It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of open carry (carrying an unconcealed handgun or long gun in public). Except in a hunting context or in very rural areas where one is unlikely to encounter another human, I generally think it’s a poor decision to carry openly. Too many bad things can happen. I’ve explored some of those issues in my article The Perils of Open Carry.
My friend Spencer Keepers summed up the issue of open carry in the best way that I’ve heard: “I support the right, not the practice.” I agree with him 100%.
Friends Don’t Let Friends Open Carry
It makes for a good read. I agree with Open Carry as a legal countermeasure against penalizing accidental or temporary displays of a firearm.
Again, don’t go in the comment and bitch about “Ma Rights and Eff You!” Nobody is arguing against that, we are just talking about strategy and not accessorizing your belt. and looking butch.
The slippery slope. I support the right, but not in all instances, just means you don’t support the right. I agree with your points about open carry, and expect gun grabbers to start parroting them and imply it happens to CCW’s as well. Example is the AR always being referred to as an “assault rifle”.
Additionally look at the 1st amendment concerning free speech. When I was young the saying was “I don’t agree with what you are saying, but I defend your right to say it” has no become “I don’t think you should be allowed to say anything, because someone might be offended”, “hate” “or “you are a racist”……
I am guessing you missed the part where I said “STRATEGY” ?
But it is cooler to obviate that and go on the chest-thumping MAH RIGHTS rant.
Seriously people, read first.
PS: Brian, I assume you OC. What holster do you use?
[…] read Miguel’s post Friends Don’t Let Friends Open Carry – Written by Greg Ellifritz and the article he […]
I am always disappointed when our side resorts to the tactics that are used against us by anti-gun people. Granted this guy is not arguing to take away rights, just against making certain choices, but the arguments he is making are founded on every bit as shaky ground as arguments against gun ownership in general or carry of any kind in particular. There area whole lot of what-if scenarios and anecdotal stories and not a lot of real hard data. The one bit of actual data he cites (about cops being killed with their own guns) has no other information to give it context, like the actual number of deaths or if the incidents are concentrated in certain areas.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. I am not a fan of off body carry, but even I recognize it may be the best carry for some people in some certain situations. Just because I can point to some people who did off body carry wrong does not mean I should go around telling everyone off body carry is a terrible idea and no one should do it. What I should do is educate people on the right and wrong ways to go about that type of carry, so people can be educated and make informed choices about their options.
Lets bring this back to something more personal to all of us. There is a right way and a wrong way to safely own firearms. Sometimes some people are stupid, and own firearms in a stupid way. Anti-gun people love to trot out these as examples of why *no one* should own firearms. Even if they were not making the argument to remove the right, and were just advocating for social change in ownership trends, would that make their argument correct? Sure it is their opinion, and they have a right to that, but is that opinion the most correct one to hold? Isn’t a better idea to educate people about that stupid way to own firearms, inform them of the safe way to do so and let them decide for themselves? Does that not give people a more complete and total idea of what their options are, and the real issues they should be aware of when it comes to firearms ownership?
So many people, when they read articles like this, are wholly unaware of how open carry can or should be done. All they are getting is the anecdotal stories of how someone else did it wrong, with no effort made to balance that with the possible right ways to do it. That is exactly what anti-gunners do to us, and I do not really appreciate it.
Additionally, many of the arguments made against open carry are social constructs. They are about how people will respond to open carry. This is true, and it is something that responsible open carry should take into account, but it also will not change if we never make the effort to confront those social issues. People unfamiliar with open carry call the cops, cops unfamiliar with open carry respond poorly? Yeah, that is a problem, but it is a problem that will never be solved if we abandon the field. I prefer to address these issues head on. As someone who open carries I know I am an ambassador for carry and gun ownership. I comport myself accordingly. You know what? most of the time *no one even notices I am carrying*. And most of the people who do notice have a positive interaction with me. In all my years of open carry I have only had one negative interaction, and all that wound up happening is I was asked to leave. Guess what, I had a very similar situation when concealed carrying and my gun got exposed. *negative interactions can happen*, that does not mean we should not do it.
Some of the other arguments are just as spurious. Can you get attacked by surprise if you open carry? Sure can. Does it happen often enough to worry about? I doubt it, and no one has been able to provide any hard evidence one way or the other. And to counter the anecdotal stories of people getting attacked because they were targeted for their weapon, we have tons of data and interviews from actual criminals that show they are far, far less likely to attack someone they know is armed. Is the trade off of -higher likelihood of getting attacked- but -having a nice surprise available- better than -a higher likelihood of *not* getting attacked in the first place- but -not having your capabilities be a surprise- worth it? That is a judgement call that has no wrong answer. Articles like the one linked above make no effort to educate people about this dichotomy.
The rest of the article can be addressed pretty easily with training awareness. Yes, if you open carry having some weapons retention training is an exceedingly good idea. This is the counterpoint to having good draw training with concealed carry. Do you see anyone saying you should not conceal carry because your gun could be so buried under all your stuff that you could never get to it in time? No, you see people telling you you should be aware of your draw speed with various methods of carry, and optimize for that draw time. We educate people on that particular pitfall, and do not use it to paint the entire practice as unsafe and stupid.
Concealed carry has many such pitfalls we need to be aware of, from printing to draw times to gun dimensions to holster types. Open carry has similar issues, and all that we really need to do to make the practice more accessible and acceptable is to educate people about those issues, then let them decide for themselves. Open carry is the simplest form of carry fro ma technical perspective, but it is one that has the most social complications. Off body carry has a ton of technical complications, like draw, retention and control issues, but almost no social risks. Concealed carry is a bit more balanced between the two. All of them have their place so long as they are done right, and none should be disparaged just because you do not prefer that type of carry or even use it. Rather than telling someone else (who may have vastly different needs for carry than you do) that they are bad and wrong for carrying in a way you do not like we should be much more objective in informing people of the pros and cons of the carious options available to them. Disparaging activities based on weak data and personal preferences is what our enemies do to us, it is not something we should do to each other.