Guns: Why Not Non-Concealed Carry?

[Father Heathen]

I agree, it is a country at war with itself.

Because there isn't a stabbing epidemic in the U.K.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would agree this is possible, but unnecessary for everyday citizens.

For those of us who carry concealed, it is very necessary to carefully select a carry mode & train for drawing it reliably.

 

[lunamoth]

For those of us who carry concealed, it is very necessary to carefully select a carry mode & train for drawing it reliably.

I would hope this would be true whether one carries openly or concealed.

One adapts to what is the norm. Open carry would be an improved norm.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just fling my poncho aside to have ready access to a concealed pistol.

 

[Revoltingest]

But some people dress in a style which prohibits concealed carry.
They must use open carry.

 

[lunamoth]

I must agree that style is everything.

 

[Apex]

If you were a teacher in a classroom, wouldn't you want to know who in the room was armed?

Why? If you were to make it mandatory to do open carry the ones who would actually do so are no the ones you need to worry about.

 

[lunamoth]

Why? If you were to make it mandatory to do open carry the ones who would actually do so are no the ones you need to worry about.

Until the time that they are ...

What's wrong with me seeing the weapons in my class?

 

[Apex]

Until the time that they are ...

That makes no sense...

What's wrong with me seeing the weapons in my class?

It is a false sense of security that will only make the situation worse.

 

[lunamoth]

That makes no sense...

If I see a student with a gun in my class, and then at some later date they start to show signs of breaking down, then they are a bigger potential threat.

It is a false sense of security that will only make the situation worse.

I really do not see how outside your bald assertion. The more information I have, the better. Of course I would not assume that I know all of the possible weapons in my class, but I would know more than I would with CCW.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is a false sense of security that will only make the situation worse.

How so?

 

[Alceste]

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

If they all moved here they'd bring their guns with them, and it wouldn't be as safe walking outdoors any more.

 

[Alceste]

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?

We have a lot of elbow room, that's for sure.

Again, do people who wear seat belts live in constant fear of automobile accidents?

Again, there's a big difference between being prepared for a fender bender and being prepared to shoot and kill a human being.

If you were a teacher in a classroom, wouldn't you want to know who in the room was armed?

I never considered this before, I simply assumed guns wouldn't be permitted in classrooms. Surely you've got to draw the line somewhere!

Until the time that they are ...

What's wrong with me seeing the weapons in my class?

I would hope that if you can't have open carry, you should at least be able to pursue a disclosure policy, so that at least you know who is armed. As the teacher you need to know such things.

I am a teacher, and I would not feel comfortable teaching an armed student at all. Even a knife would be cause for concern. It implies the person carrying it is prepared to do violence. I'd consider it very risky to associate with such a person at all, let alone correct and instruct them in ways they might not like.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am a teacher, and I would not feel comfortable teaching an armed student at all. Even a knife would be cause for concern. It implies the person carrying it is prepared to do violence. I'd consider it very risky to associate with such a person at all, let alone correct and instruct them in ways they might not like.

So you can assess their character based solely upon the fact that they carry an object with which you have an emotional struggle/insecurity with? My father has owned guns all of his life and doesn't have a violent bone in his body. I get that some people find guns to be vewy, vewy scawy, but merely possessing one doesn't magically make people go on random killing sprees. See, violent crime is a complex, psychological thing. Weird, huh? I don't own a gun myself, but I'm prepared to resort to force to defend myself or to protect those I love if I have to, and honestly I wouldn't want to associate with anyone who would think less of me for doing so, either.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you can assess their character based solely upon the fact that they carry an object with which you have an emotional struggle/insecurity with?

Having taught for a few years now myself, I have to say that
1) I've yet to meet a teacher who assessed character solely on any single thing. But there are many things which are very, very suggestive. And teachers are frequently told to be on the look out for warning signs.

2) I carry a knife all the time where it is allowed. I don't have an emotional insecurity with it. I wouldn't want to teach students, even college kids, armed. I've seen college kids blow-up at instructors, TAs, professors, and even guests because of everything from the nature of the discussion to being upset for getting a zero when they cheated. Certain courses invariably lead to heated (but hopefully fairly contained) back and forth between students and between the students and the teacher. Unfortunately, sometimes heated leads to aggression. Classroom dynamics are not like someone getting belligerent in a bar, or being in a dangerous area, or most potentially threatening situations. They present a rather unique challenge in that there are often several cliques artificially forced together into a classroom, all of similar ages (and typically not very mature), and all very used to feeding off of one another's energy. I've never seen a physical altercation on a university classroom, but I know of several instances when I or another was worried they might. I can just imagine how weapons could add fuel to that, and how much more threatening to an instructor (all to frequently the natural target) such a situation seem to be when people are armed.

 

[Alceste]

So you can assess their character based solely upon the fact that they carry an object with which you have an emotional struggle/insecurity with? My father has owned guns all of his life and doesn't have a violent bone in his body. I get that some people find guns to be vewy, vewy scawy, but merely possessing one doesn't magically make people go on random killing sprees. See, violent crime is a complex, psychological thing. Weird, huh? I don't own a gun myself, but I'm prepared to resort to force to defend myself or to protect those I love if I have to, and honestly I wouldn't want to associate with anyone who would think less of me for doing so, either.

I don't have any insecurity about it, but it would be very freakish and unusual behavior in Canada to carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense. In this country, it would genuinely be a clear signal that the armed individual is potentially dangerous. Hunting guns are a different story. I love me some moose!

You seem to have difficulty understanding it's not the weapon that is disturbing (we have loads of guns), but the thought that you leave the house every day anticipating that you might have to shoot another human being as opposed to dinner. I've said as much half a dozen times and nobody has addressed it. Instead they brush off being prepared to commit murder as the same thing as being prepared to put out a fire.

 

[Reverend Rick]

... 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?

Jeff, a good example would be a bank guard. Those poor guys don't make it through a robbery very often.

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.

All I need is a couple of seconds head start.

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?

Nice assumption that I don't use a holster. Galco makes some excellent leather inside the waist holsters. I use the same holster sky marshals use.

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

I would for open carry which I don't approve of unless you are at the gun range, hunting, hiking, fishing, that sort of thing away from crowds.

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?

Because you do not have the right to know if I am carrying a gun or not.

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.

You just don;t get it do you? Lawless people don't concern themselves with laws and penalties.

Level Three holsters lock the gun in place and slow down a gun grab, not prevent it. There is usually a release lever or button that can be found after a short time.

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.

No, if I draw my weapon, the bad guy is going to be DRT, (Dead Right There). If you use the right tactics, most people hear the gun before they see it and if employed correctly it would be too late for them to respond.

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.

It is none of your business Jeff. When we transport a nuclear weapon, do you really believe there are signs? I guess you should google "Ghost Trucks" You do not have a need to know everything. People are allowed to CCW and who does and who does not is a private thing.

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?

I agree, but you can have a properly designed CCW holster with under 1 second draws, most people can draw and fire under 2 seconds easily.

Oh, I should mention the level three holster have a slower draw time, but I still think the delay is acceptable for the amount of safety it provides.

Now, I have said all this fast draw stuff is pretty much fictional....... but....... I can draw and fire from a concealed holster faster than someone with a level three holster can.

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

That is your culture and mindset. If you lived other places your opinion might change or at least be more tolerant of the gun culture.

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


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.

Have you ever heard the saying, "Better a trial by 12 than be carried to your grave by 6"?

You see this is the liberal mindset. You want a man who has lived his entire life without so much as a traffic ticket who was drafted in the military and served his country. Raised a family, paid his taxes, carried a gun all his life without incident who has more gun training than most police officers to become a criminal when you pass restrictive laws.

You just assume I will become a law breaker if you change the laws which is insulting but partially true and your kind will champion it that you can take away my freedoms and turn me into a common criminal after more than 60 years.

 

[McBell]

I disagree that it's none of her business. As the old line goes, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. In the same spirit, I think your right to keep what you're doing secret should end when what you're doing creates risks for me.

As an analogy, consider TDG placards for vehicles: if you're carrying, say, radioactive materials, you have to advertise this fact to everyone around you with big, colourful signs. IMO, the risk posed to others from a nuke gauge for soil testing that's been properly secured for transport is no more than the risk posed by a firearm, but we've collectively decided that the risk of that outweighs a person's right to privacy on that issue. Why should firearms be a special case where this general principle doesn't apply?

So it is your opinion that if a person carrying concealed is in some sort of accident that there is a risk of said accident compromising the the concealed weapon and potentially creating a hazard for others and or the environment?

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't have any insecurity about it

Then why else would you feel the need to twist things into bizarre exaggerations?

but the thought that you leave the house every day anticipating that you might have to shoot another human being as opposed to dinner.

Again, people don't wear seat belts because they anticipate automobile accidents. Reread that last sentence a few times until it sinks in.

Instead they brush off being prepared to commit murder as the same thing as being prepared to put out a fire.

"Commit murder"? What on earth are you babbling about? Here you go again implying that merely carrying a gun magically possess people to commit crimes.
Oh, wait. You weren't actually implying that killing someone in self-defense is "murder", were you? First she was a "**** asking for it" by dressing provocatively, and now she's also a "murderer" for defending herself against a violent assault. Nice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So it is your opinion that if a person carrying concealed is in some sort of accident that there is a risk of said accident compromising the the concealed weapon and potentially creating a hazard for others and or the environment?

It's my opinion that accidental firearm discharges happen at at non-negligible rate, and that a firearm in a properly designed holster has less risk of accidental discharge than one in a purse or pocket. While I realize that there are properly designed holsters for concealed carry, I've yet to find a state that actually requires them, and if they're not required, I don't think it's wise to assume all CCW holders are going to use them.

It's also my opinion that open carry gives other people in the area with information tbey can use to help them make a free and informed choice about whether they want to be there, based on their own assessment of the balance of risks.

Edit: it's also my opinion that the presence of a deadly weapon can magnify the effects of an altercation that gets out of hand, and that knowledge of the presence of a deadly weapon in the first place can help prevent the situation escalating to the point where it might be used.