Common OC/CC threadjack

[Michiana]

The solution is very easy

How about a compromize, we all carry inside waste band. That way it is half concealed and half in the open, a win-win situation for both sides of the OC vs. CC argument. Genius solution I must say.

 

[Markedup]

ATM said "Surpise benefits the attacker; deterrence the defender.
And please cite examples of common people being targeted for OC."

I've read and reread this thread and I haven't seen an example yet.
Only theoreticals presented. Anybody?

Thanks

Mark

 

[public servant]

Because I can...pardner.

 

[public servant]

ATM said "Surpise benefits the attacker; deterrence the defender.
And please cite examples of common people being targeted for OC."

I've read and reread this thread and I haven't seen an example yet.
Only theoreticals presented. Anybody?

Thanks

Mark

It's all opinion and preference. I may prefer to keep mine out of site. You may not. That's cool. I've never seen any statistics saying you'll be the first shot if your weapon is seen or that you'll be the last one standing if it's hidden. Opinion and preference...

But it does give me a few seconds warning when the crooks walk into the bank and they see your weapon.

 

[dburkhead]

It's all opinion and preference. I may prefer to keep mine out of site. You may not. That's cool. I've never seen any statistics saying you'll be the first shot if your weapon is seen or that you'll be the last one standing if it's hidden. Opinion and preference...

But it does give me a few seconds warning when the crooks walk into the bank and they see your weapon.

"I may prefer to keep mine out of site" is something nobody on the OC side of the debate has any argument with.

It's when people start trying to presume some objective "benefit", without having any actual evidence to back it up, and in particularly looking down on the "You may not" side, that cause people to get a mite testy.

 

[cce1302]

Do you think that the "empty holster protests" are ok? students carry empty holsters protesting their disarmament at their colleges.
Personally I think that is a great idea. Shows how many gun carrying people there is out there. Better than a sign in this case.

That's a bit inconsistent with your opposition to people being "in your face" with OC, don't you think?

Do you personally feel threatened by someone who is OCing? I'm pretty sure I don't, and I've never had someone indicate that they feel threatened by my OC. Good strawman argument.

"Like a LEO on duty." Nice inflammatory comment. How about "Like a citizen exercising his rights." I pull my pants on every morning just like a LEO on duty. One leg at a time. LEOs are not special, Michiana. You, of all people, shouldn't be afraid of someone seeing you with a gun.
I never said I feel threatened seeing someone walking around OC'ing but many non gun people do.

Then it's still a strawman argument. If you don't know what that means, then look it up, and stop using it.

A fair percentage of my customers are LEO's and I have yet to see one of their guns unless they are in uniform. Wonder why?

I don't know. Maybe you just don't notice people OCing, same as anybody else. A friend of mine is on the Mishawaka PD and OCs even when he's off duty.

The difference between you and a LEO is they are required to carry a gun for their job and you do it for self protection which is your right.

Yeah, what's your point? How does that make it ok for a cop to OC on duty, but not ok for me to OC?
By the way, I'm sure everyone knows that there are a lot of CC handguns out there. I even carry one as a backup sometimes while I'm OCing. Your "OCers are ignorant" tone is getting old.
Never said OCers are ignorant, where did you read that?
[/quote] I didn't say you stated it. I said it is the tone of how you address OC.

My position has always been OC is acceptable in some situations and not others; people need to use some common sense when it is appropiate.

I thought this thread is for debating the issue of OC vs CC so other threads are not hijacked? We will never agree on this subject; no need to twist what I said to suit your agenda.

I didn't twist anything you said.

Kinda. If you are just OCing in a manner in which the public doesn't see it, then it won't be an issue.

Isn't that CC?

However, if OCers continue to OC in very public places, always getting that "all eyes on me" look, then I can see the law changing. I don't know how likely it is, but I feel that the more this debate becomes more public, the more of an "issue" it will become. Reguardless if it should be an issue or not, it will become one, and as I said before, it will land on some politicians desk for a look to see if there is a fix.

Really? Is there anywhere that this has happened? or is it the other way around? Oh, that's right, it's the other way around.

No, it doesn't. Look at all the OCing threads here, all the _very_ public police interactions. This is becoming a "problem issue" for some, and as such, they will demand the government "DO SOMETHING!!" It may not happen within a year, or four years, but I do see it happening in the future.

Who is "they"? What we have here, is a strawman.

How about a compromize, we all carry inside waste band. That way it is half concealed and half in the open, a win-win situation for both sides of the OC vs. CC argument. Genius solution I must say.

No, how about nobody tells anyone else how to carry, unless asked "should I carry open or concealed?" That's pretty much the point of the pro-OC threads: Everyone carries the way they prefer. My idea of compromise is you carry how you want to carry, I carry how I want to carry.

-The quotes are a bit messed up in this post, but I hope you get my drift.

 

[public servant]

"I may prefer to keep mine out of site" is something nobody on the OC side of the debate has any argument with.

It's when people start trying to presume some objective "benefit", without having any actual evidence to back it up, and in particularly looking down on the "You may not" side, that cause people to get a mite testy.

That's why I said it's all opinion and preference. I've never seen any evidence that CC will get you killed because of that extra 1/10th of a second it takes to get your shirt/jacket out of the way...and I've never seen evidence that the shooter will pop the OC guy with the gun exposed first. It's all opinion and preference. I do happen to CC 99% of the time away from work...but that's merely my preference. Nothing more. My opinion is that I feel it gives me an advantage...no fact at all to back it up. And personally...I'm more comfortable CC'ing...just my preference is all.

 

[dburkhead]

That's why I said it's all opinion and preference. I've never seen any evidence that CC will get you killed because of that extra 1/10th of a second it takes to get your shirt/jacket out of the way...and I've never seen evidence that the shooter will pop the OC guy with the gun exposed first. It's all opinion and preference. I do happen to CC 99% of the time away from work...but that's merely my preference. Nothing more. My opinion is that I feel it gives me an advantage...no fact at all to back it up. And personally...I'm more comfortable CC'ing...just my preference is all.

Then you're not one of the ones I was referring to. If you don't think there are folk who "presume some objective 'benefit', without having any actual evidence to back it up, and in particularly looking down on the 'You may not' side" involved in these discussions then perhaps you aren't reading the same board I am.

The thing is, the OC proponents don't criticize the CC only proponents for their choice. The reverse, however, is not true.

Oh, I would say that I must admire how fast you can get a shirt or jacket out of the way to get access to a CC gun. I find that for me OC is good for a half second or so of advantage over CC. (Yes, I've timed it.) But then, speed of access to the gun has never really been my reason for OC--just a secondary or tertiary benefit. I personally think the whole deterrence thing and the political advantage of folk seeing the soft spoken man who never causes any trouble, but who happens to carry a gun, are worthwhile benefits.

 

[public servant]

The thing is, the OC proponents don't criticize the CC only proponents for their choice. The reverse, however, is not true.

I do appreciate you not criticizing how I carry. I probably deserved it for my 'lil cowboy picture from earlier. Just carry whenever possible...and be responsible. OC or CC.

Oh, I would say that I must admire how fast you can get a shirt or jacket out of the way to get access to a CC gun.

 

[USMC_0311]

No, how about nobody tells anyone else how to carry, unless asked "should I carry open or concealed?" That's pretty much the point of the pro-OC threads: Everyone carries the way they prefer. My idea of compromise is you carry how you want to carry, I carry how I want to carry.

I wish all you CC'ers would just come out of the closet.
Quit Hiding!!

 

[public servant]

I wish all you CC'ers would just come ouit of the closet.
Quit Hiding!!

Show off!

 

[ATM]

ATM said "Surpise benefits the attacker; deterrence the defender.
And please cite examples of common people being targeted for OC."

I've read and reread this thread and I haven't seen an example yet.
Only theoreticals presented. Anybody?

Thanks

Mark

You read it twice?


I appreciate the fact that this thread has remained civil,

yet 22 pages later...

 

[BloodEclipse]

Let those who carry decide how to carry and be thankful we have citizens who exercise their rights.
Too many people want to nitpick everything and end up sounding like "If you don't carry the way I carry, you are wrong"
Everyone should carry in the manner that works best for them, each style of carry has advantages and disadvantages but in the end it is the individual's RIGHT to choose what works best for them.
Just like no one is going to tell me how I must raise my kids, no one will tell me how I must carry my gun.
Instead of berating people for carrying in a manner you don't personally like, support them for carrying in the first place.

 

[Pale Rider]

Let those who carry decide how to carry and be thankful we have citizens who exercise their rights.
Too many people want to nitpick everything and end up sounding like "If you don't carry the way I carry, you are wrong"
Everyone should carry in the manner that works best for them, each style of carry has advantages and disadvantages but in the end it is the individual's RIGHT to choose what works best for them.
Just like no one is going to tell me how I must raise my kids, no one will tell me how I must carry my gun.
Instead of berating people for carrying in a manner you don't personally like, support them for carrying in the first place.

hey man I tried the logical let's all get along thing a few pages back... I think we're all happier when we can disagree a little

 

[snojet]

Ok here goes…
New to the Board so be gentle.
(I spent three days worth of sporadic computer time/reading and with some slow reaction speeds from my computer.)


I will probably regret posting on this thread because I might offend someone and get an “ear-full“. That is because after 214 posts being read, I’ve come to the following conclusion. It’s very apparent that some of the people here are very passionate about their views and not very sympathetic to those other(s) views (both sides of the issue). Witnessing some passive-aggressive comments between people. It’s like my college teachers discribe how not to let your emotions govern your conversation/actions. (That is from my different management classes)

I believe I’ve seen some great evidence for the CC, the Florida Ex-Marine/pilot that was able to protect himself and the store worker. But I don’t remember any acknowledgement about how that was a great example for the CC side from the OC crowd.
Also, I don’t recall any of the OC people stating a real life example. Did I forget an example, someone?


Then I found it very interesting how people quickly dismiss the prospective of our police members that chimed in. I’m not saying that what they said was “gospel” but I think they could receive a little more credit. This is their profession. A Disclaimer to that is, they are human and some might be negligent in the knowledge of every detail of the gun issue but remember they have to know/understand a lot in-order to perform their duties. (Had family that were LEO’s)

Now for the conclusion to my .02 cents. I have done a very NON-scientific poll of co-workers, family, and friends (about 24 people or so) from the last three days and my conclusion was this. Surprisingly all were in favor of having personal protection. But the majority were in favor of the CC. A couple people in my poll even mirrored the statement from a INGO member saying, “This isn’t the old west (Dodge City) or the late 1800’s or early 1900’s”. One other comment was, “Some of the people that did OC gave the impression that they were “showboating” or something similar“. Another was, “It is in poor taste to OC in this day and age for most places.” These comments are not mine, and to note that many were LTCH holders.

My person option is to CC and I do agree with that side of the debate. But I am also very glad that we still have the choice(s) on how to carry.

 

[dburkhead]

Ok here goes…
New to the Board so be gentle.
(I spent three days worth of sporadic computer time/reading and with some slow reaction speeds from my computer.)


I will probably regret posting on this thread because I might offend someone and get an “ear-full“. That is because after 214 posts being read, I’ve come to the following conclusion. It’s very apparent that some of the people here are very passionate about their views and not very sympathetic to those other(s) views (both sides of the issue). Witnessing some passive-aggressive comments between people. It’s like my college teachers discribe how not to let your emotions govern your conversation/actions. (That is from my different management classes)

I believe I’ve seen some great evidence for the CC, the Florida Ex-Marine/pilot that was able to protect himself and the store worker. But I don’t remember any acknowledgement about how that was a great example for the CC side from the OC crowd.
Also, I don’t recall any of the OC people stating a real life example. Did I forget an example, someone?

How exactly is this event supposed to be an example of "CC" in the context of CC vs. OC? I don't recall anyone saying that CC is utterly useless for defense. Asking folk for "acknowledgment" of "evidence" against a position they don't hold is a bit much, don't you think?

Then I found it very interesting how people quickly dismiss the prospective of our police members that chimed in. I’m not saying that what they said was “gospel” but I think they could receive a little more credit. This is their profession. A Disclaimer to that is, they are human and some might be negligent in the knowledge of every detail of the gun issue but remember they have to know/understand a lot in-order to perform their duties. (Had family that were LEO’s)

Yes, they have to know/understand a lot to perform their duties. But those duties are not the same as what an armed citizen faces. A long-haul truck driver and a Formula one driver are both professional drivers but the situations they face, and the solutions to each, are quite different. Neither would do well behind the other's steering wheel.

If a police officer wants to explain how to make an arrest, how to handcuff a belligerent suspect or, more generally, give tips on how I were to portray police in my webcomic, well, I'd be all ears. But once one gets away from the actual profession of being police, well, it soon becomes the Truck driver telling the F1 driver how to take a curve or the F1 driver telling the Trucker how to manage cargoes.

Now for the conclusion to my .02 cents. I have done a very NON-scientific poll of co-workers, family, and friends (about 24 people or so) from the last three days and my conclusion was this. Surprisingly all were in favor of having personal protection. But the majority were in favor of the CC. A couple people in my poll even mirrored the statement from a INGO member saying, “This isn’t the old west (Dodge City) or the late 1800’s or early 1900’s”. One other comment was, “Some of the people that did OC gave the impression that they were “showboating” or something similar“. Another was, “It is in poor taste to OC in this day and age for most places.” These comments are not mine, and to note that many were LTCH holders.

Now, you see, the attitude you run into is actually a good reason to OC. People think it's strange and outre' because they never experience it.

And when ordinary people never see anyone carrying, it's easy to think that it's not because the guns are well concealed but rather because carrying arms is something rare. And if it's something nobody does, why then why worry about laws coming along to restrict things that nobody does anyway?

My person option is to CC and I do agree with that side of the debate. But I am also very glad that we still have the choice(s) on how to carry.

And nobody argues with your personal option to CC. That's the difference between the CC vs. the OC side of the debate.

But if your co-workers, family, and friends have their way (“It is in poor taste to OC in this day and age for most places”) that choice will be gone.

Can you think of any instance in history where a right was protected by hiding it's practice or by acting as if it were already gone? I can't, and I know more than a little bit about history.

 

[ATM]

Ok here goes…
New to the Board so be gentle...

Welcome to INGO! Here's my "gentle ear full" which is not really even directed at you.

The passion in my view is not born of emotion but from deliberate study of the issues and common practices of both camps of the carry method debate. As a free man, my view must be swayed by reason. As a logical man, I require those reasons to be sound, not simply common or widely accepted.

I am simply amazed by the people who somehow came to their conclusion without searching out the matter or exploring the reasoning (or continuing to do so.) Some are so entrenched in their view that they have become immune to further reason (yes, probably on both sides.) They don't even hear contra arguments or refutations because anything that comes against their view must be patently absurd, defying all "common sense."

I believe that I am still open to reason and anxiously await the next good point to debate. I simply challenge everyone to bring their best as I will continue to quickly call baloney at the sight of the dreaded and mundane "target/surprise" excuse.

If this were the "old west," your straw poll might have been answered with responses such as:

“Some of the people that did conceal gave the impression that they were up to no good.” or,

“It is in poor taste to conceal like a criminal in this day and age for most places.”

(Remember, not so long ago the good guys were expected to openly carry.)

But as for taking a poll, this isn't a popularity contest (that's what rep is for.)

A popularity contest got us Obama.

But I am also very glad that we still have the choice(s) on how to carry.

Many say this but follow up with something like, "but don't do it or they'll take the choice away." If some of us don't do it, we have all already lost that choice.

Carry as you please, If you choose to CC, I support that.
This thread isn't supposed to convince you otherwise.
It's purpose is to expose the weakness of the unsupported attacks against that other choice.

I won't stand for baloney.

 

[snojet]

To dburkhead...
Thanks for replying and good comments.

Quote:
[ How exactly is this event supposed to be an example of "CC" in the context of CC vs. OC? I don't recall anyone saying that CC is utterly useless for defense. Asking folk for "acknowledgment" of "evidence" against a position they don't hold is a bit much, don't you think?]


Answer:
If I gave you the impression that I was saying the CC is useless that was not my intent. I was stating that case/scenario was a great example of how CC and I believe we could all agree that it might have played out differently if the Marine was OC'ing.

I'm not sure I really understand your comment of ".... against a position they don't hold is a bit much, don't you think?" I was stating that I did not read in the above posts where a real life OC event took place and was asking if someone had one (example).


Quote:
[ Yes, they have to know/understand a lot to perform their duties. But those duties are not the same as what an armed citizen faces. A long-haul truck driver and a Formula one driver are both professional drivers but the situations they face, and the solutions to each, are quite different. Neither would do well behind the others steering wheel.]

Answer:
I see your point how the LEO and common citizen are different but I still stand by the fact that their profession is in our area of discussion and they have a more intimate take on it, IMHO. I do like your comparison of the formula one driver vs truck driver.



Quote:
[ Now, you see, the attitude you run into is actually a good reason to OC. People think it's strange and outre' because they never experience it.
And when ordinary people never see anyone carrying, it's easy to think that it's not because the guns are well concealed but rather because carrying arms is something rare. And if it's something nobody does, why then why worry about laws coming along to restrict things that nobody does anyway? ]

Answer:
I think it will be a hard battle to ever win in-regards to OC for the vast majority of the public. I agree and see your point that if a lot of people did OC, and I mean at 30%-50% of people, then it would be accepted and the perception would change. When I first moved here I was not practicing any carrying but I soon learned that a lot of people were CC (never did see any OC for years) and that gave me a constant thought of who is carrying and who isn't, that thought is still with me even to this day. So when I am around people in public I often wondered who has a CC and who doesn't. I think that is a good deterrent in itself. I concur with you thought on the law possibly going to restrict the OC. But I think it will only take place after a high profile case involving such a thing. And for the record I don't support any such change.


Quote:
[ Can you think of any instance in history where a right was protected by hiding it's practice or by acting as if it were already gone? I can't, and I know more than a little bit about history. ]

Answer:
I agree with you on this statement. Never though of that before. I also am a student of history.



To ATM...
Thanks for your reply too.

Quote:
[ ... As a free man, my view must be swayed by reason. As a logical man, I require those reasons to be sound, not simply common or widely accepted. ]

Answer:
I too agree with the, "my view must be swayed by reason." I hope I didn't give the impression that I was swayed my a commonly accepted practice/thought. I know that you said your following answer(s) weren't directed to me, but I want to comment anyway.


Quote:
[ Remember, not so long ago the good guys were expected to openly carry. ]

Answer:
Excellent point! But times have changed or evolved (hate to say it that way, don't like the word evolve). Anyway, I racked my brain for a real good example but came up with nothing. Well, maybe this might work in my answer; years back we were forced to hunt every day or so to eat and now today, we have the grocery store. My point is that what used to be done years back is often times antiquated and not relevant now. And I believe that the OC falls into that. I don't necessarily support that, but that is how I perceive the general public to see it.


Quote:
[ A popularity contest got us Obama]

Answer:
Well put!!! Got to be on guard from that administration for the next few years. Sad how he got in office as well as the buffoons in our current Congress. Vote carefully and often!

 

[dburkhead]

To dburkhead...
Thanks for replying and good comments.

Quote:
[ How exactly is this event supposed to be an example of "CC" in the context of CC vs. OC? I don't recall anyone saying that CC is utterly useless for defense. Asking folk for "acknowledgment" of "evidence" against a position they don't hold is a bit much, don't you think?]


Answer:
If I gave you the impression that I was saying the CC is useless that was not my intent. I was stating that case/scenario was a great example of how CC and I believe we could all agree that it might have played out differently if the Marine was OC'ing.

I'm not sure I really understand your comment of ".... against a position they don't hold is a bit much, don't you think?" I was stating that I did not read in the above posts where a real life OC event took place and was asking if someone had one (example).

In much of the country, OC is illegal and in most of the rest is still very much uncommon. Also, it should be noted that one of the possible advantages listed for OC is the deterrent factor: potential criminal sees armed individual. Said criminal decides that this is not the time/place to commit that crime. Crime doesn't happen.

Quote:
[Yes, they have to know/understand a lot to perform their duties. But those duties are not the same as what an armed citizen faces. A long-haul truck driver and a Formula one driver are both professional drivers but the situations they face, and the solutions to each, are quite different. Neither would do well behind the others steering wheel.]

Answer:
I see your point how the LEO and common citizen are different but I still stand by the fact that their profession is in our area of discussion and they have a more intimate take on it, IMHO. I do like your comparison of the formula one driver vs truck driver.

Their profession is sufficiently different that answers are often quite different. For instance, take the subject of retention. A police officer has the job of approaching close to a criminal, explicitly into arms reach (it's hard to cuff someone from across the room). That puts them at a greater risk of someone trying to grab their gun than the average armed citizen.

Different situations, different needs.

Also there's the "what I say" vs. "what I do" approach. If CC were so much better than OC, why are not all police officers plainclothes and driving unmarked cars? Then they'd have the element of surprise, right? Instead they where a distinctive outfit that says "right here is an armed individual."

Quote:
[ Now, you see, the attitude you run into is actually a good reason to OC. People think it's strange and outre' because they never experience it.
And when ordinary people never see anyone carrying, it's easy to think that it's not because the guns are well concealed but rather because carrying arms is something rare. And if it's something nobody does, why then why worry about laws coming along to restrict things that nobody does anyway? ]

Answer:
I think it will be a hard battle to ever win in-regards to OC for the vast majority of the public. I agree and see your point that if a lot of people did OC, and I mean at 30%-50% of people, then it would be accepted and the perception would change. When I first moved here I was not practicing any carrying but I soon learned that a lot of people were CC (never did see any OC for years) and that gave me a constant thought of who is carrying and who isn't, that thought is still with me even to this day. So when I am around people in public I often wondered who has a CC and who doesn't. I think that is a good deterrent in itself. I concur with you thought on the law possibly going to restrict the OC. But I think it will only take place after a high profile case involving such a thing. And for the record I don't support any such change.

It will be an impossible battle to win if one gives up before even engaging in the fight.

Also, you don't need 30-50%. Think about things like the "gay rights" movement of the 60's-80's. The popular estimate (kind of a gestalt of the various studies) is about 10% of the male population and 5-6% of the female are gay, and only a small fraction of those were involved in things like the "gay pride" parades. It is only after people started "coming out" that laws and attitudes began to change.

Quote:
[ Can you think of any instance in history where a right was protected by hiding it's practice or by acting as if it were already gone? I can't, and I know more than a little bit about history. ]

Answer:
I agree with you on this statement. Never though of that before. I also am a student of history.

And that's the point: you never protect a right by pretending you've already lost it. And it's awfully hard to "win" a battle if you surrender before you even begin.

 

[snojet]

Learning to us the advance reply method, excuse me if I don't do it right..

In much of the country, OC is illegal and in most of the rest is still very much uncommon. Also, it should be noted that one of the possible advantages listed for OC is the deterrent factor: potential criminal sees armed individual. Said criminal decides that this is not the time/place to commit that crime. Crime doesn't happen.

I agree with you in-regards to the deterrent factor in many cases. Our hypothetical scenarios are really without limits as to the what-if's. I was hoping for a news account of someone that OC'ed and how the "event" played out, similar to the Florida hold up that involved the Subway and the Marine of page 5 of this post.

Also there's the "what I say" vs. "what I do" approach. If CC were so much better than OC, why are not all police officers plainclothes and driving unmarked cars? Then they'd have the element of surprise, right? Instead they where a distinctive outfit that says "right here is an armed individual."

I actually like your idea of the unmarked officers and cars. I think that is how things should be. I will have to think on that and see what good and bad scenarios play out in my mind. One that comes to mind right now is. I believe that the thought of, who is a civilian that is CC and who is the LEO incognito would be a pretty good physiological deterrent.

It will be an impossible battle to win if one gives up before even engaging in the fight.
Also, you don't need 30-50%. Think about things like the "gay rights" movement of the 60's-80's. The popular estimate (kind of a gestalt of the various studies) is about 10% of the male population and 5-6% of the female are gay, and only a small fraction of those were involved in things like the "gay pride" parades. It is only after people started "coming out" that laws and attitudes began to change.

I'm not saying that I am giving up, I am stating that I think there is not enough momentum among others that would provoke a change of minds for the pubic. I think the example of the gay rights movement, we are now talking about apple to oranges examples. But I get your point that my percentage might be too high. I'm not against OC, in fact I wouldn't care if everyone OC. I guess I just playing the "devils advocate" or trying to be a realist.

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.