The Open Carry Argument - Page 23
Page 23 of 62 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 612

Thread: The Open Carry Argument

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    OK. On "target" and succinct.

    Against OC.
    So, why are you against me, or anyone else open carrying? You've decided for yourself, and that's fine, well and good. But why try to push that on others, and why try to hinder efforts to expand legal methods of carrying or reduce licensing requirements. Seems like those things would benefit all gun owners/carriers.

  2.   
  3. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    So, why are you against me, or anyone else open carrying? You've decided for yourself, and that's fine, well and good. But why try to push that on others, and why try to hinder efforts to expand legal methods of carrying or reduce licensing requirements. Seems like those things would benefit all gun owners/carriers.
    I don't believe I indicated or alluded anywhere in my post that my "concerns/reasons" where pertinent to anyone but myself. My post was expressly my "concerns", for me. I only shared them for POV sharing with others who may (or may not) have thought of the same considerations. Nothing more.

    "... are ya lookin' for a FIGHT, Buddy?" (old song)

    On the other hand, if you are a NavyLT, ex or otherwise, unless you are a SEAL, one could not assume that you have "considered" aspects of ground combat tactics. (Just as I would not be very good at allocating fields of fire for anti air missles in and for a task force.) Whereas us old "knuckle draggers"...... been there, done that. LOL!

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    On the other hand, if you are a NavyLT, ex or otherwise, unless you are a SEAL, one could not assume that you have "considered" aspects of ground combat tactics. (Just as I would not be very good at allocating fields of fire for anti air missles in and for a task force.) Whereas us old "knuckle draggers"...... been there, done that. LOL!

    GG
    One could not assume that I haven't considered aspects of ground combat tactics either my friend.

    1984, US Army Basic Training Ft. Dix, NJ, followed by 4 1/2 years in the US Army National Guard as a unit armorer.

    2001, Officer Candidate School with the US Marine Corps.

    2008, returned to the exact same barracks at Ft. Dix, NJ for pre-combat ground training prior to deploying to Baghdad, Iraq as an Individual Augmentee. You may not know what IA is - we are the people from the Navy who deploy on the ground in Iraq because the Army needs our help.

    I have a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal<-that means actually been there, an Iraqi Campaign Medal<-that means actually been there, one Army Achievement Medal and one Joint Forces NATO Achievement Medal (in addition to my Navy awards.) I have carried or been on the crew of the M16A1 rifle, M-60 machine gun, M2 machine gun, M203 grenade launcher, M1911 service pistol and M9 service pistol and I even pulled the lanyard once on an M114 155mm towed Howitzer. Maybe in 2014 after 30 years I might just retire from the military. However, thank you for not assuming anything about my experience or lack thereof.

    I must respectfully point out that in your post, you stated:

    Against OC. Why?
    Had you actually been succinct and stated, "Open carry is not for me" then we would have a true indication that you don't care if other people open carry or not.

  5. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    One could not assume that I haven't considered aspects of ground combat tactics either my friend.

    1984, US Army Basic Training Ft. Dix, NJ, followed by 4 1/2 years in the US Army National Guard as a unit armorer.

    2001, Officer Candidate School with the US Marine Corps.

    2008, returned to the exact same barracks at Ft. Dix, NJ for pre-combat ground training prior to deploying to Baghdad, Iraq as an Individual Augmentee. You may not know what IA is - we are the people from the Navy who deploy on the ground in Iraq because the Army needs our help.

    I have a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal<-that means actually been there, an Iraqi Campaign Medal<-that means actually been there, one Army Achievement Medal and one Joint Forces NATO Achievement Medal (in addition to my Navy awards.) I have carried or been on the crew of the M16A1 rifle, M-60 machine gun, M2 machine gun, M203 grenade launcher, M1911 service pistol and M9 service pistol and I even pulled the lanyard once on an M114 155mm towed Howitzer. Maybe in 2014 after 30 years I might just retire from the military. However, thank you for not assuming anything about my experience or lack thereof.

    I must respectfully point out that in your post, you stated:



    Had you actually been succinct and stated, "Open carry is not for me" then we would have a true indication that you don't care if other people open carry or not.
    Ah, a world traveler. I stand corrected. How does the current "toss off line" go? Ah, yes; "Thank you for your service."

    I still claim that I did not allude to project my "concerns" to anyone... except to share a POV. Sorry you misread or misconstrued my post. Like I said, it's no concern of mine if your POV is to "flaunt it". Always appreciate potential decoys or first fire drawers..... for my own personal protection, of course.

    My youthful "save the world for democracy (and from BGs)" enthusiasm has long been worn down by the ravages of time. It is currently centered on me and mine and damn few select and situational others.

    Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. LOL! Thanks for the resume', but I'm not hiring at the moment.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  6. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    OK. On "target" and succinct.

    Against OC. Why?

    1) Why give the BGs a heads up on your capability to resist their efforts? (Or a first target to take out?)
    So far as I know, there are no credible reports of an OCer being taken out "first" because he was OCing. Yes, there are maybe 2 questionable reports. But so far, the jury is still out on both, as far as I know. In general, 99.9% of bad guys will go the other way when they see someone is legally armed. They don't want a fight, they want easy marks. There is at least one news story to support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    2) Why give any number of society's "busy bodies" a reason to pull out their cell phones and dial 911 in their usual reaction to seeing a gun? (EEEEWWWWW! A GUN!)
    My experience (and the experience of many other OCers) has been mostly the opposite. The most common reaction I get it is, "Whatcha packing?" or comments to that effect, along with, "Is that legal?" which usually starts a conversation about OC, the benefits and detriments, and how to go about doing so legally. Yes, I do get the occasional anti-type comment. Mostly I ignore those.

    But the one I liked the best, I was in line at a Subway store. Waiting to place my order, some woman came in and was standing to my right. I think about 2 minutes went by, she turned around and left. The guy behind the counter thought she didn't like his facial piercings. I'm pretty sure it was my nickel plated .45 she didn't like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    3) I'd hate to give a pickpocket an easy mark. I don't run so well any more to try to catch a "grab and run" operator.
    See my response to no. 1, above. But in general, a good retention holster will keep that from happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    4) I don't carry to make a "Political Statement". I carry for tactical considerations.
    I don't carry for political or tactical reasons. I carry for self defense and because it's my right to do so.
    Big Gay Al: Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    An unarmed person speaking of the benefits of gun control is like a
    eunuch speaking about the benefits of sexual abstinence.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Like I said, it's no concern of mine if your POV is to "flaunt it". Always appreciate potential decoys or first fire drawers..... for my own personal protection, of course.

    GG
    Very nice. Shows a vast intelligence right there...

    Since you mention ground combat tactics, a basic knowledge of ground combat tactics would include knowing that the "element of surprise" is a tactic that is part of an OFFENSIVE strategy. However, when one devises a DEFENSIVE strategy, the tactic of choice to employ is a visible or otherwise verifiable display of strength. Detterence has no affect if it is not verifiable. A visible show of the capability of a strong response says to the enemy, "Is it REALLY worth it to attack here?" When coupled with a plethora of nearby targets that are not showing a verifiable means of defense, detterence becomes an even greater benefit.

    The openly carried firearm sends the message to the criminal, "It would be of great benefit to you and your health to pass me up or wait two minutes for me to leave. Why take the obvious chance of getting shot, when in the next block down the road, or after I leave, you will have many targets of opportunity available which do not appear to be armed; and, in all likelihood, aren't."

    Even felons in prison admit to the detterence benefit of being known to be armed:
    http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5.1-screen.pdf
    Page 31:

    Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

    Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.

    Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following:
    74% of felons agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

    57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
    I personally don't care if you choose to hide your gun and only hope to use it to fend off an attack that has already started. As you, yourself said, "I only shared them for POV sharing with others who may (or may not) have thought of the same considerations. Nothing more."

  8. #227
    Al: Tactical considerations = self defence, in MY venacular. Self defence is a generic concept. Tactical considerations are a subset and indicate proactive "planning" for the overall goal of self defence. (Just sayin'.)

    Your exceptions to my exceptions duly noted. .... and you cite exactly the same things and research results I have read or heard.

    Still..... I'd druther do things my way. I have found that it serves me best over time. (On the other hand doing things that DO NOT serve me best would be illogical, would it not? LOL!)

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  9. #228
    Navy: Since you mention it...... the element of surprise DOES come into my considerations of "handling the problem". I am of an age where I don't exude much in the way of "intimidation" any more, externally "packing" or not. (As such, I can't count on the possibilities of "deterrence" to thwart the BGs.) This, too, tempers my decisions on the matter. Not to worry, you will get ravaged by time too. Then YOU can have this conversation with someone a generation younger than YOU.

    Without "nit picking" too awfully much, if I get involved in an altercation (i.e. MY "offensive actions"!) I aim to have it a complete surprise to my opponent. Like I said, my physical "deterrent" factor is not worth considering here. Thus my conclusions that I have to work the way I plan here.

    Not to mention that I fervently hope that I will never have to get into another gunfight in my entire life! With any luck at all, that is the way it shall be.

    GG

    P.S. As for "vast intelligence"..... if you say so. Don't knock it, has served me well for all these years. (Blush)

    P.S. All this bru ha ha when all I was trying to do was get the thread back on track. Ya GOTTA love it!
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  10. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    Al: Tactical considerations = self defence, in MY venacular. Self defence is a generic concept. Tactical considerations are a subset and indicate proactive "planning" for the overall goal of self defence. (Just sayin'.)

    Your exceptions to my exceptions duly noted. .... and you cite exactly the same things and research results I have read or heard.

    Still..... I'd druther do things my way. I have found that it serves me best over time. (On the other hand doing things that DO NOT serve me best would be illogical, would it not? LOL!)

    GG
    Just wanted to be clear. Some people use the excuse of wanting "tactical surprise." To my way of thinking, self defense isn't tactics, it's simply a way to keep on living.

    To me, the most important thing I've learned from OC, is my situational awareness has picked up considerably. With OC, it has to. From my point of view, that's a positive change. That, and I really do enjoy pissing off the few namby pamby liberals I run across from time to time.
    Big Gay Al: Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    An unarmed person speaking of the benefits of gun control is like a
    eunuch speaking about the benefits of sexual abstinence.

  11. #230
    It MUST be noted, though, that the "deterrance effect" of OC can be compared to what I call the "Samurai's Dilemma":

    The Samurai, in a one on one fight, knows that the potential opponent is similarly armed, what is the unknown is the relative skill level of the opponent. Due consideration must be given to the potential outcomes of a conflict.

    1) You seriously harm or kill your opponent.

    2) Your opponent does the same to you.

    3) You seriously harm or kill each other.

    That gives a two of three possibility of a bad outcome. Thus, most Samurai avoided a fight like the plague. Mutual respect and good manners were the rule of the day. (As it was in the days of legal "dueling".)

    Thus, with two persons of equal training and skill, it serves best.

    For us "geezers" with no apparent deterrent to demonstrate.... guile, surprise and treachery works best.

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

Page 23 of 62 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast