Please to explain for the hard of understanding...
 

Ok. I know that as a Brit my attitude towards firearms is different to many Americans' attitude towards firearms. I don't fully understand American attitudes to guns - but thanks to the Cellar I do have more of an understanding than I used to.

I get that for many families, a kid's first gun and hunting trips with dad are a rite of passage. I also get that for some people the idea of an unarmed populace seems a dangerous thing and opens the door to tyranny. I get why the constitution upholds the right to bear arms (or arm bears etc etc.).

But the open carry movement is baffling me. I've seen a few bits and bats in the media about it and I don't understand why anybody would want large numbers of people to be armed in public places - I can understand wanting to have a gun in the house for home defence - I can understand wanting to have a collection of guns as a hobby - I can understand wanting to have a selection of good quality hunting rifles - I can even understand wanting the right to carry a gun in your bag or car for self defence (I don't agree with it - I think if everyone does that then the world gets that bit more dangerous and you're more likely to have to use that gun in your bag at some point).

But open carry? I don't get how this is desirable. I see pictures of war ravaged hell holes and everyone and their dog is toting antique Kalashnikovs - is that somehow an appealing prospect for US cities?

What prompted me to post about this is an article in today's Guardian:

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ent-open-carry

So - please to explain for the hard of understanding (Brit)?

"they looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any"

They couldn't find any for the same reason you won't find anti-gun kid's books.

There's no market.

You got an uber-vocal minority on one side and an uber-vocal minority on the other.

The majority does not care (much) either way.

The majority of gun owners and non-owners frown on the antics of the minorities on both sides.

Most folks -- no matter how 'pro' they may be -- aren't gonna walk around with a rifle strapped to their backs or a pistol holstered at the hip (unless they have good reason to).

All this horseshit about pro and anti is molehills inflated into mountains.

That is very reassuring to hear.

Open carry is desirable/legal because you can see that the guy has a gun. It's not concealed. In my state, Kentucky, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry/wear that gun on your hip, openly, legally, with no special permit or license, as long as your shirt isn't covering the weapon, that would be a concealed weapon, for which you need a special permit. Likewise, you can carry a rifle or shotgun in your hand, or slung over your shoulder, or in the special loops that are in some backpacks.

Also, there is no 'movement' toward open carry. Open carry has been around for ages, and believe it or not, is legal in more states than it's not. Some areas (more and more, actually) are now using open carry as a demonstration or protest against more restrictive laws/attitudes. Mostly, this has involved long guns, and the folks hollering about it, they're kinda put off by dudes walking down the sidewalk of Anytown, USA with a "black" rifle (read "assault weapon") slung over their shoulder. These folks would prolly commit suicide if they lived in Israel, where the military requires members to have their rifle on them at all times, 24/7.

Myself, I'm a little more worried about all these people that have the concealed carry permits...

You can't know who to worry about, or who stay away from.

plus some "open carry" laws are in place as opposed to "concealed carry" which is another kettle of fish. For the most part, no one has a reason to walk around visibly armed.

Apparently another book on their site is:


So, I went looking for a write up of the book and found this:

And at the White Feather Press site they describe it:

I don't even know where to start with that...

I can give you one reason, you may or may not think it's a good reason, for open carry. A situation, if you will...

Popdigr was talking to a wildlife officer (game warden) over at Pennyrile State Forest here in KY. He was asking the standard questions, and happened to mention that he was interested in hunting the northern section of the forest. The game warden asked if he was a gun hunter, and Pop replied that he hunts deer with a bow exclusively. The guy got a little quiet, and told Popdigr that what he was about to say was not being said as a game warden, but as one guy to another guy.

He told Popdigr that he would not go into that area of the forest without a firearm, for any reason. When Pop started looking concerned, the warden explained that meth cooks had started using the forest for their lab set ups, and that he personally had been shot at twice that year. He strongly advised Popdigr (off the record) not to go into those woods without a gun.

Now, having a gun on you during bow-only season is a definite no-no. When Popdigr asked the guy about this situation, the warden replied that if he stopped Pop to check him out, and everything was on the up & up, and if the gun was carried openly, that he, personally, would not write someone up/arrest him for it. It is that dangerous there, he said.

There are now rules (laws?) being worked on that would allow hunters to carry concealed firearms during bow-only hunting seasons. I would assume that this would include open carry. As it is, you can still not possess a firearm while hunting during a bow season, concealed or otherwise, permit or no.

People doing open carry are attention whores.

Heh. My point up there ^^^ was to point out that by carrying open, Popdigr wouldn't be forced to go through the classes, pay the fees and obtain a concealed carry permit. Just grab his weapon on the way out the door.

The current open carry movement is the brainchild of the fashion industry strategizing to make a fortune selling coordinated firearms accessories.

In stead of a whore, couldn't they be a person who maybe inherited grandpa's pistola, but, doesn't have the financial means to obtain a concealed carry permit when the fees/classes can cost more than a lot of guns do?

In that situation wouldn't that person be discriminated against, financially?

Would he not be entitled to self-defense, just like the CCW permitted folks?

Hmmmm....slightly mollified by the fact that he also wrote a book called: How to Raise Righteous and Rowdy Daughters!

Attachment 48781

Attachment 48782

Très chic.

:) Of course. I made a very blanket statement that is easily proven wrong with any number of examples.

However, there is much truth in it.

IYHO, how much? To what percentage of people who open carry do you attribute attention seeking as the predominant reason rather than any other reason? No need to be precise, perhaps you could round it off to the nearest 25% for us.

I'd say 100%.

If the purpose of open carry isn't to be seen carrying a gun, they're doing it, whatever the hell they're doing, completely wrong. Any other motivation would call for concealed carry, or unarmed. Who "accidentally" straps on their firearm when leaving the house? The very idea is to draw attention to the fact that they're armed.

The term attention whoring has a very different connotation from making being armed obvious as a deterrent. Do you label all uniformed (open carrying) police officers attention whores?

Maybe for you city dwellars open carry =attention whoredom, but in other locales, it it the norm and you need special permission to carry concealed. That means if you want to go to the firing range or a competition, or take your gun to a gunsmith you have to open carry.

The state gun laws and regional lifestyles make such blanket statements trollish at best.

I'm not talking about cops or about hunters or people transporting their guns from point A to point B. I'm talking about people who strap a gun to their hip to go run errands. They are looking to be noticed. That's the definition of attention whore.

it's unfortunate that you're bothered by the term...

I consider open carry to be a deliberate, conspicuous, intentional, obvious act specifically designed to draw the attention of all those around them, perhaps in the hope of "deterrence", but nonetheless to be noticed. That's the attention part. As for whoring, I am reminded of the old joke with punchline, "...we've already established what kind of woman you are, now we're just negotiating the price." They're trying really hard to be noticed. They'd consider it a failure if I didn't notice.

That's because you didn't grow up in a time and place where people carried guns when they had a use for them. So when to see someone with a gun shocks you and rattles your sense of order.

Right.

The times, the standards of where I live here and now do not include very many open carries. Shock, rattle? *shrug*, it depends on the person, on the circumstances. But it's certainly the case that they attract attention, in my current locale. Back in the day, ... that was back in the day.

But that didn't stop you from making a blanket statement. Footfootfoot's characterization nailed your motive.

The above announcement was brought to you by the TW Academy of Personal Definitions [a subsidiary of Narrow Minded Inc.].

Yes shock and rattle, so much so you immediately sort the person into perp or attention whore, because they couldn't possibly have a legitimate reason to do it.

Both Glatt and V are city folks. Part of my everyday reality is farm vehicles running up and down main street and the smell of manure in the air. A person with a gun on their hip wouldn't be that out of place apart from NYS doesn't have open carry, but 5 miles away in Vermont, you can uy a handgun with a driver's license.

It's VERY rural here.

LMAO

I know I'm not a US citizen and things are different here, but I was raised in a family where rural life was pretty entrenched. My father owned a number of guns, as did/do a number of other relatives. I have learned to fire and care for pretty much all of them and have been taught to have respect for them. I don't fear guns is what I'm trying to demonstrate.

Even if the laws here in Australia were similar to those in the US in that a majority of people owned firearms, I still would think it strange for someone to feel the need to be armed when they go to the shops to get milk and bread. Yes I have been part of communities where guns are used almost daily as a means to hunt food for animals and as protection from things like deadly snakes etc, so yes, I've travelled in vehicles where there's a gun behind the seat at all times, and everyone knows where it is, and how to use it in case of emergency. Usually a shot gun with a range of ammunition to suit the purpose.

I would still think it was odd if someone took that gun out of the truck and felt the need to walk down the street with it.

I think if the sort of people who have kids and want to raise those sorts of kids, need a book to tell them how to raise those sorts of kids, they probably wouldn't want those sorts of kids anyway...would they?

Http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...40805?irpc=932

What do think about this guy? He fits my definition of attention whore.

See, to my mind, he just fits the definition of idiot. Mostly because airports are tricky places as far as security goes in the first place. Why would you deliberately do something like that.

Yeah yeah, I read the article about why HE says he did it. That doesn't mean his reasoning is sound.

V,

People have been known to get so wrapped up in a cause that they become over zealous and behave inappropriately, sometimes even criminally. When that happens the person both distracts and detracts from the cause they advocate. In this case, it seems more likely that he was trying to draw attention to his cause when his untoward behavior, secondary to poor judgment, made him the focus of attention. I'm inclined to call it an affective behavioral disorder; or, say he's an idiot (as Aliantha implied) rather than simply call it attention whoring. There are too many other ways of gaining just as much attention without the toll this incident will take on that person's future.

There are attention whores who use firearms as a means to that end to be sure; but, not everyone who would open carry is one of them. There are valid reasons for open carry and there are misguided reasons that people have for open carry. Neither automatically constitutes attention whoring. Look at it this way: most of the people who would open carry believe it would be fine for everyone to open carry in which case they would just blend into the crowd, without distinction. It's only because they're in the minority that they're getting the attention and it's often unwanted attention. Just don't make the mistake of thinking you can get them to abandon their principles by labeling them attention whores because of it. That makes you no better than the idiot who showed up at the airport with a rifle.

I made a statement within the context of this thread. It wasn't a blanket statement meant to cover all cops, hunters, etc. This began as a thread about carrying guns around in everyday situations and included pictures showing soldiers with guns in a bar. Foot even said "For the most part, no one has a reason to walk around visibly armed. "

It's a thread about walking around visibly armed. And that was what my comment was aimed at. I used the words "attention whore" because it's a shortcut that I thought everyone understood. Maybe I should have said "making a statement" or "wanting to be noticed," but it's really all the same.

V is explaining it well. Yes, it's more burdensome to get a concealed carry permit, so there are logistical reasons for doing an open carry, but the point of open carry is that all can see that you are armed. It's about being noticed.

Seems to me, there are only two reasons -- if you're not law enforcement -- to openly carry a firearm.

1-You live in a place or circumstance where there is a great likelihood you'll need to self-defend.

2-You desperately want to be noticed.

If you live in Utopia, Anystate, America, and you have a rifle slung across your back or a pistol holstered at the hip, you're probably an 'attention whore'.

If you live Ruraltown, Anystate, America, and you lug around a rifle or pistol, you may have practical reasons for doing so (though it's more likely the rifle will be in a rack in your truck and the holstered pistol hanging from that rack).

Again: all this open carry nonsense (the growing movement, the dangers involved, the protection of second amendment rights, etc.) is just another marketing deal foisted up by those uber-vocal minorities I mentioned up-thread.

Simply: there are folks who can profit (in one way or another) from the 'controversy' and so they (those profit-minded folks) generate the issue (inflate tiny little blips into big honkin' blimps).


As for concealed carry: I'm against it. If Joe wants to carry (for whatever reason) let it be openly.

The very first line of BigV's Reuters link:

That line puts him (the researcher) in the category of protester/demonstrator. Firmly in 'attention whore' territory. "Look at me, know what I think, think like me, please."

Not all, but, a great deal of them, yes.

Most likely aye lol.

Both books are horrible, imo. Lot of it is nothing to do with child rearing and everything to do with lambasting liberal politics - including some very anti-gay and racist stuff.

But I was mildly less pissed off when I realised he'd done one for the girls as well as one for the boys, and that the one for the girls was not about raising subordinates.

Okay, perhaps I will inject my opinion here.

I am pro-gun, just to get that out of the way. Concealed or open.

A gun is a tool, a particularly deadly one, yes. But still a tool. I have guns. I have ever since it was legal for me to own them. I am a careful, conscientious (sp?) user. I cannot currently carry concealed due to the fact that my PA permit expired and I am unable to jump through Texas' hoops due to my job. I also camp.

Ever had a boar charge at you? I have. Nasty, brutish animals they are. For me to draw a handgun from concealment takes approx. 1.2 seconds. From my hip, approx. .5 seconds.

When a dangerous animal is charging you at 35 mph (their approximate running speed), they can cover a considerable distance in .7 seconds. In brush, you cannot see them until they brek concealment, roughly ten feet from you. Someone who is good at math, tell me how long it takes for an angry boar to go ten feet while I have to see it, react and draw, aim and fire. That 3/4 second suddenly becomes very long indeed. Enough to get you gored badly.

When out camping in the brush, I carry openly, including trips for food and other supplies. No one blinks here. If I were to try to conceal a large handgun in Texas heat, I would be required to completely cover the weapon, necessitating a cover garment such as a jacket or the classic photog's vest. Not a very smart thing to wear in 100+ heat. And likens one to carrying a sign reading "concealed gun here!"

Most of the discussion so far has been predicated upon the need/desire to shoot PEOPLE. Not all dangerous predators have two legs. There are several here. Coyotes, boars, mountain lions, snakes and more. They won't listen to a warning or brandishing. You either shoot them or they git you. No quarter given.

The argument that open carry in some areas is a bad idea has some merit. It is, or should be, up to the individual to exercise good judgement in choosing open or concealed. Unfortunately, not everyone chooses wisely. For example, in a quiet suburb, running to the 7-11 for a soda and bread is probably not a place to carry the old .45 openly. Going to visit grandma in North Philly for supper might be a better place to have it readily accessible. But then again, bringing the family to Luby's for supper sounds like a pretty safe thing and leave the hogleg at home, but you might be wrong. Dead wrong.

To hear glatt tell it, the advantages of not having to draw a weapon from a concealed position on your body, when there's a great likelihood you'll need to self defend, does not exist. Only your second rationale exists.

To hear glatt tell it, being opposed to concealed carry as a rationale for open carry does not exist. Only your second rationale exists.

To hear glatt tell it, a concealed carry permit, some states in which all associated costs can equal a week's worth of groceries effectively depriving poor people of their 2nd Amendment rights, will be called just a logistical burden; so, it might as well not exist either.

Well it seems that glatt has summarily dismissed anything other than "the point of open carry is that all can see that you are armed" which now allows him to equate that solely with "It's about being noticed".

Let's not dare get into the fact that military and police open carry even when they DON'T want to be seen, that the advantages of the technique increases their chances of survival, and that civilians may want to follow suit to save themselves and their families. No no no, don't consider adversity, transparency, technique and tactics, or anything else glatt knows nothing about relative to carrying firearms. Civilians aren't supposed think about these things: they're just supposed to be ... like him ... not an attention whore!

Of course, of course. :hug:

With all due respect to glatt: poop on him.

;)

*shrug*

Wedge issue will be a wedge issue.

A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot, (atomic) wedgies for any one still wearin' drawers.

I think we are talking about the differences between inconspicuous and alarmingly conspicuous carry, both of which fall under the generous umbrella of "open."

Question...Where or when is open carry really a necessity ? In all of my 52 years living in the Midwest (mostly Indiana), I haven't yet seen a gun being carried or used in a public setting.

It's ten years (for shame!) since I was last in the US, but I have a vivid recollection of seeing a gent walking in Cody, Wyoming, with a gun on his belt on a June evening.

I have to say that I found it an 'eyebrow raising' moment.

A couple of minutes after I'd seen him, I heard gun shots and naturally feared the worst. Thankfully, it turned out that it was a gunfight reenactment which is performed six nights a week.

We're just not used to that sort of thing over here. :eek:***

Cody, Wyoming: Daily Street Gunfights

*** Open carry, that is.

Clarification: The gent I had seen wasn't a participant in the reenactment. He was a private individual just going about his business.

Posted in a bit of a hurry. Apologies.

We have to be careful about attributing peoples reasons for carrying. The US is a big country that is hardly united in its political outlook. Guns are potent symbols for everything from a tradition bound basic farm/ranch tool, to a symbol of resistance to a changing world, to a symbol of authority, to a symbol of resistance to authority, to a symbol of evil incarnate. Personally I find conceal carry to be a reasonable statement of individual self-reliance and open carry to be an attempt to intimidate, but these are instinctive responses based on how people in my region comport themselves.

Agreed, different strokes for different folks. What are the Red Socks doing in Michigan?:eyebrow:
In PA open carry is defacto legal because there is no law against it... except, it's a no-no in first class cities. That's Philly and Pittsburgh. But that doesn't cover in a car, which is clearly outlawed without a permit but for a few exceptions.

I have a CC permit but very rarely do, I know I haven't in the last 5 years. Partly because living at the junction of three states, it's easy to forget and wouldn't want to get caught out of state. The other reason is I don't feel it's necessary, in the environment I travel I rarely feel threatened.
Sure, you never know what evil lurks, but I don't have a meteor proof umbrella either.

So why did I just renew my permit? because if I want to take a gun somewhere, to a friends, or whatever, I don't have to worry about jumping through the hoops required by the state in the 126 pages of title 18.

I was on a jury here in VA, which is a pretty gun friendly state, where the prosecutors were going after a guy for allegedly carrying a gun into an elementary school. The witness who saw him walk in with a gun was not remotely credible, but when the cops caught up with him later, he had his gun locked in the trunk. Only problem was according to VA law as read to us by the judge, it needed to be in a locked case in his trunk, not in the duffel bag it was in. Plus he admitted that he had driven to the school to pick up his kid, and driving onto school property with a gun in the car was also illegal. So he accepted some plea deal, and I couldn't set him free like I was planning to.

Having a gun is dangerous for more reasons than may be obvious. In some places, you can't even bring a gun to within a certain distance of a school, which means that as you drive around town with a gun, you need to keep in mind where all the schools are and stay the appropriate distance away. That might mean you can't use any of the major roads through town.

CCW reciprocity?

No, PA has reciprocity agreements of some kind with something like 20 states.
Neighbors, NJ and DE. Fuck you PA.

NJ I can almost understand as they don't want the Philly gangsters packing to Atlantic City and the jersey shore. But since when do gangsters care about the law?

Delaware, born and raised on gunpowder revenue, I don't understand.

Just ran across this, a minute ago.

From here.

Attachment 48924

WTF is up with Texas on this? I thought they would have the most liberal gun laws, not the most restrictive.

That's handguns only. You can open carry a shotgun or rifle just fine.

It seems Arizona has rather liberal gun laws. A 9 year old girl just got her first kill with an UZI.

PHOENIX (AP) — The accidental shooting death of a firing-range instructor by a 9-year-old girl with an Uzi has set off a powerful debate over youngsters and guns, with many people wondering what sort of parents would let a child handle a submachine gun.

Instructor Charles Vacca, 39, was standing next to the girl Monday at the Last Stop range in White Hills, Arizona, about 60 miles south of Las Vegas, when she squeezed the trigger. The recoil wrenched the Uzi upward, and Vacca was shot in the head. ...

... Sam Scarmardo, who operates the outdoor range in the desert, said Wednesday that the parents had signed waivers saying they understood the rules and were standing nearby, video-recording their daughter, when the accident happened. ...

... He said he doesn't know what went wrong, pointing out that Vacca was an Army veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

Was the weapon actually a select-fire variant? Or was it semi-auto? The article didn't say, or at least the blurb didn't. An UZI is not necessarily an smg and it rankles me that the news media never seem to get that detail right.

There are places to go for full auto fire. That aspect of firing range services caters to thrill seekers. It's like an amusement park ride for them. I suspect that to be the case. It's unlikely the muzzle rise would have been so great in semi-automatic fire. It is possible that, with a weak hold on the weapon, it could repeatedly recoil against the trigger finger and simulate fully automatic fire. I've seen that happen IRL with a limp wrist hold on a semi-automatic pistol. Such a fluke; however, would almost certainly have been identified as the cause.

Please to explain for the hard of understanding...
 

The story and video I saw showed that the girl shot one round in semi mode and then the instructor switched it to full auto. The sheriffs office edited the video to stop there, but the accident happened right after it was switched to full auto. (The parents were filming the whole thing.). That poor child. She'll be messed up for a while.

God, what a nightmare. Poor kid, poor parents and poor instructor.

The report I read said he was standing slightly off to the side (haven't seen video clip so don't know how accurate that is). Would it not be more usual to stand behind in such a situation?

Also: I can understand letting kids shoot guns at a range; but surely a gun with such a big kick is unsuitable for a child that young? Just in terms of being able to keep the damn thing straight. They need one of those fairground ride signs that have a height line to stop the littles getting on rides they could just slip out from.

Well, I think the parents and the instructor were adults, and while this is very tragic, they are capable of making an informed decision. The kid is innocent in all of this. I try not to judge other parents because we are all just trying to do our best, but handing a fully automatic machine gun to a 9 year old girl doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.

There is a small industry 0f these types of places where you can rent equipment that you could never otherwise use. They have race cars you can run around a track for a few laps, heavy construction equipment in big dirt lots that you can rent by the hour just to play, and of course these fairly exotic guns. The whole idea is that novices get to use the real equipment. I think it's a cool idea, but obviously they need to work out a few safety kinks.

At Cub Scout camps here, the under 11 year old can only fire bb guns. But when they join Boy Scouts at age 11-12, they are allowed to fire single bolt action 22 rifles. Once they reach 14, they are allowed to fire shotguns. This is all with close supervision. I think those are more reasonable ages, and even then, you need to make sure the boys firing shotguns are strong enough to hold one.

The range is called Bullets and Burgers.
Nice.

Quote in the paper today by Sam Scarmado (who I assume is something to do with the range) "I have regret we let this child shoot, and I have regret that Charlie was killed."

I hope English isn't his first language, because that reads as rather dismissive otherwise.
I had regret that I eat Big Mac. At least no-one die when I did that


(except some cows which were probably Bad Cows anyway)

"he doesn't know what went wrong"

Seems to me: what went wrong was the instructor overestimated the capacity of the kid.

Poor assessment on his part.

*shrug*

#

"Bad Cows"

ALL cows are BAD.

Eat them.