Open Carry (OC) is a hot topic on TTAG. No surprise; a lot of gun rights proponents heart OC. At first blush, it seems a promising way to extend and defend Second Amendment rights. In many states (including my home state of Colorado) there’s no law against openly carrying a firearm—as long as one is not brandishing said firearm in a threatening manner. Quite a few Western, Midwestern, or Southern states also lack prohibitions against the practice. Include me out. I think OC will ultimately harm gun rights. It’s ill-advised practically, tactically, and politically.
OC advocates claim they’re simply capitalizing on the fact that there’s no law against strapping on a gun and walking around in public in most parts of the United State (even in urban areas). Yes, but— there’s no law against carrying a gun openly for the same reason as there’s no law against break dancing in the middle of Death Valley in July while wearing a fur parka. It’s something that very few people would even consider doing.
Whether they realize it or not, OC advocates are trying to make the open carry of firearms into a “social norm.” In theory, firearms ownership will pass the point of no return, where gun rights are enshrined and assumed rather than constantly defended. Possession being nine-tenths of the law.
Well, that ain’t gonna happen.
For all their little inconsistencies and irrationalities, people are generally pretty practical in terms of what they wear and carry. Women don’t wear hoop skirts or corsets (at least outside of the kinky parts of town) and men generally don’t wear bowler hats or carry canes because these things are pretty impractical, particularly since we don’t live in Victorian England and most of us get around by car (now where did I put that damn cane?).
People don’t customarily carry sidearms or swords for the same reason they don’t carry bullwhips: They aren’t needed. And they are: Cumbersome, heavy, and uncomfortable.
As I noted in my first TTAG article, there are places in the world where it really is necessary for people to arm themselves to go about their daily business. When Uncle Sam was my employer I got to visit several of these lovely garden spots. I can honestly say I wouldn’t wish that kind of life on anyone I liked. Furthermore, in places where arms are a necessity, rather than a fashion statement, people generally eschew the handgun and go straight to a two-handed weapon, preferably with a long (and full) magazine.
[Before someone brings up Switzerland, yes, it's true there are lots of guns in the Helvetican Confederation. And the Swiss keep those guns securely locked up when they aren't using them for target practice. Not only are the guns locked up but they keep a strict accounting of their ammo.]
So, practically speaking, the number of people who would actually be willing to carry guns on a daily basis is miniscule – certainly not enough to change the social dynamics of weapons carry in modern-day Western society.
Consider, for example, how many people with a concealed weapons permit rarely or never carry. I’ve had my permit for over three years and have probably carried 20 times. My wife has had her permit for over two years and has never carried a weapon. Are we typical CCW holders? Well, I think we’re closer to “typical” than the people who pack everywhere they go.
And that brings me to my second point: real gunfighters (that is, people who make their living shooting other people) don’t use pistols, except as a last resort. The rifle and the machine gun are the tools of the trade for soldiers, terrorists, guerillas and SWAT cops.
The pistol’s prime advantage is its small, concealable size. OC gives up the pistol’s single greatest advantage over a rifle: stealth. It alerts every criminal that you are armed, so he can take you out first. He can then relieve you of that pistol which, besides being a threat to him, is also an item of considerable value that he can sell to his criminal buddies.
Tactically, concealed carry beats open carry every time.
The final factor is political. Post-Heller and McDonald, gun owners are feeling their oats, flexing our political muscles, feeling ten feet tall and covered with hair. But don’t forget that we’re still a minority in this country. A significant, well-organized, well-funded, politically active minority, but a minority nonetheless. it’s also worth noting that a huge number of gun owners would be more than happy to support laws that restricted other people from owning guns.
In that kind of political environment, Open Carry has two very negative effects. First, it rubs our opponents faces in the fact that we have guns.
Gun rights may be front and center in your world, but it’s mostly beneath the radar for most people. OC creates anti-gunners and generates support from uncommitted voters. “Do you want someone carrying a gun to school? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) RF raised the warning flag over the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, wondering if it could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. With a little help from OC, it could very well be.
Second, Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster.
Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as “crazy gun owners.” That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired “assault weapons” ban look like a pleasant memory.
I get where OC advocates are coming from. I read Heinlein books when I was younger, and enjoyed the short-lived Sci Fi series “Firefly,” too. I like westerns and the image of Han Solo swaggering around Mos Eisly with a blaster strapped to his thigh. But real life isn’t like books, movies or TV.
OC is not a social norm and it’s not going to become one. And open advocacy of OC runs a real risk of dragging all gun owners down into the pit of some serious, no BS gun control. Call me crazy, but for the dubious pleasure (and questionable tactical advantages) of walking down the streets with a pistol on your hip, it just ain’t worth it.
Sorry – was fast yping before work..
- corrected as http://www.opencarry.org – please feel free to read.
-Bat
Well, I take exception that the reason we dont carry guns is the same as we dont carry bull whips, which as you said, “we dont need them” Crime happens anywhere, and at anytime. Unless you wish to become a hermit, you run the risk of running into crime. I myself have been held up at knife point. I bet many rape victims wished they had a snub nose revolver. I also would wager that if a rapist saw a girl with an OC gun, they would look for another victim, one they could do what they wished without fear of death. Open carry is a right, it should be exercised by those who wish to exercise it. The problem is too many people have an irrational fear of guns. My wife who is blind also has a guide dog. Many people fear her guide dog, which is a sweetie and well behaved, because it is a German Shepard. They have watched too many movies perhaps. Should we ban guide dogs????? Should we force our blind to run into walls because a dog makes us uncomfortable? Heavens no. But, I will be content to keep my gun hidden, and on me whenever I go out, because crime does happen anywhere, and at anytime. Just ask those police men in Chicago when a nut job came in with a shotgun and started shooting at them point blank. I bet they thought that would never happen, just as you think you will never be a victim of a crime. You have a right to your opinion, but I have a right to exercise my Constitutional Right. Dont I? Or, does this planet revolve just for you leftists?
Meh.. for some open carry is a bad idea, but for most of them any carry is a bad idea. I know there are many kids down at GA Tech who wish they could carry on campus right now.Are you one of those who finds it to be more moral for the young coed to be found raped and strangled by her own pantyhose in the alley or for her to be explaining to the LEO how that bad guy got shot attempting to rape her?There are pro and con arguements with open carry. Funny thing is most people against it discount the pros and augment the cons and believe themselves to be correct. I personally carry both ways depending on particular circumstance, my wife and I also carry almost everywhere we go. She knows there are policies against it where she works but she also knows that her co workers feel much safer when she is working. If something should happen and she lose her job, well thats a bridge we will have to cross then.. I know I would feel much better with her losing her job over her losing her life.
I’m shocked there aren’t more responses on this old article; either people aren’t reading it, or people just don’t care to respond to this obviously biased author. That or the author is moderating the inundation of what I know to be an enormous opposition to his views.
In any case, I for one don’t wish to be silent on so important an issue.
With such a myriad of logical fallacies and such a dense fog of rhetoric, it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s start with the title. The author proports to be writing against “Open Carry.” Ok, fair enough, let’s hear both sides of the story and then hear your opinion. The body of the article, however, takes aim at the following (directly and indirectly):
- Social re-normalization of firearm possession
- Gun rights protected rather than granted by government
- The need for personal protection capabilities in a modern world
The bulk of the article addresses social aspects of gun rights in general, so a more appropriate title from this author might have been “Guns aren’t socially acceptable; why can’t we be more like Europe?” Re-read the article with that title in mind, and you’ll very quickly see what I’m talking about. Heck, the author himself drags wistful European thinking into it (and for fun, go looking for stats on violent crime in Europe…)
Now that we know what this author’s real agenda is, let’s address the idea of “social dynamics” that he brought up. First and foremost, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: “Social dynamics” should not steer governance. Right and wrong should steer governance. How people “feel,” their emotional bias, is not a solid footing for logical and sound law.
Now, the author makes the following claims relating to the social dynamics of guns:
- Gun rights proponents love OC
- Very few people would even consider OC
- OC owners are equated with gunfighters
- OC owners are equated with Han Solo
- OC owners only do it to feel big
- Gun proponents are a super-minority
- Gun owners want to restrict others rights
- OC disturbs the general public
- OC is not normal, and never could be
- OC owners carry for pleasure
Those are a lot of claims. When you cut out the fluff and read them in a list, how many do you agree with? The author’s generous use of hyperbole and absolutism stands out the most to me. The sprinkling of indirect insults is also quite interesting and revealing. It’s one thing to not agree with people, but it’s a sign of mental weakness to resort to insults.
To refute these statements on the social aspects of gun possession, I proffer the following related statement:
Our nation was built on the idea that every citizen may be armed for personal protection. This is the one concept that still sets us apart in a world that increasingly emulates our system of free government. In recent years alone, guns have been singled out for regulation because of one thing: fear. This fear exists on two fronts; 1) the fear that governments have of armed citizens (a healthy fear), and 2) the fear that the ignorant have of accident and injury (an irrational, unhealthy fear). Armed citizens are able to act when government oversteps its bounds, and so a government wishing to overstep its bounds must first disarm its citizens. Fear is a perfect tool to activate the ignorant, and if you look at politics today, you’ll see that fear is the #1 tool in almost any issue.
An armed populous is not an issue of sociality, fashion, or emotion. It is also not an issue of safety or accident prevention. It is purely an issue of freedom. If some choose to abhor the very thing that sets our country apart even from many free nations, simply out of ignorance or fear, then our only hope is to awaken them to the reality of their situation. Things may be fine in smalltown USA, but things are not fine in the world; and make no mistake- those global problems will find their way into smalltown USA if we relinquish our unique historical position on an armed populous.
Amusing read, nothing new to see here.
Take the hatred and assumptions out next time, and try to rewrite your article.
good luck.
I would like to know where does this person get his information about a concealed firearm being better than an openly carried firearm ? I have been a Victim of several holdups and I can tell you that when they mug you or hold you up it is when they feel they have the upper hand ! And they are on you in the blink of an eye and have already gone thru your pockets and if they find a weapon on you they take it and pray to god they don’t use it on you . If they see you have a gun on your hip they will look for someone that looks like easy prey and leave you alone , THAT is from experience take it for what it is worth . Anyone can sit behind a desk and write anything they want BUT it is actual experience that matters not opinions that count .