotee
Expert
Thanks for clearing that up for me , it kind makes a little more sense now .
Rep'd !
Robert Richardson
Master
- Jan 28, 2009
- 3,682
- 113
To each their own.
rhino said:
Based on some of the first responses, it seems some DIDN'T read it.
Lars said:
This is a singular circumstance. There are instances where I'd certainly rather CC than OC, but plenty of fine circumstances for OC as well. Take it with a grain of salt. I CC 95% of the time or more.
Jack Ryan said:
Seems to me Jack's point is that while they argue the gun is a deterrent and argue that we should show our "teeth", they've not practiced well enough and are based on immature thinking. And I agree.
I think it's fine to OC and fine if you want it to be a deterrent, but for God's sake practice and know how to use it if need be. My guns are used, and will continue to be used in practice.
In any case, the article makes some interesting points for the argument, and while most of the time I'll continue to CC out of personal preference, I may OC from time to time as well.
The argument that open carry acts as a deterrent is inductive logic.
"People don't want to get shot. No one has attacked me while open carrying. Therefore open carry acts as a deterrent."
Well, no one has attacked me while carrying concealed either.
The fact is, fortunately, that in our society attacks are rare enough that most people never use their carry gun in self defense.
"But, it happens to someone every day" is true, and so having a gun, knowing how and when to use it, and being aware of the things around you (giving you the time advantage you need to bring a weapon to bear) are far more important concerns than whether the gun is open or concealed.
Same goes for the argument that open carry makes you the first target. It's inductive reasoning, so the above statement still applies.
For me the arguments holding that open carry is a form of free speech can be more deductive and more valid (I'm using the logic definition of the word "valid" here, don't you all go getting your undies in a wad).
"Open carry is a form of political free speech supporting the Second Amendment. Gun owners need to show support for the Second Amendment, therefore gun owners should open carry."
This argument is more deductive and more valid (again "valid" being used in the logical sense).
"People don't want to get shot. No one has attacked me while open carrying. Therefore open carry acts as a deterrent."
Well, no one has attacked me while carrying concealed either.
The fact is, fortunately, that in our society attacks are rare enough that most people never use their carry gun in self defense.
"But, it happens to someone every day" is true, and so having a gun, knowing how and when to use it, and being aware of the things around you (giving you the time advantage you need to bring a weapon to bear) are far more important concerns than whether the gun is open or concealed.
Same goes for the argument that open carry makes you the first target. It's inductive reasoning, so the above statement still applies.
For me the arguments holding that open carry is a form of free speech can be more deductive and more valid (I'm using the logic definition of the word "valid" here, don't you all go getting your undies in a wad).
"Open carry is a form of political free speech supporting the Second Amendment. Gun owners need to show support for the Second Amendment, therefore gun owners should open carry."
This argument is more deductive and more valid (again "valid" being used in the logical sense).
Jack's point was based on nothing. To agree that people who carry openly have not used their guns or practiced well enough is jumping off quite an unsupported cliff IMO.
Actually, we get this straight from criminals who claim that they
Inductive logic merely offers an explanation of why they do this.
It's still inductive, because the premise is based on an observation or survey. "Studies show that crimials avoid people who was armed" does not mean the next one will.
In deductive reasoning, true premises guarantee a true conclusion.
Basically the concusion of a deductive argument for open carry will be "Criminals will not attack a person who is armed."
We know that's not true.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- ZurokSlayer7X9
- WebSnyper
- TheTank
- spencer rifle
- bobzilla
- thedreamer
- den57
- turnandshoot4
- gassprint1
- dsol
- Haven
- BeDome
- DragonGunner
- pokersamurai
- Leadeye
- indykid
- Jimbo74
- INDY45
- kotaoz
- 7920drew
- steelhead
- Dookie
- Ark
- Ingomike
- nhgluff
- HoughMade
- Avancamp
- BigMoose
- 66chevelle
- wayneduke
- mcapo
- Bosshoss
- DoggyDaddy
- H&SFarms
- Glock22
- dekeshooter
- Meatstick
- duboismd
- ChrisK
- indyblue
- KellyinAvon
- Firehawk
- KRN123060
- indiucky
- 2013Godje
- unique
- ws6duramax
- Mgderf
- t_star
- schmart
