Open Carry - Favor Please?

[jbombelli]

dont be such a drama queen. I know a few of the guys here OC'd some AR's in Indy last year and no one died.

I've never seen people open carrying AR's anywhere except the Indy1500, and I've lived in the Indy area for 20 years now. But like I said. Do what you want. I'll just be paying extra special attention to anyone I see carrying an AR in an unusual place. I'm going to think they're either about to become an active shooter, or complete idiots, trying to make a point. Just be sure not to sweep me with that muzzle. I might have something rude to say about it.

 

[dburkhead]

I've never seen people open carrying AR's anywhere except the Indy1500, and I've lived in the Indy area for 20 years now. But like I said. Do what you want. I'll just be paying extra special attention to anyone I see carrying an AR in an unusual place. I'm going to think they're either about to become an active shooter, or complete idiots, trying to make a point. Just be sure not to sweep me with that muzzle. I might have something rude to say about it.

And you have been well trained by the antis.

Seriously, what real difference does it make if a person is carrying a long arm or a handgun? If they mean harm is a victim any more dead if killed by a rifle than by a handgun? If they don't mean harm, is the long arm more likely to jump up and spontaneously start shooting people?

I submit that the primary reason for anyone to question the carrying of a rifle (or a handgun for that matter, but we're discussing rifles here) is because the anti's have been selling their "guns are bad" along with the whole "what do you need xxx for" meme for a very great many years and it's infected many even ostensibly pro-gun people.

Attempting to counter that does not make one a "complete idiot" no matter what you may think personally. Nor does refusing to continue relying on the same kind of tactics that have been losing for the past 75 or more years.

 

[Joe Williams]

I notice no one has pointed out that the open carry group DID, in fact, accomplish part of their objective, and some good was done.

The cops now know the law.

 

[HICKMAN]

Joe = WIN!

 

[jsharmon7]

I think this thread is a perfect representation of the way non-gun owners react when they see someone OC'ing a pistol. They aren't used to seeing it and aren't comfortable with it so they automatically don't like. Some of you are saying that OC'ing an AR shouldn't happen simply because you don't normally see it and aren't accustomed to it. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means you aren't used to it and are reacting the way the general public sometime does when they see one of us OC'ing a pistol.

 

[Mikeh82]

I guess everyone that agrees with the AR being brought into a family restaurant wouldnt be worried at all about a man standing on the side walk in front of their house holding an AK or AR... I mean come on some of the people whos said this is not a dumb idea have been on here saying how they are aware of their surroundings all the time and how peoples houses are being cased by someone trying to sell something at the door.. Then you come on and say a guy packing an AR is ok..

Then some say its for self defense.. News flash... Im at a better tactical level with brass knuckles than he is with an AR.. By the time he gets it off his back for self defense he is already knocked out. Also the same people saying its for self defense also have preached in other threads how a bullet should be in the chamber at all times... How safe is it to keep a bullet in the chamber while having the gun across your back and no trigger guard? A kid could pull the trigger..

 

[jbombelli]

And you have been well trained by the antis.

Seriously, what real difference does it make if a person is carrying a long arm or a handgun? If they mean harm is a victim any more dead if killed by a rifle than by a handgun? If they don't mean harm, is the long arm more likely to jump up and spontaneously start shooting people?

I submit that the primary reason for anyone to question the carrying of a rifle (or a handgun for that matter, but we're discussing rifles here) is because the anti's have been selling their "guns are bad" along with the whole "what do you need xxx for" meme for a very great many years and it's infected many even ostensibly pro-gun people.

Attempting to counter that does not make one a "complete idiot" no matter what you may think personally. Nor does refusing to continue relying on the same kind of tactics that have been losing for the past 75 or more years.

I'm not well-trained by the antis, as such. I'm conditioned by dozens upon dozens of news reports wherein somebody open carrying a rifle started shoting people, combined with NEVER seeing anybody OC a rifle. I see people OC handguns occasionally, and am accustomed to that.


Would you lower your guard when you see someone you don't know coming in your direction with a rifle in his hands in a public place? Would you really do that???????

And I only used the term "complete idiot" when I was called a drama queen for not trusting people I don't know carrying rifles in a public place, in the middle of the city, as though that's a perfectly normal occurrence, and happens every day.

For the last time, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do it. Just be prepared for negative attention for a long time.

And for the record, I've got an AK with a drum and half a dozen mags in my truck. I just won't grab it and carry it in to Kroger or the mall without expecting the police to show up and prone me out, and then try to find a way to either charge me with something, or hassle me for a while about how stupid I am

 

[Hornett]

Well, I watched all the videos and if we can just suspend a tiny bit of reality and ignore the guy with the AR...

There was some good that come of this.
If I understand the news video correctly, the police department is actually sending memos out and teaching their officers the law.
Those poor cops really had no idea what the laws governing carry of a handgun were.

The police have a difficult responsibility.
The person making the call is not always right.
In this case, the OC'ers didn't do ANYTHING wrong (remember we suspended the AR momentarily)
They even informed the manager ahead of time.
The manager changed his mind much to the chagrin of the OC'ers.
They were pretty well mannered.
The big guy was very opinionated and liked to argue, but he was respectful as far as I remember.

They were detained because the officers did not know the law.
And now they do. snip

Post #46 Joe Williams.
Right under one of your own posts
Thanks for paying attention.

 

[IndyMonkey]

You would react the same as you would if you saw a person walking in public with a pistol in there hand. Holstered or slung over the should is not an aggressive position.

I still stand behind the drama comment, your post was full of it.

 

[dburkhead]

I guess everyone that agrees with the AR being brought into a family restaurant wouldnt be worried at all about a man standing on the side walk in front of their house holding an AK or AR... I mean come on some of the people whos said this is not a dumb idea have been on here saying how they are aware of their surroundings all the time and how peoples houses are being cased by someone trying to sell something at the door.. Then you come on and say a guy packing an AR is ok..

Why is it that everyone who wants to object to someone doing one thing use examples of someone doing something else to "refute" the idea? Carring an AK or AR (or a Remington 700 or a Mossberg 500 for that matter).

And being aware and observant is not the same thing as going into "panic mode."

Somebody comes into a convenience store where I'm shopping with a scarf over his or her face I'm going to be aware and observant. Maybe he was just cold or maybe he's hiding his face for other reasons. I'm not going to panic over it and call the cops simply because he did so.

Somebody walking down the street--or into a restaurant or convenience store--with a rifle (even an "evil" AK or AR) with a rifle slung is something I'll be aware of and watch. If, however, he's carrying it at tactical port arms I might start wondering if he means more than just a political protest and I'm likely to go from yellow (standard state when out in public) to orange or even red depending on a lot of other factors other than just "was carrying a rifle."

There are a whole range of intermediate responses between "completely oblivious" and "call the cops, the SWAT team, the National Guard, Delta Force!"

Then some say its for self defense.. News flash... Im at a better tactical level with brass knuckles than he is with an AR.. By the time he gets it off his back for self defense he is already knocked out. Also the same people saying its for self defense also have preached in other threads how a bullet should be in the chamber at all times... How safe is it to keep a bullet in the chamber while having the gun across your back and no trigger guard? A kid could pull the trigger..

You might be surprised. My preferred method of carrying a rifle slung is "African Carry." I can get a rifle carried that way into action as fast as most people can get a handgun in a tuckable IWB holster if not faster.

As for the safety aspect, I believe your concern is overrated. Do you also object to IWB or other "concealed" holsters without a retention system? Any body who happens to spot it (your shirt rides up, what have you) could pull the gun. Yeah. It could happen, but how likely is it in reality. How many people were present at the Arizona protest where the man was carrying an AR? How many people even reached up to touch the gun, let alone tried to pull the trigger?

The sequence of events that have to happen for a discharge is that someone has to get close to the person carrying without him being aware (otherwise he could shift the rifle to cover the trigger mechanism--something that's very easy to do in African Carry), be so inclined as to pull the trigger, pull it (upward in African Carry--and is required trigger pull greater than weight of the weapon?--another reason I like African Carry), and have the safety fail. Any one of those things I wouldn't rely on but the string of "failures" that have to happen is enough that a reasonable degree of caution is, IMO, sufficient.

But the reason for folk carrying a rifle is usually not just self defense (except possibly for some small percentage of people who fall between the cracks of being a "proper person" able to own firearms at all but cannot get--for a time at least--a CCW/LTCH/or whatever its called in that particular location). It's political protest.

You may disagree but political protest is an entirely valid reason to do something. Rosa Parks didn't refuse to move to the rear of the bus because the seats were less comfortable back there. She refused as political protest. The parents of Ruby Bridges did not answer the ad asking for volunteers to go to a newly "integrated" school because the school was really that much better than the one Ruby had been attending. It was done as political protest. Gandhi didn't lead the salt march because the salt they made themselves was any better than the salt purchased with a modest tax on it. Political protest.

Oh, and Gandhi once had one of his followers come up to him all excited about how they had performed some non-violent protest and "the British did nothing!" Gandhi explained, as if to a small child, that if they did nothing the protest had failed. They needed to push until the British responded and it is the disproportionate nature of the response to people simply exercising their rights, or what should be their rights, that would cause the outcry that would end British rule of India.

So, according to one who many consider the patron saint of non-violent protest, one must continue to push until there is a response. This may be true or it may not be true. I don't consider anyone infallible and that includes Gandhi.

Still, I simply point out once again that the "avoiding confrontation" approach has been losing our rights by inches over the past 75 or more years.

 

[jbombelli]

You would react the same as you would if you saw a person walking in public with a pistol in there hand. Holstered or slung over the should is not an aggressive position.

I still stand behind the drama comment, your post was full of it.

And I still stand behind my complete idiots comment as well.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not well-trained by the antis, as such. I'm conditioned by dozens upon dozens of news reports wherein somebody open carrying a rifle started shoting people, combined with NEVER seeing anybody OC a rifle. I see people OC handguns occasionally, and am accustomed to that.

And who do you think is picking those stories. They are antis.

Oh, and as for "dozens upon dozens" of news reports, I call hyperbole. Perhaps you could cite three.

I, OTOH, can name two non-violent rifle OC protests within the past year (outside the Arizona presidential "town hall" meeting and the recent "open carry walk" in downtown Indianapolis).

Would you lower your guard when you see someone you don't know coming in your direction with a rifle in his hands in a public place? Would you really do that???????

Another case where we are discussing one thing and you respond with someone doing something else. Also there's a wide range between "lower your guard" and the kind of panic mode in the incident of the OP.

And I only used the term "complete idiot" when I was called a drama queen for not trusting people I don't know carrying rifles in a public place, in the middle of the city, as though that's a perfectly normal occurrence, and happens every day.

You weren't called a drama queen for not trusting people. You were called a drama queen for an overreaction bordering on a panic attack.

For the last time, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to do it. Just be prepared for negative attention for a long time.

You mean like the negative attention these people got:

You see, the people who engage in political protest of this nature generally are prepared for negative attention. The powers that be won't relinquish power easily and will use all the tools in their arsenal to stop change whether peaceful or not. That's just the way the game is played.

If anything we should be willing to respect the folk willing to court that "negative attention" in fighting for our rights.

And for the record, I've got an AK with a drum and half a dozen mags in my truck. I just won't grab it and carry it in to Kroger or the mall without expecting the police to show up and prone me out, and then try to find a way to either charge me with something, or hassle me for a while about how stupid I am

Expecting? Perhaps. But, you see, that's the problem. Until folk have their nose rubbed in the fact of this abuse of power over people peacefully going about their business and exercising their rights things will never change for the better. All we can hope for is the same gradual erosion of our rights that we've seen over the last 75 years. Ayer's Rock may be big, as far as rocks go, but it used to be a mountain range. That way also goes our rights unless we do something different from what we've been doing for the past 75 years.

 

[Mikeh82]

Why do you keep bringing up politcal protest.. It was a family resraunt not a protest.. Then you keep taking about african carry, was he doing that..
Then you talk about what are the chances that someone pulls the trigger.. I think the chances are to high to risk it.. Your at a place with kids, one could easily come up and pull the trigger.. Did you not see how he had it on his back?

 

[jbombelli]

And who do you think is picking those stories. They are antis.

Oh, and as for "dozens upon dozens" of news reports, I call hyperbole. Perhaps you could cite three.

I, OTOH, can name two non-violent rifle OC protests within the past year (outside the Arizona presidential "town hall" meeting and the recent "open carry walk" in downtown Indianapolis).

Would you lower your guard when you see someone you don't know coming in your direction with a rifle in his hands in a public place? Would you really do that???????

Another case where we are discussing one thing and you respond with someone doing something else. Also there's a wide range between "lower your guard" and the kind of panic mode in the incident of the OP.



You weren't called a drama queen for not trusting people. You were called a drama queen for an overreaction bordering on a panic attack.



You mean like the negative attention these people got:

You see, the people who engage in political protest of this nature generally are prepared for negative attention. The powers that be won't relinquish power easily and will use all the tools in their arsenal to stop change whether peaceful or not. That's just the way the game is played.

If anything we should be willing to respect the folk willing to court that "negative attention" in fighting for our rights.



Expecting? Perhaps. But, you see, that's the problem. Until folk have their nose rubbed in the fact of this abuse of power over people peacefully going about their business and exercising their rights things will never change for the better. All we can hope for is the same gradual erosion of our rights that we've seen over the last 75 years. Ayer's Rock may be big, as far as rocks go, but it used to be a mountain range. That way also goes our rights unless we do something different from what we've been doing for the past 75 years.

It's a pain to cite stories and research this from my phone, so I'll have to revisit that later.

Overreacting? Nowhere did I say I would draw down. Only that I'll watch someone carrying an AR in public like a hawk. How is that overreacting? I don't know the guy, his motives, or his goals. I watch everybody as much as I can anyway, moreso if they're armed, even more if they're heavily armed.

An "open carry walk" or scheduled, announced protest is a lot different than some random guy walking into a Luby's cafeteria or a mall outside Chicago, or up a Texas bell tower, or standing on the sidewalk outside a North Hollywood bank with a rifle. The context of the situation is entirely different. Or do you not see that?

I understand what you're saying. And I actually agree with it. You're not telling me anything new or shocking. All I'm saying is... I will HEAVILY scrutinize random dudes carrying ARs or AKs out in public in the middle of the city.

WTF is wrong with that? Should I make an assumption and generalization here, and say that anybody that has a problem with that is probably up to no good?

And lastly, I don't think it will be too hard to find a few active shooter incidents involving rifles.

 

[hps]

You got to be kidding me, IMO these guys made themselves look like fools!!! drawing attention to themselves,,,, uncalled for. common sense folks

 

[dburkhead]

Why do you keep bringing up politcal protest.. It was a family resraunt not a protest..

Having an "open carry" meeting is a form of political protest. Do you really think that "poltical protest" only happens at, what, the sidewalks outside state houses.

Rosa Parks. Political protest happens on the bus.
Salt march. Political protest happens at the beach.
Libby Bridges. Political protest happens at school.

Political protest is not a place, it's something people do.

Then you keep taking about african carry, was he doing that.

He's not. So? "African carry" was only offered offered in refutation of your "you can't get your rifle in action before..." argument. It's a particularly good method for carrying a long gun (IMO) for a variety of reasons but is not really germane to the argument. More of a side issue.

The last time I checked there was no requirement that people only have "self defense" that is the most, or the most universally, effective means. Nor was it a requirement that "self defense" be the only reason to keep and bear arms.

Then you talk about what are the chances that someone pulls the trigger.. I think the chances are to high to risk it.. Your at a place with kids, one could easily come up and pull the trigger.. Did you not see how he had it on his back?

You're at a restaurant with kids and your shirt rides up. One could easily pull the gun. So you don't carry at all when you go to the restaurant or any place where there are kids? Is that your argument?

The point I was making is that it takes not just one failure but multiple failures for that rifle to go off.

Now, in this case the gentleman in question was not carrying in my preferred method but then I also don't know that his reason for carrying was "self defense" either.

1) Do you know that he had a round chambered? If he was carrying the rifle as a political statement it need not even have been loaded. Magazine in place but (Defensive gun could have been, for example, a concealed handgun.) Note that in Ryan's open carry rifle walk a while back it was requested that people carry without a round chambered. Loaded/chambered handguns fine. The rifles? Let's just be extra careful to avoid accidents.

1a) If one is carrying for self defense then I would generally recommend African Carry as both the safest and the most effective means of carrying a slung long gun for quick access. However, just as with the "round chambered" argument for handguns, just because I recommend it doesn't mean that I don't recognize someone's right to carry how they please so long as they don't create an immediate, direct danger to others. Slower access through a different slinging method or through not having a round chambered? Their choice. Not what I would recommend, but their choice. Ain't Freedom grand?

2) Political protest is an entirely valid reason for doing something. I don't even have to agree with the subject of the protest for that to be the case. Until you get to actuall "malum in se" (as opposed to "malum prohibitum") illegal behavior it's valid protest.

3) I continue to ask what folk who are objecting to the more "in your face" of approach of OC as political statement/protest suggest other than simply repeating the same tactics that have been losing for the past 75 or more years in the hopes that, somehow, they will start winning at last: "this time for sure."

 

[dburkhead]

It's a pain to cite stories and research this from my phone, so I'll have to revisit that later.

IOW you've got nothing.

Overreacting? Nowhere did I say I would draw down. Only that I'll watch someone carrying an AR in public like a hawk. How is that overreacting? I don't know the guy, his motives, or his goals. I watch everybody as much as I can anyway, moreso if they're armed, even more if they're heavily armed.

100% of your attention 100% of the time. Yes, that's overreacting.

An "open carry walk" or scheduled, announced protest is a lot different than some random guy walking into a Luby's cafeteria or a mall outside Chicago, or up a Texas bell tower, or standing on the sidewalk outside a North Hollywood bank with a rifle. The context of the situation is entirely different. Or do you not see that?

Announced OC event at a restaurant.

And the folk on the street weren't told about the "open carry walk". Ryan did inform the police but I am unaware that anyone canvassed the places along the walk route telling people that there would be an "open carry walk" coming down it at a different time.

Not so much different as you seem to think.

I understand what you're saying. And I actually agree with it. You're not telling me anything new or shocking. All I'm saying is... I will HEAVILY scrutinize random dudes carrying ARs or AKs out in public in the middle of the city.

100% of your attention 100% of the time. So you stop eating, forget about your family, forget about anything else that may be going on and stare unblinking at the person carrying the rifle until they leave? You can't leave first because paying the check would mean taking your attention away from that person carrying the rifle.

And is it any rifle or any long gun or just the "evil" AR's and AK's?

It's the absoutist approach that I consider overreaction.

WTF is wrong with that? Should I make an assumption and generalization here, and say that anybody that has a problem with that is probably up to no good?

Why not? You're already doing it regarding someone exercising their RKBA.

And lastly, I don't think it will be too hard to find a few active shooter incidents involving rifles.

But finding some where they were "open carrying" and basically going about their business then suddenly unslung or picked up the rifle and started shooting. You can also find lots of active shooter incidents involving handguns.

There's a difference between: "I see somebody walking in with a rifle. I go to 'high orange' immediately and watch him until I see what he's doing then if he just goes about ordinary business, sits down to order a meal or whaterver, I'll drop back to low orange or high yellow keeping an eye out for other indicators that he means to use that rifle" and "he'll get 100% of my attention 100% of the time until he leaves."

Peaceful protests involving carried rifles in recent years:
The OP.
Ryan's "Open Carry Walk."
The black man with an AR outside the Arizona town hall meeting.
The Black Panthers at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

It happens. As long as there is no violence the media tends not to carry it. When they do carry it they often distort actual events to make it look "worse" than it was (MSNBC carefully editing the AZ film so that we never see the man was black while their commentary describes the event as an example of "white rage." This is part of the bias we see in the media.

 

[dburkhead]

You got to be kidding me, IMO these guys made themselves look like fools!!! drawing attention to themselves,,,, uncalled for. common sense folks

Absolutely right. Gun owners should never call attention to themselves or gun rights issues. It's only been that approach that has prevented the passage of NFA '34, GCA '68, the machine gun provision of FOPA '86, the "Brady Bill", the AWB, and tens of thousands of state and local laws!

Continue to avoid exposure and continue to have the same success in the future!

 

[jbombelli]

IOW you've got nothing.



100% of your attention 100% of the time. Yes, that's overreacting.



Announced OC event at a restaurant.

And the folk on the street weren't told about the "open carry walk". Ryan did inform the police but I am unaware that anyone canvassed the places along the walk route telling people that there would be an "open carry walk" coming down it at a different time.

Not so much different as you seem to think.



100% of your attention 100% of the time. So you stop eating, forget about your family, forget about anything else that may be going on and stare unblinking at the person carrying the rifle until they leave? You can't leave first because paying the check would mean taking your attention away from that person carrying the rifle.

And is it any rifle or any long gun or just the "evil" AR's and AK's?

It's the absoutist approach that I consider overreaction.



Why not? You're already doing it regarding someone exercising their RKBA.



But finding some where they were "open carrying" and basically going about their business then suddenly unslung or picked up the rifle and started shooting. You can also find lots of active shooter incidents involving handguns.

There's a difference between: "I see somebody walking in with a rifle. I go to 'high orange' immediately and watch him until I see what he's doing then if he just goes about ordinary business, sits down to order a meal or whaterver, I'll drop back to low orange or high yellow keeping an eye out for other indicators that he means to use that rifle" and "he'll get 100% of my attention 100% of the time until he leaves."

Peaceful protests involving carried rifles in recent years:
The OP.
Ryan's "Open Carry Walk."
The black man with an AR outside the Arizona town hall meeting.
The Black Panthers at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

It happens. As long as there is no violence the media tends not to carry it. When they do carry it they often distort actual events to make it look "worse" than it was (MSNBC carefully editing the AZ film so that we never see the man was black while their commentary describes the event as an example of "white rage." This is part of the bias we see in the media.

You're right. Nobody ever took a rifle out of their vehicles and started shooting people. That has never happened. Ever. They all hid them down their pants first. Like David Hernandez in Tyler, Texas with the MAK-90. Or Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh, with his AK. Or Robert Hawkins, in a mall in Omaha with an AK. Or Anthony Gobbi with his AK in Lynn, MA. Or Charles Starkweather. Or Michael McDermott. Or the Columbine kids with their rifles. Need I go on? All these guys must have been CCWing their rifles.

I can't tell what somebody's got planned. How am I supposed to know the random dude with a rifle isn't just ON HIS WAY to his rampage? I'm just supposed to trust him??? How do I know he's not just enjoying a last meal before he starts shooting people?

If you want to draw attention to the fact that you're carrying a rifle in a place and manner that hasn't been done in over 100 years now, except for active shooters for the most part, don't be surprised when people are suspicious and start with the idea that you're a bad guy. And don't think for a moment every other armed person who DOESN'T know you isn't planning on how to kill you on their way out the door. I will NOT start out with the assumption that somebody is the exception to the general rule.

 

[dburkhead]

You're right. Nobody ever took a rifle out of their vehicles and started shooting people. That has never happened. Ever. They all hid them down their pants first. Like David Hernandez in Tyler, Texas with the MAK-90. Or Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh, with his AK. Or Robert Hawkins, in a mall in Omaha with an AK. Or Anthony Gobbi with his AK in Lynn, MA. Or Charles Starkweather. Or Michael McDermott. Or the Columbine kids with their rifles. Need I go on? All these guys must have been CCWing their rifles.

You're not reading, are you? I was quit a bit more specifid than you paint.

How many of those people went into a restaurant, sat down, and ordered a meal? Or went into the store and started shopping. When people use a rifle in situations like that they come in shooting or threatening.

There's a big difference between simply having a rifle and actively threatening/shooting people with a rifle.

What you are attributing to rifles is what others attribute to handguns. Guess what: your arugment is no more valid than theres.

I can't tell what somebody's got planned. How am I supposed to know the random dude with a rifle isn't just ON HIS WAY to his rampage? I'm just supposed to trust him??? How do I know he's not just enjoying a last meal before he starts shooting people?

How is it different with a handgun? Congratulations: you have just argued for nobody carrying anything anywhere.

If you want to draw attention to the fact that you're carrying a rifle in a place and manner that hasn't been done in over 100 years now, except for active shooters for the most part, don't be surprised when people are suspicious and start with the idea that you're a bad guy. And don't think for a moment every other armed person who DOESN'T know you isn't planning on how to kill you on their way out the door. I will NOT start out with the assumption that somebody is the exception to the general rule.

Except is has been done. I might remind you that there are people on this board who remember folk taking their rifles to school--planning on going hunting after school or (in at least one case) bringing the rifle to "show and tell).

Just because the media paints a different picture does not mean it doesn't happen.

Before I started carrying myself I never saw anyone other than a cop carrying a handgun. Should I then have used that as an excuse to claim that people shouldn't carry handguns? My personal experience with handguns was the same as yours with rifles. Why then should one be dismissed and the other accepted as valid?