[Cinhil]

Found this in the Ogden Herald this morning. No time to comment--need to get to work. What do you think? Check it out:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/269544/57/

:dunno:

 

[mchlwise]

I think there are some good points in the article.

The point about inviting more restrictive legislation is particularly worrisome. The argument that "since you are able to carry concealed you have no need to carry openly and should not be able to do so" could resound quite loudly with some - loud enough that legislatures might hear and accept it.

One of the other points that jumped out at me was the deterrent aspect. Of course it would be scary and foolhardy to start something at a restaurant for example if you see someone sitting there eating and openly carrying a gun. But on the other hand if you know that most people who carry will be carrying openly, you can assess pretty quickly whether others are armed or not, and then take them out first or proceed knowing people are likely unarmed. If nobody knows who is or isn't packing, it's a little scarier to start shooting, and more of a deterrent than common open carrying would be.

The last point that wasn't really made in this way in the article but came to my mind while reading it was this:

Over the past few years, there has been somewhat of a "Gay Rights" movement. I remember years ago seeing men on t.v. marching down the street holding hands with other men, and kissing them openly. Their arguments for doing so were things like "we have a right to" and "you should just get used to it" and things of that nature. To me personally, it was somewhat offensive. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care what you guys do with other guys. But it makes me uncomfortable, and I REALLY wish you wouldn't do it in front of me. Their cause seems to have had some success, but was offensive nonetheless.

I see a LOT of parallels between that and open carrying. I am not offended or uncomfortable by people OCing, and occasionally do it myself. But I don't want to be a militant, in-your-face, offend you or make you uncomfortable activist either. Gun rights seems to have made some great strides lately. I'd hate to see set backs because we're too offensive and look like a bunch of nut cases.

:dunno:

 

[divegeek]

I posted a response:

Thanks for the calm and thoughtful commentary on open carry. I appreciated your points on the value to society of citizen carry, even if you prefer the arms to be concealed.

I understand your concerns about open carry frightening people and creating discomfort, but the reality is that it doesn't happen nearly as much as you might think. Yes, there is some concern, but there is also a great deal of support. I find I get about as many supportive comments as concerned questions -- and there really aren't very many of either. In Utah, responsible open carry simply doesn't occasion much response at all.

What do I mean by responsible? I mean open carry by people who indicate by their manner and dress that they are normal people who pose no threat. I worry that open carry by those who do have a threatening appearance (gang-like clothing, tattoos, piercings, etc.) may frighten people enough to request legislative action, but I think open carry by ordinary, well-dressed folks can counter that danger.

More importantly I think open carry works to counter the increasing stigmatization of firearms. We're already far along the path; many people know guns only from their portrayal in entertainment media and have absolutely no idea that, in fact, any time they're in a crowd in Utah, there are almost certainly one or more law-abiding citizens legally carrying weapons. OC offers people a chance to realize that decent, normal people carry guns on a daily basis, which drives home the point that it's violent people who create violence, not firearms (or knives -- see recent efforts in the UK and Japan to ban long kitchen knives).

Those who open carry do, of course, take some risks. We risk being hassled by police who don't know the law (one open-carrier was arrested in American Fork a few weeks ago, and another in West Valley had a gun drawn on him), we risk unwanted attention from store managers and other citizens. Tactically, we take the risk that a bad guy will shoot us first, although there have been no confirmed cases of that happening.

Why do we do it? It is absolutely not because we want to feel like John Wayne; it has nothing to do with machismo -- which I'm sure is a relief to Clachelle Jensen. A few do it because they can't legally conceal, either because they're under 21 or because they simply haven't received their permit yet, but most do it to make a political statement, to affirm visibly our commitment to the second amendment, to our God-given right of self defense, and to create opportunities to educate people on the law.

Back to the main point, I understand the concern that open carry could create a backlash that results in further restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. I don't, however, believe it's valid. Intuition to the contrary, open carry doesn't create as much discomfort as you think, and it has much greater support than you would expect. In spite of the surprising nature of an openly-carried firearm, the net reaction is typically neutral to positive. Given that, I think it's very reasonable to expect that some acclimation will calm the fears of most who react negatively, and move the overall consensus toward unworried acceptance, as well as educating the populace on the reality of citizen carry, and working to reduce the stigma of firearms.

Finally, I highly recommend to anyone that would like to further discuss this topic -- for or against -- to create an account on the discussion forums at http://opencarry.org, and post in the Utah forum there. Please, though, let's keep the discussion thoughtful and fact-based.

 

[divegeek]

Over the past few years, there has been somewhat of a "Gay Rights" movement. I remember years ago seeing men on t.v. marching down the street holding hands with other men, and kissing them openly. Their arguments for doing so were things like "we have a right to" and "you should just get used to it" and things of that nature. To me personally, it was somewhat offensive. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care what you guys do with other guys. But it makes me uncomfortable, and I REALLY wish you wouldn't do it in front of me. Their cause seems to have had some success, but was offensive nonetheless.

This is a good point. The Gay Rights community's parades, etc., have offended and bothered many -- but I don't think there's any question but that they've been VERY successful.

What I take from this point is that offending people is distasteful and unpleasant, but throwing something people don't want to see in their face CAN, over time, create tolerance, if not acceptance.

 

[GeneticsDave]

Some genius named "woody" (catch the phallic references in his name and response?) writes this eloquent reply to swillden's statement:

People who feel the need to carry a gun are 5' 4" weaklings who have been picked on their whole life and now feel Rambo tough because they have a gun on their belt. The last thing we need in society is a bunch of grudge holding wussy packing guns. Eventually it will work itself out though. Most will be shot with their own gun.

On a side note, I believe the same cowards that pack guns are the idiots driving like they own the road. Short men=big trucks=gun packers=pick on weaklings...

Makes me wonder who really is insecure... woody, or the firearm owner who openly carries and puts themselves at risk... :disgusted:

 

[mchlwise]

What I take from this point is that offending people is distasteful and unpleasant, but throwing something people don't want to see in their face CAN, over time, create tolerance, if not acceptance.

Yeah, I think the key word is "can". Hopefully, the "Open Carry movement" will be as successful as the "gay rights movement", in a shorter time. :dunno:

 

[Tarzan1888]

Some genius named "woody" (catch the phallic references in his name and response?) writes this eloquent reply to swillden's statement:

People who feel the need to carry a gun are 5' 4" weaklings who have been picked on their whole life and now feel Rambo tough because they have a gun on their belt. The last thing we need in society is a bunch of grudge holding wussy packing guns. Eventually it will work itself out though. Most will be shot with their own gun.

On a side note, I believe the same cowards that pack guns are the idiots driving like they own the road. Short men=big trucks=gun packers=pick on weaklings...

Makes me wonder who really is insecure... woody, or the firearm owner who openly carries and puts themselves at risk... :disgusted:

Yea.....I don't even have a clue where that paper is even published, but This Woody character got me going and I signed on and made a few comments.

It is funny that those who oppose carry in general or open carry in particular, have no evidence to support their views, and always resort to calling people names or making disparaging characterizations of those they disagree with. :nilly:

Tarzan

 

[Kevin Jensen]

The Daily Herald is a Utah County paper, printed in Provo. I carried in their building today to buy a copy of sundays and todays paper from them personally. It is right next door to where I work.

 

[divegeek]

It is funny that those who oppose carry in general or open carry in particular, have no evidence to support their views, and always resort to calling people names or making disparaging characterizations of those they disagree with. :nilly:

It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely consistent that is. I like to argue, so I debate all sorts of things with all sorts of people, and I find that there are lots of rational people who disagree with me on various topics (they're all wrong... but that's another story ) except on this one topic. On this topic, the rational people seem to be very few and far between.

If I didn't already know we were right, the sheer number of whack jobs spewing bile and innuendo against carrying would convince me.

 

[Shaolin]

Nicely written swillden. Way to go Sgt Jensen, you need to stop and talk to a few people who work there though. :shades:

 

[Kevin Jensen]

I asked the girl at the front desk if the men who wrote the editorial were in, and she said they were not. She then asked if I would like to leave a note for them. I declined and went back to work.

 

[Cinhil]

The article states that only police should carry a gun on their hip. Is this person devoid of common sense? Our constitution was written to guarantee our God-given rights, one of which is to defend ourselves against an unreasonable and treacherous government. I would rather everyone on the street carried than a handful of government yes men. Our lives, property and families would be safer, especially since they are aware that the SCOTUS has stated they have no duty to protect us.

As for OC'ing gaining recognition in a similar fashion as Gays (a word which at the turn of the 20th century meant something a heck of a lot different than today!), this has come about because of their "in your face" attitude, I can't really accept that. One is a very evil influence on society while the other is a very lawful activity which has been on the decline due to ignorance, lack of education and general malaise. The fact that society is ever choosing evil over good should tell us a lot about the mindset of those who oppose legal carry, amongst other things. Gays have learned that because of the Democratic mind set which favors the minority, that it is he/she who screams the most that gets what they want. In other words, the minority can pull the bull around by the nose ring to their hearts content because we failed to stop giving them power that they did not have, which belongs to the majority. The complacency of the remainder of society, thinking someone else will stop the madness, has caused this problem. So too has it been this same complacency which has hindered, and in some areas, altogether outlawed legal carry. Intimidation and influence of evil laws to restrict constitutionally protected carry by groups of people such as the Gay movement, or liberal press have had a lot to do with this as well. Whether Open Carry becomes a fast occurring trend or not will depend more on changing the mindset of those who are overtly influenced by these groups, who hedge their every movement on whether they will offend them and come under scrutiny for some pretended, farcical offense. There are those in this group of people, as in others, which disagree with the pc madness which they find to be detrimental to them as well. One of these groups is the Pink Pistols who are avid shooters and support our right to carry.

Much of the article used some good information and was ok, it was the offensive inferences to us being dimwitted or unable to use the brains God gave a pencil eraser, which upset me. That is like calling all cowboys ********, and all Southern people bigots, or all gun owners murderers because we have a gun. In other words, it was uncalled for. Just give the facts and your opinion. We don't need to be corralled into something we are not, or put into the defensive by liberal bigotry.

Thanks for walking into the papers establishment OC'ing SGTJensen. That might have set a few eyes rolling! :lol3: :nilly:

Overall a decent write up, but needed a lot of polishing--even John Wayne's (they used no punctuation) was spelled wrong. (This was for the English majors out there). And no, I don't propose my English or punctuation to be perfect, I just wanted a little fun is all.

 

[divegeek]

As for OC'ing gaining recognition in a similar fashion as Gays (a word which at the turn of the 20th century meant something a heck of a lot different than today!), this has come about because of their "in your face" attitude, I can't really accept that. One is a very evil influence on society while the other is a very lawful activity which has been on the decline due to ignorance, lack of education and general malaise.

PR tactics, like all tools, work regardless of the good or evil intent of the user.

Open Carry is rather "in your face", and that offends people who oppose citizen carry, and especially those who favor disarming us entirely. It even bothers people -- like the editorial writers -- who favor citizen carry, but fear that the "loud and proud" nature of OC will offend anti-gunners enough that they push legislation restricting carry. That's why they'd prefer that guns not be carried openly.

I think the analogy between gay rights and open carry is very apt. SGT Jensen recognized this and tried to soften it a little with his comment (quoted in the LA Times article), saying that it's not "We're here, we're armed, get used to it" -- an obvious reference to "We're here, we're queer...". But in fact I think there really is an element of "we're here, get used to it", particularly with respect to the police.

 

[Cinhil]

After further review and Swillden's' comment, I think I will have to agree with him. Like it or not, the up front, in your face "attitude," intentional or not, will have a lot to do with the acceptance of open carry. It could also in some respects be harmful. I guess it would all depend on how we as gun enthusiasts/civil rights/constitutional advocates are able to portray the proper role or necessity of carry. This may be the ultimate factor in how OC may thrive or die. We need to make sure there is more than just the minimum of good coverage of the issue so that it will survive and be accepted once again as a truly normal activity.

 

[Tarzan1888]

It is funny that those who oppose carry in general or open carry in particular, have no evidence to support their views, and always resort to calling people names or making disparaging characterizations of those they disagree with. :nilly:

It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely consistent that is. I like to argue, so I debate all sorts of things with all sorts of people, and I find that there are lots of rational people who disagree with me on various topics (they're all wrong... but that's another story ) except on this one topic. On this topic, the rational people seem to be very few and far between.

If I didn't already know we were right, the sheer number of whack jobs spewing bile and innuendo against carrying would convince me.

Yes, Heaven forbid that those who oppose our right to carry, should ever let any facts get in the way of their feelings..... :shocked:

Tarzan

 

[rdoggsilva]

I mainly carry concealed, but articles like this pushes me to carry open. No facts just his self rightness opinion. Maybe we do need to get in your face like the gay movement did. It may back fire but than again it may not. Only time will tell.

 

[treesloth]

My view on the matter is based more on pragmatism than principle. I don't feel the slightest bit of nerves when I see OC, but I'm accustomed to being around guns. However, as a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea to OC. Here's why:

Let's suppose that a person is determined to start shooting maliciously. Since the OC person's weapon is in plain view, it is an advisory to the would-be killer to shoot that person first. Since CC is permitted, there is already an element of deterrence. That doesn't change when someone OC's-- after all, just because a person OC's doesn't mean that there aren't 20 other people that CC. All OC does is determine who the first target will be.

That said, on principle, I have no objection to OC. I very much believe that a person should be able to do so if they qualify (current qualifications under the law are fine with me). But as a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea.

 

[xmirage2kx]

My view on the matter is based more on pragmatism than principle. I don't feel the slightest bit of nerves when I see OC, but I'm accustomed to being around guns. However, as a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea to OC. Here's why:

Let's suppose that a person is determined to start shooting maliciously. Since the OC person's weapon is in plain view, it is an advisory to the would-be killer to shoot that person first. Since CC is permitted, there is already an element of deterrence. That doesn't change when someone OC's-- after all, just because a person OC's doesn't mean that there aren't 20 other people that CC. All OC does is determine who the first target will be.

That said, on principle, I have no objection to OC. I very much believe that a person should be able to do so if they qualify (current qualifications under the law are fine with me). But as a practical matter, it seems like a bad idea.

yes, In the above situation the OC-er would possibly be the first target, but mass shootings are quite rare. Even the few who do commit these shootings are not pausing long enough to even see someone OC-ing. What is more likely to happen is getting robbed in a parking lot or park. Since most bad guys are looking for an easy target, the gun now states "I am not an easy target" and the BG leaves you alone and you never even know you just prevented a crime.

 

[divegeek]

Since the OC person's weapon is in plain view, it is an advisory to the would-be killer to shoot that person first.

That's an oft-cited theory, but one that has never proven out in practice, as far as anyone over on opencarry.org (pro-OC or anti-OC) can find.

IMO, the odds of that happening are much less than the odds of being in a situation where a BG who wants to commit a robbery or some such sees the gun and decides that this might not be an easy target. There are cases where that is known to have happened, and probably many more where the OC'er had no idea that his gun was a deterrent.

Even a shooter who's determined to gun down as many people as possible is likely to be deterred by an openly-carried weapon. The knowledge that some people have CFPs simply and that there MIGHT be someone in a position to start shooting back simply isn't as compelling as actually seeing a gun sported on the hip of one of your intended targets. And I think OC is especially effective at deterring mass shootings BEFORE the shooter shows up ready to start blasting. If half of the time the shooter goes to a location he sees one or more people armed, he'll know that the odds of him being able to actually kill a large number of people before he hits armed resistance are small. The OC'ers will remind him of the fact that there are also CC'ers.

 

[xmirage2kx]

There are plenty of good reasons to both CC or OC , the important thing is just to be aware of the good and the bad things about each style. One example: When you CC you don't have to worry about gun grabs as much, but when you OC you don't have to worry about slow draw time. If you know the strengths and weaknesses you can make an informed choice on how and why you/others carry the way they do.