| Author | Post |
|---|
fullauto223cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 12:40 am |
|
HEY EVERYONE!! FIRST, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE ENCOURGEMENT!
I want everyone to know that this is still a work in progress. If any of you have anything you think will make this a better artical please send me a (PM) or post a reply on this thread.
Keep the ideas and critisizm coming. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed I've added a Revision stamp and given credit to all who can help me perfect this article further. I've got my ears open brothers!
If you guys repost it then (PM) me with a link, I'd like to see what those people say about it as well.
Last edited on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 12:48 am by fullauto223cal
|
fullauto223cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 01:04 am |
|
radwood wrote: You left out the common arguement that open carrying will make you the first target. It's easy enough to refute and will save time versus the millions of e-mails you'll get from the anti-OC crowd saying "AHA! I found the flaw in your analysis! OC makes you a bullet magnet!"
Beyond that and a few spelling/conventions errors it's a pretty good paper.
Although I didn't state that argument verbatim, please refer to the "looking for trouble" counter argument under CONCEALED CARRY paragraph four as well as “risk vs. reward” logic in paragraph three. In summary, it is illogical that a criminal would instigate a gun fight for no other reason than to instigate a gun fight. I challenge anyone opposed to Open Carry to cite one documented case where a criminal did what they claim will happen. The behavioral evidence in support of Open Carry is well documented. If you think I should address this more specifically that’s fine, send me what your argument would be and we’ll see about inserting it.Last edited on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 05:27 am by fullauto223cal
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 02:32 am |
|
fullauto223cal wrote: I'd like to see what those people say about it as well.
Cross-posted:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed-open-carry-121/15157-open-carry-vs-concealed-carry-paper-garry-e-harvey.html#post186024
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 10:20 am |
|
Well done. I do have a few comments. I'll either post them up here later or PM you.
|
Schofield
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26th, 2008 08:47 am |
|
Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.
What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.
- Schofield
Last edited on Sat Jan 26th, 2008 08:50 am by Schofield
|
deepdiver
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 4629 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26th, 2008 05:50 pm |
|
Schofield wrote: Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.
What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.
- Schofield
I'm not sure that is true. If someone is going on a suicide shooting spree, they are by definition mentally deranged. I would question if they are rational enough to really think through the matter to that extent or that they are really going to be that observant. My guess would be that they are going to have tunnel vision for the most part and see everyone as a target and just be focused on shooting them. If you are shot immediately in that situation I would guess it is more going to be a matter of being one of the first victims because of bad luck of your location, rather than because you have a gun on your hip.
If you think out that scenario, unless you are one of the first targets, you are going to be going for cover and have your gun in your hand regardless of OC or CC carry, so the method of carry becomes moot, except perhaps, to how quickly you can draw your weapon. And usually these guys don't stake out the place and surveil it minutes before the attack to see who is where. They have a plan, they walk in, go to their chosen firing position and start pulling the trigger. Unless you are unlucky enough to encounter them prior to their first shot, in which case maybe they would shoot you before getting to their firing position if they even notice that you are armed, I don't think someone OC is at anymore risk than someone CC.
My guess is that for any individual, over years of carrying, the deterrent factor of OC on a potential BG who is just a petty thief and doesn't want to get shot by a customer over a $100 quick shop robbery, probably balances out with any enhanced risk of being a first target from a truly determined, criminal willing to commit murder or planning murder.
Another side to that argument however, is the fact that several (perhaps many or even all, I haven't read all 50) state constitutions within the section protecting the RKBA, reads that such rights do not extend to the concealed carry of weapons and that the state reserves the right to regulate CC. This tells me that there has been a perception for some 200 years that CC is somehow a different, higher threat to the people or the state or law and order or something than OC. Is the fact that in at least some frontier states, where many people were armed much of the time, that such clauses were deemed necessary, prima facie evidence that CC really does give a tactical advantage despite some modern thought to the contrary? Or is it a case that with the advance of weapons this is a moot point? Or is this line of thought really just meaningless?
I do find it ironic that in a state such as MO, where the RKBA is specifically protected in the state constitution whereas CC is not, that we can get licensed to CC and that such licensure is preempted (the licensure part affirming that it is not a right but instead a priveledge extended by the state much as driving), that the constitutionally protected right to OC is limited in that there is no state preemption to prevent municipalities from passing laws out right banning OC. Court arguments that such preemption is unnecessary due to constitutional protections and that such municipal laws are unconstitutional under the state constitution have been ruled against in state courts here. As the saying goes, it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26th, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
Schofield wrote: Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.
What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.
- Schofield
First welcome aboard Schofield.
Over they years I have heard this argument against OC many times. I have always responded the same way, "Show me one instance in modern times in the fifty states where this has been the case." No one has ever come back to point out with facts in hand where this has happened.
Now mind you, I am not suggesting that it has never occurred but rather that if it has, it is a distinctly rare event. I have in my many years of reading not come across one such story. I have; however, personally heard of many times where the sight of a weapon turned potential aggressors around and have myself experienced that on more than one occasion.
It is far, far better in my opinion to have not had to draw or discharge my weapon but merely let my "friend" speak for me than it would have been to deal with the aftermath of even the most righteous shooting.
My thoughts - add them to the mix.
Yata hey
|
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 26th, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
Grapeshot wrote: Schofield wrote: Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.
What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.
- Schofield
First welcome aboard Schofield.
Over they years I have heard this argument against OC many times. I have always responded the same way, "Show me one instance in modern times in the fifty states where this has been the case." No one has ever come back to point out with facts in hand where this has happened.
Now mind you, I am not suggesting that it has never occurred but rather that if it has, it is a distinctly rare event. I have in my many years of reading not come across one such story. I have; however, personally heard of many times where the sight of a weapon turned potential aggressors around and have myself experienced that on more than one occasion.
It is far, far better in my opinion to have not had to draw or discharge my weapon but merely let my "friend" speak for me than it would have been to deal with the aftermath of even the most righteous shooting.
My thoughts - add them to the mix.
Yata hey
The part I have bolded is the most succinct part of your response and one of the best arguments I have seen regarding OC'ing.
However, I do think that there is a very real possibility that if a BG or BGs commence an illegal activity and then notice you are armed, you might become the first target. If, on the other hand, they come into a place and see you first, I suspect they will leave and take their "plans" elsewhere. It really depends upon the mindset and level of anxiety of the BGs.
I also suspect the reason we have not seen this reported is probably due to the fact that OC'ing across the nation is a rarity. Since I have started OC'ing last July, I have yet to see someone else doing the same thing in my little corner of the world. So we are still just not out there all that much.
I will add to this that I imagine the deterent factor is significantly higher when people are seen carrying a sidearm in businesses which have a higher incidence of criminal activity.
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 27th, 2008 02:39 am |
|
I agree that OC is not nearly as prevalent as CC. We do have certain states that we can draw from nevertheless - most notably Alaska and Vermont. While the press is not prone to report things exactly unbiased - I feel reasonably sure that we would hear of an armed man assassinated in bank, restaurant or whatever prior to a robbery.
On the other hand many of us on this thread and others (VCDL included) have related true stories which in our firmest belief became non-events primarily because a weapon (s) was seen. Among others. these have included banks, parking lots, dark streets and retail establishments. These occurred in Virginia.
When I first started OCing, I too felt like there was a target painted on my back. I will say it did wonders for my situational/tactical awareness - an edge that I have strived to hone keenly.
Personally, I think that the added danger to an OCer should be relegated to "Urban Legends."
Yata hey
|
fullauto223cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 12:25 am |
|
Just thought I'd bring this back to the recent list... any further thoughts anyone?
|
Bravo_Sierra
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 01:19 am |
|
I'm a big supporter of... Carry your gun. I don't care how, just do it!
Psalms 144:1 “Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.”
|
fullauto223cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
I love that quote!!!! I'm going to use that one.
The bottom line of the paper isn't that one is better than the other but that all those who carry should stick together and stop bashing each other.
Last edited on Fri May 30th, 2008 04:18 am by fullauto223cal
|
WARCHILD
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 11:20 am |
|
fullauto223cal wrote: Yes, I did in fact write this paper. I spent about two days while working a part time job guarding an empty state medical building. Needless to say I had a lot of time to think everything through. If you want to send it you may, my real name is Garry Harvey
Jackson, TN
++infinity!! Most Excellent.
May I have your permission to quote your paper on my pod cast radio show (The Saturday Afternoon Shootout)? This defines both sides of the argument very clearly and may help people understand each sides view on carrying. Understanding is knowledge and we could all use a little of both on this subject.
Kudos once again, Thanks, Jerry
|
fullauto223cal
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2008 03:38 am |
|
YES, OF COURSE.
Please post link to show when you can....
Last edited on Wed Jun 4th, 2008 03:38 am by fullauto223cal
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 01:59 pm |
|
Ok, who besides me, thinks this should be pinned or something, so it doesn't float to the bottom?
|
WARCHILD
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 02:08 pm |
|
Big Gay Al wrote: Ok, who besides me, thinks this should be pinned or something, so it doesn't float to the bottom?
ok, I admit again, I'm old and miss your point. Please explain.
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 02:16 pm |
|
WARCHILD wrote: Big Gay Al wrote: Ok, who besides me, thinks this should be pinned or something, so it doesn't float to the bottom?
ok, I admit again, I'm old and miss your point. Please explain.
Most forums have a feature where threads can be "pinned" so they don't "float away" as they get older, if they're not posted to.
In other words, if no else replies to this thread, after me, as time goes on, it will slowly float down the list of message threads, eventually to the next page and so on. If pinned, it will stay at or near the the top.
|
WARCHILD
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
Ok, now I understand. Still new to this stuff. Thanks for the explanation.
Jerry
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
Does OCing one and CCing another count as having the best of both worlds? 
Yata hey
|
crotalus01
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
WhiteRabbit22 wrote: That's how it should be anyway. No state in this country should have gone to a "permit" system. So far, Vermont and Alaska are the only states honoring the 2A to the fullest.
Scratch Vermont. You cannot own a silencer in Vermont.
|
Current time is 11:17 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
