Mandatory open carry with prison time for carrying concealed. If we can be mandated to buy shitty overpriced medical insurance then carrying guns in the open can be mandated. There is no second amendment right to concealed carry.

There's a reason that societies have used shunning as a means of social control.

To Get people used to the idea of other people having guns?

Id bet most gun carriers would like the idea...bigger guns, less work concealing them... and sure as shit some would love to show off.

Lessening phony politeness in discourse? Sure, they might be proud to. As an unarmed person, I'd be much more relaxed around an open carry. To me, concealed carry is sneaky and insecure. I don't trust people that hide a gun out in public. This is no small thing for people who don't want to own guns but have to live around those who do.

Doesn't matter whether it is open or concealed carry. Leave it locked up at home. And not on a chair in the living room either.

It would be just so overwhelming to have to see all of those evil instruments of death out everywhere i go with my partner. I just can't understand why people feel the need to carry those awful things anyway. I barely understand why we have to have armed police. It just ratchets up violence. Our world is scary enough without having to see pistols on every hip like we all live in the primitive history of this country.

So nice to meet everyone. I've just joined this wonderful site.

It IS a cool site, and I hope you have a grand time being here.

When you're ready for a break from the hurly-burly of politics, come on over to the Lounge! We post pictures, talk about ourselves and whatnot, and generally have a good time.

openly carrying a handgun.

Sounds as if you're talking about how good guys would like to exploit laws to get away with murder and still stay 'good guys.'

I want the legal means to protect my self from them.

yup

anything with a pistol grip is a pistol, i.e., a hand gun. They'll make special open carry Hip & Leg holsters for that pistol grip Bushmaster.

Yeah, that'll make this country safer.

As a Californian, I really can't imagine all the shitheads around here packing heat to El Pollo Loco.

didn't get that impression. I'm saying that if they walk out of the house with it, they can't conceal it, is all.

...and as a Californian, where it is by and large not legal to tote either open or concealed. I am more than happy knowing that the asshat eating his three piece combo across the room from me at El Pollo Loco on my lunch break isn't going to drop his gun and put one in the cashier.

You know there's a reason you don't see armed guards all that often anymore in businesses...

I see at least one open carry a week, just at the grocery store!

in Oklahoma. As of November 1st I believe. I've seen one OC person so far.

the people I see carrying in Oklahoma absolutely terrify me.

Do you really think that's a good idea?

Something that's already done unless you live in a nudist camp.

Are nudists bad people? Are they perverts? Or are you clinging to some sort of eighteenth century understanding of public comportment?

I don't understand the impulse to legislate decorum.

Seriously, wouldn't bother me a bit. Hell, I'd even concede that you could carry a concealed gun if you were nude, that would prove you were truly serious about being armed at all times, good enough for me, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

The police most places might have something to say about it though, you'd have to work out that with them.

what right do you have to know what other people carry in their pockets?

My reply, which you pretended to misunderstand, was that the way people look is legislated damn near everywhere in the USA, there are very few places you can legally go nude (San Francisco perhaps?).

I suggest bigger motors on the goalposts, it would speed up moving them quite a bit.

And if so, why?

Post #1 in this thread: "I've argued this before, I want to see any guns that I'm around"

Since the OP wants to require people to reveal the contents of their pockets so that he can see them, which is to say regulate how they look, you should be able to find a reason to require them to conceal their bodies or any part thereof.

Wanna talk about Burkas?

Keeping people from hiding guns on their person while in public is the same as forcing women to wear burqas?

is the codification of a personal preference that has no utility in the real world beyond stigmatizing people because you don't trust them.

If someone feels the need to be armed in my presence then that is prima facie evidence he does not trust me, it's an insult in fact.

That he doesn't want me to know he's armed is even more damn good reason for me not to trust him.

Gun nuts are never happy, tell them they can keep their guns just so long as they keep them visible in public and they whine because they can't hide the damn things.

An armed society is a polite society, problem solved.

We were talking about trust. You don't trust him to carry a gun. If he gives up his gun, can he trust you to save him if he gets assaulted?

I don't mind being the one to leave, truly.

Happy to leave where people are armed if people would be law abiding and polite enough to let me know.

So you are back to legislating decorum. Why does your understanding of decorum define moral responsibility?

You want to be able to see the gun because you don't trust people who carry guns to not shoot you. Yet you refuse to produce evidence to support your suspicions. You would have us legislate what people wear to satisfy your lack of trust in others by defining proper dress in public, yet you refuse to even consider your responsibilities to others by demanding those requirements. You would compel others to declare what they carry on their persons and that declaration would serve as public stigmatization according to your understanding of decorum, yet you offer no remedy if they comply with your legislative wishes.

And we haven't even gotten to the logistical hoops people would have to jump through if you got what you wanted. If someone "open carries" in the winter, will the gun have to be carried outside the winter garments, or will you just require them to remove the garments when they are in your presence? Perhaps they should approach you hat in hand as well.

Some few people are shot by stray rounds falling from the sky and things of that nature but it's pretty rare.

I can keep my chances of being shot considerably lower just by not being around guns.

The person carrying a gun doesn't trust me, I don't trust him. He wishes to carry the gun to allay his fear of me, I wish to remove myself from his presence to allay my fear.

Why is the gun owner's fear of me more rational than my own fear of the gun owner?

Why does only one side get to have their security blanket?

is for your ego and sense of decorum, not your body. We all want to live in a world without violence or reminders of it. In the United States, freedom from violence or reminders of it is pretty much the case for the vast majority of us. But if someone wants to shoot you in the middle of your latte at Starbucks, it won't matter whether you see the gun or not. He will be able to access it and blow your brains out with it before you can do anything.

There is no evidence that "that guy" doesn't trust you. Nor is there any reason for him to do so. What have you done to deserve his trust? It's not fair, or even possible, for the government to create a zone of comfort around your personal sensibilities or your interpretation of the intentions of others.

I do these things even though I'm no more likely to die in a car accident or biking than I am by gunshot

Are my precautions against car and bike accidents for my ego and sense of decorum?

Of course the gun owner doesn't trust me, how is he to know I'm not out to beat and rob him, maybe even shoot him in cold blood?

Now demanding the roadway be cleared in advance of your presence would be a bit much.

You are taking those precautions, not demanding others alter their appearance to satisfy your concerns.

Not around guns, don't get shot, simple as that.

You wouldn't want to drive down the road where there were invisible things it was deadly to run into, I just want to know where the known deadly hazards are on the road, no one else has to move, I'll steer around them all on my own.

I see you've given up on the legitimate fear tactic and have added a nitrous system to the goalpost moving motors, I shall endeavor to keep up.

Cars have headlights.

Or is this your neighborhood?

It really is like a sexual organ isn't it?

Something to be hidden away and covered up, like a burqa covers up a woman's body and face, something else you brought to this conversation.

Evidently the talisman loses power if it seen by others.

Can you produce a reason why you have a right to legislate how someone looks? How they dress?

If someone is carrying a gun in winter, will you require them to remove their coat in your presence? Or should they just wear something that is always visible that will let you know what they have? How will you enforce that law?

Will you require them do declare the contents of their pockets in your presence? How will you enforce a law like that?

The truth is, you don't have to like it, but there is nothing you can do about it. Not legally. Not morally. Not logistically.

Is there some reason nudity is objectionable to you?

If you are carrying a gun then proper accessories for safe handling are necessary, multiple holsters would only cost a fraction of what a decent modern handgun does and would allow swapping of the gun from inside wear to outside in mere moments. I would think that a gun buried inside multiple layers of clothing would be of little use in a personal emergency anyway. "Oh, hold on while I get my gun out please Mr Robber".

We have already established that one excellent way to avoid getting shot is not being near guns, staying away from people with guns is rational safety precaution on the level of wearing seat belts in a car, odds are you aren't going to have a collision but you put the belt on anyway if you are smart.

Why is your fear of me more rational than my fear of you?

I'm not afraid of you or somebody wearing a gun. I don't think what somebody is wearing, or not wearing, is necessarily indicative of their character or their intentions toward me or anybody else. A single aspect of their appearance is a part of an overall evaluation of what kind of person they are assuming I take time to make that evaluation. I don't waste a lot of time "sizing up" everyone that falls into my field of vision.

The usual "gun talk" is tiresome, but let's get it out of the way. Your suggestion regarding multiple holsters is absurd. A holster requires a belt (and a good one) so you are suggesting a winter coat have a belt outside for a holster so you will have the privilege of viewing it, and another holster for inside clothes. That won't work, so please try and keep the conversation above such absurdity.

Now for the inevitable car analogy. If you are worried about being around dangerous things while you are in a Starbucks (hey, a twofer analogy) how many cars did you walk in front of to get into the place? Any one of them could have run you down with no warning.

But this conversation isn't really about public safety, it's about atmosphere. You are demanding others create a particular atmosphere around you, a space otherwise known as the commons, for your emotional satisfaction. And you are advocating that courtesy be codified into law. Your desires are no different from the demands that women wear burkas or people not walk around naked. You don't have the right to compel others to create an atmosphere of emotional security around you. You don't have the right to compel the random people that cross your field of vision to offer guarantees of your personal safety. You simply don't have the right to demand others look any particular way to suit your personal prerogatives.

Here's a test. Next time you are in a public place station yourself near the door and ask everybody that walks through it what their intentions are toward you. If you feel uncomfortable doing that, you should feel uncomfortable sub contracting that task to the government.

You were the one who brought cars and roads into this entire conversation in the first place and now you're complaining about "the inevitable car analogy".

You also claimed that not being free to hide a gun on your person was the same thing as forcing a woman to wear a head to toe burqa.

Do you even read your own rhetoric? Stop whining, I don't want to take your damn guns away from you I just want to be able to avoid both them and you.

Wear your gun proudly, it's your constitutional right, what the fuck are you ashamed of?

You've moved the damn goalposts so far the Hubble Space Telescope couldn't find them.

That is the fact you have been avoiding through this entire exercise.

Here's your post and my very first reply.

Is your desire to compel open carry justified?

I'm dealing with facts here and the facts are that how people look has long been a matter of legislation and it's damn near universal.

Whether I think laws against nudity are justified or not is immaterial, it's about as well established as a fact can get that they exist.

The overwhelming social agreement is that appearance can be legislated to at least some extent. Where that extent might extend is a matter of degree, not kind.

I think the arguments that I have made on this thread are as true as I can make them, I don't necessarily agree but I wanted to see how far I could go with the concept.

Mandatory open carry with fairly severe penalties for deliberate concealment would solve a lot of our problems with guns I think.

ETA: My point really is that mandatory open carry would allow for community standards, in the big city people who are carrying likely would be shunned in my experience, they would tire of that pretty quickly if normal humans. In rural areas where guns are thought of differently there would be no social stigma.

Problems solved as far as I can see.

I asked you if laws against public nudity were justified. I could just as easily have asked you if laws mandating burkas were justified. Or if the sign at the sandwich shop mandating shoes and a shirt was justified. All of those social customs exist, and some of them are mandated by law. Some of them are reasonable and justified, some are not. The fact those laws exist is not germane.

As far as public safety goes, not only does mandating public carry not solve any problems if they exist, it doesn't even address them.

Part One: Icky Gun Talk

Whether or not a gun is carried open or concealed is immaterial when it comes to the mechanics of self defense either by the person carrying or the person targeted. You can draw a gun just as fast from under a sport coat as from open carry, and either way if somebody wants to shoot you it won't matter if you see him wearing the gun or not.

On the other hand demanding people fuss with a handgun to satisfy your sense of public decorum is more of a danger to public safety than concealed carry. The only time you should touch a firearm in a holster is when your life is threatened and you need to shoot somebody. The use of a gun, like any other physical interaction in the world, requires the development of muscle memory through practice. The simpler the physical interaction, the easier it is to master and employ. Thus, drawing a gun from a particular spot and under particular circumstances is the safest and most effective way to use it. When you place arbitrary restrictions on the way people carry a gun, you are demanding they adjust the way they dress and requiring them to fuss with the gun unnecessarily to conform with conflicting social norms. It's more dangerous for everybody concerned.

There is a youtube video at the end of this post if you want to check it out.

Part Two: What the conversation is really about.

Your concerns have nothing to do with public safety, the disparity of force, the mechanics of self defense with a firearm, tactical response to an active shooter, or the price of eggs in Germany. The problem you are trying to solve is one of public decorum. And your objective is to stigmatize people you don't like. Your mistake is you have no rational reason to dislike them.

While you say you don't care about public nudity, your use of that for an example is telling. Illegal nudity in public is called indecent exposure. You obviously feel that the sight of a firearm on someone's belt is indecent, but rather than demanding it be concealed you want everyone to see it because people who carry a gun in an urban area aren't "normal". And you want community standards to coalesce around disapproval for people who, according to you, are "not normal".

But how do you know they aren't "normal"? If you are interested in facts, here are some. You don't know where that person with the gun on his or her belt was before you saw them. You don't know where they are going after they leave your sight. You don't know if they are living under some threat that requires a protective order. You simply don't know the circumstances of their life or why they may feel the need to carry a gun. In fact, the only fact about your position is you don't have any.

Now, I said you had no rational reason to dislike someone carrying a gun. I didn't say you had no reason. Your reasons for disliking public carraige of firearms are arational and perfectly legitimate.

Guns have tremendous symbolic power for obvious reasons. Wearing a gun in public is fairly rare in this culture. Hang a gun on your belt and you are shouting some sort of message to everyone that can see it. That message will depend less on why the gun is there than on why people think it is there or why they think you put it there. That's because while you may have only one reason for its presence, those that see it will be able to free associate a whole constellation of assumptions about you that have no basis in fact. It isn't fair to demand people draw attention to themselves that way to satisfy your sense of decorum. It makes no more sense than demanding they be nude.

When it comes to the symbolic power of guns in politics they are a giant flashing neon sign. Guns symbolize everything liberals hate or can't deal with, and everything conservatives love and specialize in. I can't think of anything more polarizing. If you think conservatives are misguided fools and those who are doing the misguiding are lying assholes you are right. But that doesn't mean that someone wearing the conservative totem on their belt is a member of either one of those groups of people. Demanding they display the totem of people you dislike is like pointing to some random stranger on the street and shouting "deluded Republican asshole!"

You are perfectly free to make all kinds of assumptions about someone wearing a gun. You are not free to mandate those assumptions by law.

for it to be concealed?

The same right I have to not have to declare my faith, sexual orientation, political affiliation or any other part of my personal life.

If you need to know something about someone, you have to prove a need for that information.

The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Your desire for gun privacy is weaker than my need for safety.

And before you say it, no, not all privacy. The privacy of keeping a murder tool in your pocket. There are plenty of instances where absolute privacy is set aside in the name if law and order. This should be one.

Safety from what threat? If you want to compel behavior, you have to produce proof of need for that legislation beyond your personal likes or dislikes. Where is your proof? After you produce your proof, prove you can enforce whatever regulation you propose. And after you prove that, prove the legislation will be effective.

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

why I feel people should not hide their guns around me.

"If someone feels the need to be armed in my presence then that is prima facie evidence he does not trust me, it's an insult in fact.

That he doesn't want me to know he's armed is even more damn good reason for me not to trust him."

And in the towns of Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's the kind of America I want to live in.
Everyone carrying guns out in the open and daily street showdowns and snipers.
Just a dream come true.

Availability isn't going away. The 2nd Amendment isn't going away. Concealed guns carried by criminals isn't going away. Tempers in freewheeling public debate aren't going away. We're stuck with all that. Maybe our squeamish belief that 'only the civilized are unarmed' just might have to go away.

I don't own guns. I just want to know when I'm around people who do.

I don't know that guns make society more polite, but assuming it for the sake of argument, the generalized politeness would come from not knowing who was packing.

Otherwise society would only be polite when talking to an overtly armed person, and feel free to be very impolite to the rest.

My observation is not pro or anti your proposal. Just noting something that jumped out at me.

Like Martin Luther King once said, there are just laws and there are unjust laws. If people felt free to be impolite when guns weren't around, I'd say they're more free from a culture of implicit threat.

I think I should have the right to know who's got a gun.

A concealed gun is a dirty secret that should be open for all adults and children to see. No, not in classrooms.

Then children in the larger public realm could at least have a chance to run for cover.

Please tell me that's a fake photo.

they think it makes them "cool".....

I can tell you that the culture has changed in the past 10 years. Especially with young men who live for violent movies and games. They do not value life, they are angry and on edge most of the time. I left student services after 30 years last year due to the change in the young people I used to love so much.

them in my life come from the poorest areas of Chicago. They were dirt poor. Traveled through violent neighborhoods. Now they live in Redmond, WA. One is a game beta tester and the other is a project coordinator with Microsoft. The latter visits me every time he's in town. We've taken a road trip together. Their families are still poor. But they've moved on.

My own son's love of gaming led him to computer study, nanotech and biotech study in Australia, business study in Chicago and now community organizing in New Mexico. The average age of gamers in the US is 35.

I just don't buy the video game connection. I think Ars Technica has data on this, as probably does Slashdot.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. I see the whole movement as being bourne out of paranoia and irrational fear, and the fact that there are millions of people packing heat in public contributes little to the overall public safety in this country, I believe.

Listen, I'm actually okay with having a weapon in one's own home provided said weapon is safely secured and is reasonable (I'm sorry, owners of AR-15s with 30 round clips, but you don't need that to keep you safe in your home, nor do you need to stock up with mounds of weapons as if you were Fort Knox.) Personally, I don't have anything, but if there's been a rash of home invasions in the neighborhood, I can certainly see it being reasonable.

But the whole "Let's bring my gun to the streets" thing? Sorry, I see it being more trouble than it's worth. People who may seem like ordinary people are still people, and can be guilty of poor judgment, or rash anger, or both. No need to make a bad situation all the worse.

But....but....but....what about Pearl High School, where the shooter was supposedly stopped by a CCW holder? Except from my understanding, by the time the CCW stopped the shooter, he had already left the school and completed his mission, so the CCW permit holder really didn't contribute anything to stopping the shooting.

Plus I'll see your Pearl High School and raise you a George Zimmerman, thank you very much.

You say you're "actually okay with having a weapon in one's own home provided said weapon is safely secured and is reasonable ([you]'re sorry, owners of AR-15'S WITH 30 round clips, but you don't need that to keep you safe in your home, nor o you need to stock up with mounds of weapons as if you were Fort Knox.) Personally, I don't have anything, but if there's been a rash of home invasions in the neighborhhod, I can certainly see it being reasonable."

You put "a" in bold, implying that you figure a person that chooses to exercise their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, only needs one. So is it alright if someone else tells you you can only have one pair of shoes? Or you can only have one pen? Or you can only have one knife in your kitchen?

"Provided said weapon is safely secured" - that would depend on the situation within the building where said weapon is being kept. "and is reasonable" - everyone has a different measure of reasonable. What you think of as excessive someone else thinks of as reasonable. I think an AR-15 with 30 round magazines is reasonable, but an AR-15 with 100 round magazines is a bit excessive.

Now onto the whole "need" thing:

To say someone else does not "need" an AR-15 with 30rd mags would be just like me saying you don't need that suit you're wearing (if that's even a picture of you). A T-shirt and a pair of jeans would clothe you just fine right? Or even just a robe with no underwear or socks. You'd be clothed right? You do not "need" that suit.

Or how about whatever vehicle you may drive for transportation? A 1988 Geo metro, a bicycle, or even your feet, would transport you from point A to point B just fine right? You do not "need" whatever nice car or truck you happen to have.

Or you could live in a dwelling that is 100 square feet or less. That would easily give you a bed, a kitchen, a bathroom and shower and a roof over your head. That's all you "need" right? You do not "need" whatever nice house, apartment, or condo you happen to live in.

It's not always about what you need.
You have that suit because it's what you choose to wear, it's what you want.
You have that nice car or truck that you because it's what you want.
You have that nice house, apartment, or condo rather than a tiny 100 square foot dwelling because it's what you want.

A law abiding peaceful citizen of the United States has that AR-15 with 30 round magazines because it is what said law abiding citizen wants to have. They are well within their rights to own a legal civilian semi automatic firearm, just as you're well within your rights to own whatever clothing, vehicle, and dwelling you want to.

But unlike nice clothing or just a robe, nice vehicle or junky vehicle, nice house or super tiny house... There may come a time when that rifle is actually needed. Be it for a home invasion with several armed individuals entering the dwelling, or if a time comes that the 2nd amendment is actually needed (in a utilize it actively sense.)

The founding fathers weren't idiots. They wrote the constitution to allow for technological advances in firearms and they did not say only a musket is allowed. They also knew a possibility of the people needing to use arms against a tyrannical government could happen at some time in the future. They also knew that a well armed people would, in itself, be a passive deterrent to a tyrannical government because the government would know the people are well armed. That's the beautiful passive effect of the 2nd amendment: the government knows the people are armed, and respects the people.. maybe even fears the people. When the government respects or maybe even fears the people there is liberty. When the people are the ones that fear the government there is tyranny.

The government is afraid of a rather large number of law abiding peaceful gun owners because they know there are a decent amount of well armed citizens in this country today. Instead of just respecting the people as they should; they seek to disarm the people.

Do we "need" AR-15's and 30rd mags right now? Not at this moment at least.
Do we want AR-15's and 30rd mags? Wouldn't have spent the money if we didn't want them, just like you wouldn't have spent your money on those clothes, that vehicle, or that dwelling if you didn't want them.



That's the great thing about this country. It doesn't have to be something we "need" in order for us to have it. We can get things simply because we want them. We can go out and start a buisness if we want to, or we can decide to seek employment in an already established business. We can color our hair pink with purple polka dots if we want to. We can decide who, if anyone, we marry. We can decide how many, if any, children we have. We can decide where in this country we live.

This is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. I'm glad i live in this country of freedom, and no gun owner tells you what you need nor should they try to. Just like you should not try to tell someone else what they need, although you are welcome to have your opinion and you are welcome to express it here. But just because you think someone else doesn't "need" something, does not make it the case.

I would rather have it and never need it, than not have it and end up sitting around (or dead) thinking "gee i sure wish i had it when i needed it".

And you're perfectly free to not exercise your second amendment right, just as you're perfectly free to exercise or not exercise your fifth amendment right if the police ask you questions whether you've done anything or not. Also applies to the first amendment... you're well within your rights to express your opinion and speak your mind, or say nothing at all if you wish. I could keep going but i'm sure you get the idea on that.

It's not about what one person thinks another needs. It's about what a person wants that is within the bounds of the law; and (at least for now) pretty much any civilian semi-automatic firearm, including AR-15, is legal.

Pretty much boils down to what person A thinks person B needs: is irrelevant to what person B wants. If taken farther than just stating your opinion that you dont believe you need an AR-15 or any firearm for that matter,

If taken far enough beyond simply exercising your first amendment right and saying YOU don't feel a need for YOU to have an AR-15 or any firearm at all (which would tie in with exercise or not exercise your 2nd amendment right): then it becomes an infringement upon another person's rights that they should be allowed to exercise just as freely as anyone else.

It's not about what we need in this country until we actually need it. The 2nd amendment is needed everyday in a passive sense (the government knows the people are well armed and respects the people because of that). And i hope it never comes to it, but it is possible that the 2nd amendment become needed in an active sense.

Damn.

Laws about concealed or open carry are safety measures. They're not about crime. Forbidding carry won't prevent criminals from carrying, and allowing carry won't lead to citizens stopping criminals. Or at least neither will do so at a rate that rises above noise compared to the safety "signal" of this. The question is how this reduces accidents, and the Type I / Type II tradeoff has to do with compliance rates (you want something that limits gun prevalence while not doing so so severely as to lead to routine flouting of the law).

CC to me is just to keep the alarmist from whining.

How and when did this country become so fucking cowardly?
We all gotta be packin'? It is sooooo dangerous.
Honey, lets go see the re-release of Chitty chitty bang bang at the cineplex. You got your glock?
God damn, what a devolved nation we are turning into.

Given the compelling evidence of 300 million guns, we might have to face that we've been this level of 'devolved' for a long time. It's just that those who do the most talking on national issues haven't prioritized so much attention to the non-participation of gun owners.

I've used the word "cowardly" for a long time but I find that it shuts down sensible policy support from gun owners when I do.

and extremely stiff penalties for concealed carry. Criminals can't own one to begin with, and if they conceal carry it, they need to go to jail for a long time. Just as non-criminals should, too.

You can't conceal a rifle. You can't conceal a shotgun. It's pretty damn clear that you have a weapon. Why should a handgun be any different?

If you think you should carry one, let everyone know you are, and be prepared for the consequences of carrying one, too, that includes public shunning by people that don't want you around their kids. It strikes me as pretty cowardly to defend guns due to hunting, but then you turn around and carry a concealed weapon so that no one knows what you are doing. If you are in your home, none of it would matter anyway, so there goes self-defense.

demanding open carry.

I think that once we get used to the idea of knowing who around us is packing, we'll all feel more comfortable.

I briefly lived in Phoenix Arizona where people walked around with pistols on belt holsters and rifles slung across their backs. It was NOT a healthy environment.

It's certainly not healthy to die by another's stealth use of a deadly weapon, either -- a worldwide problem for women and children.

I was accessing my neighbor's language and imagery to approach her on the unfairness and vulnerability for the unarmed when they are around those who conceal deadly weapons. I reject her language, which I only used as she did to convey a more historical outlook that America has appreciated, which translates today into fair notice to non-owners like me who want to know who's carrying.

Pick your unhealthy environment: the tension of silence and denial in a concealed world, or the tension of noticing what eventually becomes part of one's appearance in an open carry world. One can get over discomfort. Death by stealth, not so much.

Or the guy that went in to Aurora Movie Theater. Reading accounts these guys just boldly walking in and started shooting. Nothing "stealth" about this:

It is alleged that he then went to his car, which was parked near the exit door, changed into protective clothing, and retrieved his guns. About 30 minutes into the film, police say, around 12:38 a.m., he re-entered the theater through the exit door. He was dressed in black and wore a gas mask, a load-bearing vest, a ballistic helmet, bullet-resistant leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector and tactical gloves. Initially, few in the audience considered the masked figure a threat. He appeared to be wearing a costume, like other audience members who had dressed up for the screening. Some believed that the gunman was playing a prank, while others thought that he was part of a special effects installation set up for the film's premiere as a publicity stunt by the studio or theater management.

WHAT IF "open carriers" had been in the movie theater?

My guess is that it would have been even more of a blood bath than it was.

Less a blood bath than what happened.

and in your imagined scenario everyone would have to be a practiced shot and keeping a level head. NOT real world at all.

My bet is on the bloodbath.

There's a reason the whole 'wild west' thing came to an end.

then it should be VISIABLE for all to see. Criminals will stay away from you with you gun. Right? Isn't that your PURPOSE to begin with? The rest of us will know who you are, and can then STAY AWAY FROM YOU. Don't we have the right of association? Or maybe you don't want to be SHUNNED? If not, then you are nothing but COWARDS.

if the gun is in a holster, and someone shoots first, the gun in the holster is of no help

"loophole logic," doesn't mean that the vast majority of environments won't be made safer. Quit acting as if every situation has to be perfectly safe before anyone can credibly promote safety for the unarmed.

Reality is what happens to most people most of the time. No handgun policy that promotes openness and transparency should meet the standard of criminal exceptions. It's an unfair standard. Law enforcement and civilian witness and cooperation handle such 'exceptions.'

But if i have to live with them, they'd better not be cowardly concealers, is all. Talk about silly and scary!

Assuming the holder has a valid, checked, checked, and triple-checked license to carry, to be shown to a LEO on demand, why not?

I'd rather know the hazards I'm facing, than to always wonder. And I doubt very seriously it would lead to any Shootouts at the Food City Corral.

fucking stupid.

So you make open carry the only legal way to carry in public. Fine. But the mugger and the demented killer, in other words, the very people you need to be afraid of, will not give two shits about the law. They will still conceal until such time as their crime is to be perpetrated. So while you're getting all bent out of shape running out of Starbucks because some cowboy has a six-shooter on his hip, real crime could still jump right up and bite you on your oblivious ass at any moment.

It's a solution looking for problem. Kinda comical, really.

on their prey. Sorry I don't see the comedy.

I thought you were going to be avoiding them. Wasn't that the whole point?

I don't see any need for concealment by the good guys. Are you saying that saving my ass is something that an open carrier shouldn't bother with?

getting used to seeing guns as tools for food and defense more than seeing them as innately evil weaponry. I'm claiming that open carry is the more honest statement toward that end.

Concealment serves no public good. It promotes an air of mystery and danger that foments unnecessary fear among the weak, sick or vulnerable. In my view, concealment mostly serves to make the concealer feel more secure and powerful than s/he really is. Laws that allow CCP pander to that.

... makes the person feel more powerful. I would think quite the opposite: open carry is public display of power, no?

Also, I'm not sold on the "air of mystery." You make it sound as if everyone is always thinking about who's carrying a gun. I'm not always thinking about it, even though I'm a "gun person."

I don't think that concealment is supposed to serve a public good. I think it's supposed to serve a personal good and not be a public menace. That's the desired balance, anyway.

thinks another is carrying a gun. Until I talk smack after beating someone at pool and they come back, not with my money, but heat. Or they just whip it out in road rage. That definitely serves their good and not anyone's in the pool hall or road.

Come on. We're nitpicking about language and probability when we should just keep an eye on the OC states. Maybe their practice will support my stance or sink it.

e: sorry for the delayed response...

Criminals can still conceal their weapon.
Those who are OC can now be seen and shot without any confrontation.
Criminals will be able to determine who has a gun to maybe protect themselves, they will also be able to see who is an easier target by not carrying.

Concealed carry doesn't let criminals know who has a weapon where OC does.

Do you want criminals to have the upper hand by knowing who to stay away from or shoot in the back (OC) and also knowing the easy target without a gun, who cannot protect themselves.

Not a smart idea..

The whole promotion of CC's being people who "protect" is suspect. OC states are testing this claim out.

I'm addressing the air of uncertainty and distrust in the non gun owning population. They have no reason to think that gun owners aren't just one click away from being bad guys themselves.

Until we get stats from OC states, I reject the 'stupid' label. I still say that seeing OC people prevents bad guys from getting the jump on anyone.

Of course every single person, armed or not, can be picked off by determined criminals, but sniper fire is aggressively searched and unrelentingly prosecuted in this country, so I don't get why they'd want to pick off OC's first. Being no longer concealed, they'd be outnumbered and off'd even before cops could arrest them.

It's no more a stupid fantasy than is the promoted CC fantasy of protection.

Until OC states find out, I welcome valid, reliable proofs to the contrary.