Open Carry vs. No Carry

[aroundlsu]

We've been discussing concealed carry vs. open carry forever now. There is one other option we haven't really talked about; not carrying at all.

For people without a concealed carry permit for whatever reason (they don't want to apply, can't afford it, can't supply certain divorce documents, arrest dispositions, whatever) the argument isn't really CC vs OC. It's OC versus going out unarmed.

Which one do you feel is safer? If concealed carry laws were banished overnight and breaking the law wasn't an option would you rather open carry or leave your gun at home?

 

[George]

I have often not carried mine. I am always alert of my surroundings when i dont, and when i do. I think about what i could use around me as a weapon and often run senarios through my head.

Before I became an LEO I never OC'd, which i still dont. although I always carried in my vehicle.

 

[Manimal]

I don't like not carrying, so I OC.

Every day that I don't carry when I know I can I think about that lady in Texas who put her gun in her car since they changed the carry laws. She could have saved her mom and dads lives...she could have saved the lives of about 30 people, if only she'd kept it in her purse.

Sometimes the car is just too far away.

I don't want to be like her...knowing she could have changed the outcome, but instead she has to watch her family get murdered along side dozens of innocent strangers. I bet there isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't relive every moment of that.

 

[IonicDOG]

I have often not carried mine. I am always alert of my surroundings when i dont, and when i do. I think about what i could use around me as a weapon and often run senarios through my head.

Before I became an LEO I never OC'd, which i still dont. although I always carried in my vehicle.

+1 I keep a pistol in my truck with a spare mag, but I don't OC when i go somewhere. I believe that situational awareness is more important than the decision to OC. I always have a knife and like you said George I also run scenarios through my head.

 

[CajunTim]

I don't carry a pistol with me unless I know I am going through shady parts of town, long trips, going to Nestor's neighborHOOD to drop off poems etc... I don't have a CCW it isn't the $100 it isn't the class as I have a 214, it is the fact that I consider myself a responsible gunowner and choose not to. I am not willing to be in complete compliance all of the time while in possession of a firearm so I leave it at home. By this I mean I drink in a responsible manner maybe more than I should and I am not going to have a firearm on my hip while doing this. Not because of my safety or someone else's but because as for as I know it is illegal to be in possesion of a firearm while intoxicated. And if I got accustomed to grabbing my pistola everytime I walked out there door like my phone or something I would eventually get in trouble, on a parade route or something.

To me guns or a hobby not my way of life there are more important things to me than firearms and staying out of jail is one them.

 

[Yrdawg]

I would consider going unarmed sometimes IF there were alternatives.

I recently started a thread on the Asp .......its confusing that I have a CHL allowing me to carry a gun but if I were carrying a piece of pipe (asp) it MIGHT be illegal. Or how about some Fox...dunno....our law is CHL, not CCW. Ya gotta wonder that "they" would rather U carry a gun than a stick or pepper spray.

I recently got an Asp, and having CC training in USMC and several years MA , I just think I could figger out a way to defend myself with this thing without attending any week long classes.

Point...it should be legal to carry several forms of non lethal weaps w/o being ILLEGAL, then not carrying guns would be acceptable @ some times & places

 

[dawg23]

For people without a concealed carry permit for whatever reason (they don't want to apply, can't afford it, can't supply certain divorce documents, arrest dispositions, whatever) the argument isn't really CC vs OC. It's OC versus going out unarmed.

Which one do you feel is safer?

I'm not sure you have phrased the right question. Clearly carrying is safer for the "carrier" than not carrying. BUT...............it may not be safer for the rest of us if you haven't had any training. And I'm betting that if you haven't even taken a CCW class, you surely haven't taken a real defensive pistol course.

PLUS..........

1. If you don't get a permit cause you "can't afford it," give me a break. It only costs $25 per year. Quit smoking (or dipping). Or give up one coke per day. Or one beer per day. Get your priorities straight.

2. If you don't get a permit because you "don't want to,".....again, grow up. You have to apply for a driver's license and for a marriage license (wow, I guess that dates me). Anyway, my point is, you may not like the law that requires you to get a permit - so call your legislator and get it changed. Until then, get a permit.

3. If you don't get a permit because "You can't supply arrest dispositions," you aren't trying very hard. These are available to you - by law - so keep asking. Of course if those are felony convictions, you aren't allowed to possess a firearm anyway. Maybe you ought to apply for a Presidential pardon.

I realize the foregoing doesn't sound too sympathetic. It wasn't intended to. Too many people today want special rules for themselves, or want us to make them feel better by approving an unsound, ill considered plan, or want a free ride. We saw a lot of this in New Orleans after Katrina. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

We have rules in our society. They were not passed by some dictator. They were passed by representatives who were elected by law abiding citizens. If you don't like the laws, change the laws. Or change your representative (by voting him out). Or move to a place that operates the way you want things to run. Or get some defensive knife training and carry one of those - or take a disarm class - or carry pepper spray, commonly referred to as OC.

Just follow the rules.

 

[spanky]

Very well stated.

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

Dawg 23,
Let me enlighten you.
If you study the real law/history of this country, you'd quickly learn a driver's "license" is NOT needed. We've all been brainwashed into believing "driving is a privilege." It's not.
Marriage license? Nope, you can marry without one. Can you name one instance when someone was prosecuted for being married without a license?
If you have a right to bear arms, a permit is not needed. Rights cannot be licensed. A license is only for "privileged activity."
Your "follow the rules" logic smacks of Nazi Germany. ONE thing you mentioned is correct: the "rules" weren't passed by some dictator. Nope, in this country, we have entire GROUPS of dictators to pass unconstitutional laws. They're known as legislators/congressmen. The end result is the same: a loss of freedom.
As a young man, I used to wonder just how in the world did Hitler manage to pull off the stuff he did. How could an entire nation of people be so easily fooled? Well, I sadly look around today and take in my fellow Amerikans and see more of the same. As Jerry Clower often said, "there's no shame in BEIN' stupid, the shame's in STAYIN' stupid." How true. Or, as a famous dead white guy commented decades ago, "if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it's failures."

 

[dawg23]

Dawg 23,
Let me enlighten you.
If you study the real law/history of this country, you'd quickly learn a driver's "license" is NOT needed. We've all been brainwashed into believing "driving is a privilege." It's not.
Marriage license? Nope, you can marry without one. Can you name one instance when someone was prosecuted for being married without a license?
If you have a right to bear arms, a permit is not needed. Rights cannot be licensed. A license is only for "privileged activity."
Your "follow the rules" logic smacks of Nazi Germany. ONE thing you mentioned is correct: the "rules" weren't passed by some dictator. Nope, in this country, we have entire GROUPS of dictators to pass unconstitutional laws. They're known as legislators/congressmen. The end result is the same: a loss of freedom.
As a young man, I used to wonder just how in the world did Hitler manage to pull off the stuff he did. How could an entire nation of people be so easily fooled? Well, I sadly look around today and take in my fellow Amerikans and see more of the same. As Jerry Clower often said, "there's no shame in BEIN' stupid, the shame's in STAYIN' stupid." How true. Or, as a famous dead white guy commented decades ago, "if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it's failures."

Thanks for the enlightenment.

If you don't think driving on public roads is a privilege, you'll be in for some enlightenment the first time you pull up to a driver's license checkpoint.

If you think our legislators are dictators, you need to get a dictionary and look up the definitions of the two terms. I know its fun, but you don't get to make up your own definitions of words used in the English language. Of course you could make up your own language if you wish. This would be a right, not a privilege.

I will agree that a marriage license isn't needed. Heck, in Mississippi and parts of north Louisiana, people marry their sisters all the time without a license.

I'll leave you to debate with folks that are more enlightened than I.

 

[Manimal]

Dawg 23,
Let me enlighten you.
If you study the real law/history of this country, you'd quickly learn a driver's "license" is NOT needed. We've all been brainwashed into believing "driving is a privilege." It's not.
Marriage license? Nope, you can marry without one. Can you name one instance when someone was prosecuted for being married without a license?
If you have a right to bear arms, a permit is not needed. Rights cannot be licensed. A license is only for "privileged activity."
Your "follow the rules" logic smacks of Nazi Germany. ONE thing you mentioned is correct: the "rules" weren't passed by some dictator. Nope, in this country, we have entire GROUPS of dictators to pass unconstitutional laws. They're known as legislators/congressmen. The end result is the same: a loss of freedom.
As a young man, I used to wonder just how in the world did Hitler manage to pull off the stuff he did. How could an entire nation of people be so easily fooled? Well, I sadly look around today and take in my fellow Amerikans and see more of the same. As Jerry Clower often said, "there's no shame in BEIN' stupid, the shame's in STAYIN' stupid." How true. Or, as a famous dead white guy commented decades ago, "if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it's failures."

Amen!

 

[mark edward marchiafava]

Merely because the state regularly violates a citizens right to travel doesn't lend any constitutional credence to their criminal behavior. Quick quiz: if the first automobile hit the roads circa 1886 and the first driver's "license" didn't appear until appx. 1935, were the drivers of those 50 odd years criminals?
Oops !!! Your lack of knowledge concerning marriage licenses is showing !! If the first marriage license didn't appear prior to 1863, were all the marriages since the garden of Eden illegal? Crash course time: the first marriage licenses were created by the state in an attempt to control MIXED marriages. From there, the state brainwashed the ignorant Amerikans into believing they now had to have permission to marry. Not true.
And to make matters even worse, most Amerikans allow themselves to be mislead !!! When someone comes along and offers the truth, they REJECT it !!!! My friend, Mike Kemp, and I have discussed this for years. Why do soooooooooo many Amerikans run from the very truth that will set them free? We've concluded to do so would require real courage, not merely loud boasting. To do so would involve sacrifice, REAL sacrifice, would be confrontational with the possibility of real losses. Naw, that's just asking too much from this generation of well-groomed slaves.
"The best slave is the one who THINKS he's free."

 

[Yrdawg]

Merely because the state regularly violates a citizens right to travel doesn't lend any constitutional credence to their criminal behavior. Quick quiz: if the first automobile hit the roads circa 1886 and the first driver's "license" didn't appear until appx. 1935, were the drivers of those 50 odd years criminals?
Oops !!! Your lack of knowledge concerning marriage licenses is showing !! If the first marriage license didn't appear prior to 1863, were all the marriages since the garden of Eden illegal? Crash course time: the first marriage licenses were created by the state in an attempt to control MIXED marriages. From there, the state brainwashed the ignorant Amerikans into believing they now had to have permission to marry. Not true.
And to make matters even worse, most Amerikans allow themselves to be mislead !!! When someone comes along and offers the truth, they REJECT it !!!! My friend, Mike Kemp, and I have discussed this for years. Why do soooooooooo many Amerikans run from the very truth that will set them free? We've concluded to do so would require real courage, not merely loud boasting. To do so would involve sacrifice, REAL sacrifice, would be confrontational with the possibility of real losses. Naw, that's just asking too much from this generation of well-groomed slaves.
"The best slave is the one who THINKS he's free."

We are all Free slaves of all colors in La

We are free to keep our federal hiway system ...
as long as we obey the massa Fed

free to keep our medical care (in part of course)
as long as we obey massa Fed

free to keep our school system (as we know it)
as long as we obey massa Fed

free to drop out of the Fed system and be a free standing state beholdin to no one
OOOOpps...not that one.....
not free to leave = not free at all

We have been duped by a Federal system that is supposed to protect all but has instead made us all in someway dependent on the Federal Tit

LOL..just one old Dawgs ramblins, maybe too much coffee