Question of the Day: Can We Stop Arguing About Concealed vs. Open Carry?

Open carry (courtesy everydaynodaysoff.com)

Other than maybe the perpetual caliber wars, one of the most dependable points of argument amongst The People of the Gun: the concealed carry vs. open carry…well, “debate” doesn’t really cover it. It’s more that there are people who buy into one over the other. And then proceed to tell the other side how they’re wrong.

Then the rationalizations are introduced, and soon after, the whole thing descends into name-calling. As in so many internet discussions, it ultimately it gets down to both sides making the carefully-considered, nuanced point that “You’re wrong because you don’t like the thing I like.” And this happens all the time.

Concealed carry (courtesy pinterest.com)

As we know, concealed carry is good because a pistol held in a concealed carry holster and kept out of view won’t offend people who are afraid of guns or otherwise uncomfortable around them.

Arguably they shouldn’t be, and no one should really have a problem with someone open carrying, but as with anything else in life there’s what should be and there’s what actually is.

Open carry (courtesy ammoland.com)

Open carry is good because the gun is right there if we need it. Also — and not insignificantly — carrying a handgun in a quality OWB or a drop-leg holster is darn comfortable.

Not that there aren’t plenty of good, well-designed concealed carry holsters that are comfortable, too (he said, vainly trying to head off the inevitable “But what about MY particular ultra-comfy hybrid IWB rig?” comments below).

Concealed carry affords you the element of surprise. No one knows you’re packing unless and until you reveal your sidearm. That can be a tactical advantage, depending on the situation you find yourself in.

 

Shaun Kranish, executive director of the gun rights group iCarry.org, videotapes at an open-carry gathering Sunday at the Delavan Starbucks. Dan Plutchak/WalworthCountyToday.com (courtesy icarry.org)

Many argue that open carry is a deterrent to bad actors, but it’s not like there’s really a good way to quantitatively prove it.

 Occasionally you’ll find an instance or two where an open carrier was targeted and deprived of their guns, but such instances are exceedingly rare. Oh, and there’s also the argument that open carry normalizes firearms for those who don’t or won’t carry. 

So face it: both concealed and open carry have their places. Each has its own merits and drawbacks. Neither is “better” than the other; it all comes down to the individual’s circumstances and preference.  So . . . which one do you practice and prefer?

Sam Hoober is a contributing editor at Alien Gear Holsters and Bigfoot Gun Belts. He also contributes regularly to Ammoland, Daily Caller and USA Carry.

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Just carry, baby.

    How you carry is your choice, and none of my business. I support your exercise of the natural right to keep and bear arms, in whatever lawful manner you choose to do so.

    Isn’t freedom grand?

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      P.S.

      My AlienGear CloakTuck IWB holster is remarkably comfortable. And so is my Safariland GLS level-II retention holster. Both have their uses. I typically prefer the latter, with an untucked shirt or a jacket. The former is great for when I need to wear a tucked-in shirt with no jacket.

      1. avatar Snatchums says:

        I recently got the same Alien Gear holster for my SR9C, it’s very comfortable and holds the grip nice and tight to my body if I add just a little bit of cant so I can carry with the 17 round magazine and doesn’t print like the sunday paper.

    2. avatar Gman says:

      How you carry is your choice, and none of my business

      One day kibitzing through Wally-world this OFWG happened upon a young heavyset black gent. His shirt was notably unkempt, pants hanging too low, and he was open carrying a full size pistol in a $5 nylon holster hanging like a western movie gun slinger near his mid thigh from his well worn belt. I cautiously approached him and passed on the following suggestion.

      “I thank you for supporting our second amendment but perhaps if you wish to best represent our community you might pull up your pants, tuck in your shirt, tighten your belt and for God’s sake buy a decent holster.” He took survey of himself and then he looked at me wearing a collared shirt, neatly tucked in, gun tightly held to my (rotund) waist and a solid retention holster. He thanked me and straightened himself up.

      Was it any of my business? Perhaps, perhaps not.

      1. avatar BLoving says:

        It was absolutely none of your business, but I admire you for it just the same.
        Young folks love to exclaim that “people shouldn’t judge others on how they look”, but mature adults know that “The clothes make the man”. If he wants to dress like a crack-dealing thug then he need to be prepared to get treated like one.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Personally I prefer the quote from Harry Hart in The Kingsman where he says “Manners maketh man.” (really the quote probably goes back to the 1400’s Eton School in England but that’s neither here nor there).

          Many people, especially those who work non-office jobs, look wild and unkempt at the end of the day. I certainly used to on some days. Many of them however still retain the manners to be pleasant, say “Please”, “Thank you”, “Ma’am” and “Sir” even if they are dirty, smelly and look like they haven’t had a change of clothes in weeks.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Strych, I’d say there is a difference between looking bad and looking like you’ve been working all day. Most of the people where I’m from don’t work in the A/C all day, so it’s not like I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about.

          I judge people by the way they dress. An example is that if your wearing an undershirt in public and not doing manly chores (or even just laundry) on your own property, I’ll assume your a trashy person. I came pretty close to shooting a guy who I always saw dressed like that. (He had punched my neighbor, but stayed away from me and my neighbor when told him to, so I had no need to defend us).

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        But, that’s not an open-vs-concealed issue.

        If people are being intentional jackwagons, might it be another person’s business to let them know that they might be harming a common cause? Sure.

        If people are being unsafe (such as holster choice/placement, etc.), might it be another person’s business to help educate them about safe carry of a firearm? Sure.

        But neither of those instances have anything to do with the OP’s question.

    3. avatar Chadwick says:

      The important part is carrying. After that its your choice. Freedom is grand. I have freedom to do ss I please as long as it doesn’t stop your freedom to do as you please.
      I’m with you… Just carry!

    4. avatar BLoving says:

      My wife has decided she likes open carry. But then, she doesn’t work in a business setting (she watches the neighbor’s kids and drives them places) so she’s mostly dressed very casually and just out getting exercise or going to the store. Fine.
      As for me, I’ll either be at work dealing with clients and vendors or escorting the wife around places; so for me, I’ll conceal. Equally fine.
      I do wonder, though, about the “deterrence” argument: is an open-carried gun on a woman more of a deterrent than it is on a man?
      If so (or not), why?
      🤠

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        Depends more on where you are and the customs there. I have personally experienced a number of situations where I seriously believe that the sight of my OC gun has made all the difference between a very likely attack, and everyone going on their way without harm to anyone.

        https://thepriceofliberty.org/2014/01/21/unreported-the-crime-that-didnt-happen/

        It’s almost impossible to prove, however, so defensive uses of guns can’t really be measured or quantified. I don’t need to know how many times my OC has deterred an attack. Just once would be enough for me to know it’s something I want to do.

        Sort of like landing an airplane. In the long run, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

      2. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

        Yes, I want both to be common, too. I understand and agree with those who point out the benefits of concealed carry, and likewise of open carry. My preference would be about five concealed handguns for every openly carried one. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise.

    5. avatar Andy Valadez says:

      Good article. I encourage those who are up to the responsibility to carry to do so. However, there is a strong unwarranted bias against open carry. I do not believe that everyone should open carry, only those who understand situational awareness and have the bearing and confidence to do so. Open Carry for me removes the need for the element of surprise and is the tactical advantage for many reasons. There are numerous stories that show that concealed carry can be dangerous for carriers of all stripes, because conceal carriers look like victims to a perp. There are few and very few stories about open carriers being attacked and mostly when they failed to assess at situation. For this reason, I believe many gun instructors are giving bad advice that could cost someone their life and discouraging good people to open carry to be an additional show of force in society. Military history is replete with many examples of how show of force deters and enemy. It is a good practice. BTW I have a concealed back-up knife and handgun and open carry most days. I have had few issues with “offending” people. You know the old saying. If you go looking for an offense, you will find one.

      Andy Valadez
      Marketing Director
      National Association for Legal Gun Defense
      SelfDefenseFund
      USMC Veteran

  2. avatar Swarf says:

    You know damn well that we can’t.

  3. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Just as soon as we resolve the 9mm Luger vs .40S&W and .308 vs 30-06 debates…..

    1. avatar Gman says:

      That’s so 5 minutes ago. Do try to keep up.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    So….the question comes down to: are you an inny, or an outty?

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Actually, for me, it comes down to dunlaps disease.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Amen, brother.

      2. avatar Carrucan says:

        A little exercise for me this past summer and I am back in the “inny” game. I can always fall back on the OWB in the winter (lager) months.

  5. avatar Gman says:

    Both. I prefer carrying a full size pistol OWB. But there are places where that would not be appropriate. This past weekend I opted to IWB a S&W Shield in a Remora at the Theatre. So one could say I go both ways though I prefer to full size carry. Whether that is concealed or not is really a function of season. I don’t make any special effort to conceal in summer, but in winter I do love sweaters. I really don’t understand the point in arguing about it though. Comme ci comme ça.

  6. avatar little horn says:

    “NO. you MUST concede and champion MY point of view or you are not just wrong, but stupid as well.”

    thats usually how arguments like that go.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      So?

      If we can’t uselessly fight among ourselves, where’s the fun in that?

    2. avatar Gman says:

      To quote the irreverent and noteworthy Mr. Monty Python…
      This isn’t an argument
      Yes it is
      No it’s not
      Yes it is
      Not it’s not
      Yes it is

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        No. It’s snot.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          eeeewwww….

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “No. It’s snot.”

          “I thought it was a booger but it’s snot…”

          http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&play=true

    3. avatar roberthere says:

      Both styles at once? Maybe not.

  7. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Carry both at the same time, element of surprise AND deterrent. While they try to grab that retention gun, another appears in your hand…

    Though in Florida there is only one option. Though perhaps I could “open” carry the p-38 around in a closed holster. Still with a second more concealed and accessible gun.

    1. avatar Eugene says:

      Here in left wing Rhode Island, we’re not allowed to have a 2nd gun at all : (

  8. avatar JR says:

    A Civilian’s Perspective:
    I agree. Circumstances are important. Hunting with friends … Open carry. Most other situations … Conceal it.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      If that’s your decision process, more power to you.

      The question is: why do you care to impose that same decision process on someone else?

      1. avatar JR says:

        I didn’t think that stating a perspective was anything more than sharing a perspective. Everything else I’ve read on this and other blogs is taken by me as just another person’s perspective, without telling me what to do. Is there a smarter way to read blog content?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It was mostly a rhetorical question, aimed at those who do feel the need to impose upon others – the kind of people who cause the very arguments upon which this post is premised.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      JR,

      You stated, “Hunting with friends … Open carry. Most other situations … Conceal it.”

      Your statement has two possible meanings which are:
      (1) JR open carries when hunting with friends and JR carries concealed in other situations.
      — or —
      (2) JR is demanding that everyone open carry when hunting with friends and JR is demanding that everyone conceal it in other situations.

      Which did you intend?

      1. avatar JR says:

        The first one. Thanks for asking!

        There are too many scenarios to be absolute unless we’re identifying in detail a specific scenario.

        I choose to look at specific scenarios, look at the possible outcomes realistically, then choose a reasonable mitigation plan, and not divulge it to everyone that might learn to thwart our plan. So, although I’ve written a plan for a few known scenarios, I don’t plan to reveal them except to my trusted friends. Reading this blog helps me learn if there are any scenarios that I may have missed. Thanks to all participants!

        I encourage everyone to look at specific scenarios, look at the possible outcomes realistically, then choose a reasonable mitigation plan, and not divulge it to anyone that might learn to thwart the plan.

        PS. I support national right to carry, state to state reciprocity. I support the use of firearms to protect self, family, and country. I support Open Carry for the sake of not being arrested for accidentally flashing my firearm when I reach for my billfold, and for carrying a sidearm while hunting. I think that Open Carry of an unlocked loaded sidearm in densely populated situations makes little sense. (If the reason for that is not obvious, please consider specific scenarios, look at possible outcomes, … and so on as described above.) I appreciate your reading this message, and know that I’m here to learn from your feedback.

        1. avatar Ron Kleiman says:

          A possible argument for CC while hunting: That way Bambi or Smokey won’t see it coming. 😉 (not to provoke a firestorm, just an irreverent thought to lighten the atmosphere)

  9. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Too funny. Thanks. I prefer concealed but that’s just me. In Virginia, for the near future we are able to open carry without concealed permit. Now that the stupid people have elected another democrat anti-gunner as governor I expect that to change next year. Even as I write this the dem/prog/lib/traitors are attempting to steal the legislature by forcing recount after recount until the flip the one or two seats they need to hijack the state government.

  10. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Just a little subtle elbow nudge: I’m waiting for the final decision in Chas. Nichols’ open carry case. His position is that ONLY open carry is protected by 2A. 9th circus earlier determined that they took no position on whether there is a protected right of open carry (essentially any right to carry).

    Nichol’s is scheduled to brief in Feb ’18 (3-judge panel). He seems to be asserting that California bans on open carry of loaded/unloaded handguns/long guns are unconstitutional on their face (this is a gross summarization of Nichiols’ filing). I suspect the 9th will rule that Californication has the right to regulate guns any way they like. The real challenge (for Nichols and all of us) will be getting the SC to take up “gun rights” again (they prefer annual 1st amendment cases revolving around the forced collection of union dues). And then the fun begins…will other states copy Californication?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I suspect the 9th will rule that Californication has the right to regulate guns any way they like. ”

      Maybe, maybe not.

      To my un-educated perspective, it will depend on the draw of the three judges. *If* we luck out on the draw like we did in the may-issue case in the DC decision a few months back, will the 9th suck it up and take it, not risking national repercussions if it gets to SCOTUS, especially since Kennedy may retire at the end of the term as speculated?

      Something to ponder while we “dream, by the fire” this winter…

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The current status of California law is that open carry is banned in all urban areas, and that there is no constitutional right to a concealed carry permit. Parenthetically, the en banc panel refused to consider the open carry question, leaving that for another day, notwithstanding that the illegality of open carry had been presented to them. Before that, we had open unloaded carry, which, when people started to do so, greatly upset the soccer moms , who called the police, and in my view, is just asking to be robbed by a thief whose gun IS loaded. As noted, Mr. Nichols has oral argument coming up early next year, but he only claims a right to open carry where it is not a governmental building or other gun free zone, which really amounts to “practically nowhere” in any city or town.
      Currently, many are speculating on how the Ninth will get around establishing a right to open carry. I for one hope he loses, as that will open the door to Supreme Court review.
      But even if they overturn the open carry ban, I suspect that we will go back to open unloaded carry by statute. We also have to wait for a year or two to see if our presumed next governor, Gavin Newsom, will attempt to eliminate concealed carry all together, inasmuch as there is no “right” to such a license.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Nichols is declaring that restricting open carry to mean only unloaded firearms, is itself unconstitutional (if I read his brief correctly).

        Win or lose, the Nichols case holds fascinating implications. However, if he loses, I rather doubt the SC will be any more willing to clarify the law than they have been in the past seven years.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “However, if he loses, I rather doubt the SC will be any more willing to clarify the law than they have been in the past seven years.”

          I’ll bet you cash one dollar US if Kennedy retires at the end of term SCOTUS grants cert. on carry constitutionality, if there’s one in the pile of applications.

          Thomas is quite eager to address this…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Kennedy thinks of himself as the mature adult, balancing the wild outbursts of the children. Why would he risk complete humiliation by producing an opening for another child who will overturn all Kennedy’s mature guidance of the court? Kennedy is no fool. He reads the news. He sees the balance of power in the country is precarious. He will likely stay on through 2020, to ensure the “crazies” of the Repugnants do not hold majority control of both houses of congress. If he sees even one power flip, he would feel comfortable that a 4-4 split would be a good thing until Demoncrats can control judicial confirmations for the SC.

          It is folly to think that a “conservative” court would vote 5-4 for “absolute” implementation of the second amendment. If you read the Nichols brief, you will see the litany of precedence in jurisprudence for limiting 2A protection to “open carry” only. And that includes the basis for the reasoning behind Heller. Do not overlook the Heller decision admonition that 2A does not protect the carry of whatever weapon, for whatever reason, wherever the gun owner wishes.

          If Nichols prevails at the SC, and open carry is confirmed as the sole means of bearing arms protected by 2A, the next theater of entertainment becomes watching the anti-gun states repealing all CCW permissions.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Do not overlook the Heller decision admonition that 2A does not protect the carry of whatever weapon, for whatever reason, wherever the gun owner wishes.”

          I *don’t*.

          I *do* think if the court balance turns in our favor, that may issue will be tossed, as it damn well oughtta be.

          If the state wants to deny someone carry, the state should be the one providing good reason why not, not because it offends Cumo’s, or New Jersey’s precious feelings.

          The facts are solidly on our side on that one, as currently permitted carriers are over 5 times more law-abiding than the general population…

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          There are possibly two justices who would be willing to ponder “absolute” regarding 2A. A third “purist” would not be enough to reach that decision. We may get a hearing, but hoping (which is air guitar) that we will ever have five 2A “purists” to rule 2A “absolute” is to waste resources better spent.

          If Nichols prevails, the decision will be whether only, only open carry is the right protected by the second amendment. We will not get a ruling that open carry every and anywhere is protected.

          I really doubt Nichols will get a favorable ruling in the 9th (he potentially has two opportunities), and unfavorable ruling would not likely get review at SC. There have been several opportunities for SC to clarify and solidify the Heller/McDonald rulings, and nothing happened. Indeed, the states and federal courts have been ignoring Heller/McDonald with impunity. They keep being rewarded.

          BTW, do you find it ironic that 2A supports are now adopting the tactics of the left? Trying to get through the courts what we cannot obtain through the states? Looking to the SC to “make people do right”? Our response to leftists has always been, “If you can’t get what you want through the democratic process, suck it up.” Instead of hoping Uncle SC will bring us presents, we should figure out why we can’t win in the states everything we want.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          BTW, do you find it ironic that 2A supports are now adopting the tactics of the left? Trying to get through the courts what we cannot obtain through the states?

          Where constitutionally protected, natural rights are concerned, there is nothing to be righteously “obtained” through the states. We The People already reserved the right to ourselves. The courts are a perfectly justifiable approach to end unconstitutional infringement by the several states.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The courts are a perfectly justifiable approach to end unconstitutional infringement by the several states.”

          So is having every state establish “constitutional carry”. We are losing the battle for “absolute” in the courts, and failing to focus on “religious fervor” of gun owners on state legislatures.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I don’t have a choice here in Florida. So it’s a moot thing. Given a choice in my world and the real one down here. I’d choose open. Scaredy cats aside.

  12. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    But when you open carry a gun you must be on your best behavior. You are an ambassador to the Second Amendment to people who have never seen a gun other than on a police officers hip.

    When I’m not open carrying I wear a shirt that says, NRA, “Keep calm and carry Guns”. I have had more positive reactions than negative. As a black open carrier I get more negative reactions from other blacks than I do from whites. In fact I’ve had several white people shake my hand thanking me for supporting gun rights openly.
    I’m glad I left California.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      Thanx, Chris! But tell us, do you think the generally negative reactions you get from other blacks versus the generally positive reaction from whites could be due to cultural conditioning? The conventional wisdom seems to be that the white population sees gun ownership as a net positive (“I was raised around gun owners and they were nice”) whereas it is said that the black demographic sees it as a net negative due to their experience (“I was raised with a gun owner and he’s in jail now”).
      Personally, I love seeing any clean, presentable member of an underrepresented demographic (black, Asian, Native American, women of any stripe) open carrying a gun and showing the world that it is safe and good. Keep it up!🤠

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        You are correct on the cultural conditioning. While it did start with the race based gun control laws, its the generations of people raised in “gun free zone” government housing projects that today have taught millions of people they can’t have a gun because, the “government” told them they can’t.

        That is why you will see a black person say on TV “guns are only for white people”. Because that has been very true for public housing project residents.

        I have explained to curious blacks they can legally own guns as well. All of the public needs to learn about their American birth right to own guns. And carry them openly in a free state.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I know a well educated black man (a lawyer with an additional masters degree) who said to me at lunch that guns aren’t for black people and the only people who have a bunch of guns are racist white people. I let him finish before telling him exactly how many guns I have. I changed his perspective on guns that day. It may have changed his opinion because he has talked about going to the range with me.

          If I can get him addicted to guns, I will consider it a big win.

  13. avatar JR says:

    It seems like the best reason for having an Open Carry option in addition to Concealed Carry is to stay legal if someone happens to see my Concealed Carry when I reach for my billfold.

    1. avatar larrylarry says:

      exactly. the addition of open carry in Texas was mostly a quality of life improvement for people that already had a CCW. It’s almost 2 years now and I have seen ONE person open carrying. None at places you might expect like Cabelas, Bass Pro, Academy, and none just walking the streets. That one guy was at a Wal-Mart and some old timer was asking him if he was a cop (no).

  14. avatar ConcernedAmerican says:

    Yes i hope so! the problem is if we don’t use it we lose it just like in CA or SC. We need to open carry with Responsibility not just so people call the police on us and we can be jerks to the police. if you are going to open carry the open carry in your daily life don’t go open carry just out of a school zone cause you want people to notice and complain, Or you want youtube views. If you just want attention wear a shirt that says free slaps don’t go giving the gun community a bad reputation.

  15. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    I teach several open and concealed carry methods, so practice all of them at times. There are times and places for CC, though I prefer OC. I have limited it all to on body carry for the last few years. Here in Wyoming, we can carry any way we want. Nobody else cares one way or another. Have not had that argument with anyone in quite some time. 🙂

  16. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

    This debate is as over as the semi-auto vs. revolver, 9mm vs. .45, 1911 vs. polymer, or other “debates.” The overwhelming majority fall on one side, and the vocal minority keep things interesting for them. Yes, there’s things to be said for both sides, but at the end of the day, most people carry 9mm polymer semi-autos.

    Personally I don’t want to OC because of the target it makes me. Also, I’m introverted. But it is tempting. The ease with which you can draw a full sized pistol OWB is amazing. It’s like shooting .22 after shoting .45.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I’ve thought about OC and decided against it for probably the same reasons you have.

      I live in the rural red half of a nominally blue state, but in a blue-dot college town. The police are mostly cool about guns (I’ve had some good conversations with some of them), but there are plenty of progressive nincompoops who are likely to get their undies in a bunch.

      As I rate about 99% on the introversion scale, I really don’t want to argue with any triggered idiots (or have any public conversations at all) if I can avoid it. Plus, if one of those idiots calls the police, that’s a waste of time that both I and the police could put to much better use.

      The clincher is that I don’t have a decent retention holster anyway…and for the above reasons, I’m not motivated to buy one. I’ll OC at home, but everywhere else is CC only.

      To each their own.

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I primarily carry concealed because I live in an area where gun-haters dominate and they have several easy avenues to jail me or ruin me financially for being armed.

    When I am 60+ miles away, I tend to carry openly figuring that none of the gun-haters in my community will see me, although I did run into a neighbor at a farmer’s market 2 hours away one time. Fortunately, I saw her before she saw me.

  18. avatar John says:

    Out of sight out of mind.

  19. avatar strych9 says:

    Yes. Both work just fine. Under certain circumstances one may be more appropriate than the other but that’s ultimately the person carrying’s decision.

  20. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Either or man whatever tickles your pickle, but we’ll still argue about it. Seriously we will damn near punch you out over that, 9mm vs 45, 308 vs 3006, 556 vs 763×39, AR vs AK vs SKS vs Mosin, M1 carbine effectiveness, and Ford vs GM vs Mopar.

    MOPAR or no Car unless a Jeep is involved then it’s MOPAR body, GM engine, Ford rear end, and God only knows drivetrain, M1 carbine can be effective long as the target isn’t Chinese and wrapped in 47 layers of wool, AK FTW Komrades, 7.62×39 is better though less accurate from most rifles it’s chambered in, 30-06 is a better choice than 308 in most applications, and 45 ACP because shooting twice to get their attention is for pansies.

    “Flame on” – Human Torch

    P.S. Picard was the best captain, Greedo shot first, Fallout New Vegas was the worst, and Fall Out 4’s settlement building is the best addition they’ve made to the series so far. There did I get everyone?

    1. 5.56 vs 7.62×39 and .308 vs 30-06 is so last decade!
      Today it’s 6.5 Grendel vs 300 Blackout,
      and 6.5 Creedmoor vs .308
      Get with the program.

      And everyone knows Han Solo shot first. It’s heresy to suggest otherwise!

      1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

        Hans was slow on the draw and Greedo got the jump on him! Were Greedo a better shot Han wouldn’t have ever made it into the Carbonite! 6.5 creedmoor looks better on paper but in use I think the 308 is the better round. 6.5 is still a long range competitor’s boutique round. I’ll take 7.62×39 over both those rounds (Grendel and black), much cheaper and much more plentiful!

        1. ATFAgentBob:
          No, Han Solor shot first. Then Steven Spielberg, who is very anti-gun, remade both movies “Star Wars Episode IV (A New Hope)” and “E.T. the Extraterrestrial” as a Spielberg “Director’s Cut” which was really an “anti-gun cut”. In the “anti-gun cut” of E.T., Spielberg digitally changed the guns to walkie-talkies, which didn’t make sense because the government agents were holding the walkie-talkies like guns and pointing them like guns.
          Spielberg changed the “anti-gun cut” of Star Wars Episode IV (A New Hope) to make Greedo fire first and miss, even though he was only three feet away from Han Solo (sitting at the same table!) so Greedo would have to be the world’s worst shot ever, and Han Solo would have to be the slowest shot ever considering he’d spent 60 seconds getting his gun ready under the table!

          On to your caliber comment:
          6.5 Grendel is NOT more expensive than 7.62 x 39. Granted, 6.5 Grendel has fewer choices, but they’re the same price or cheaper than 7.62 x 39!
          At my favorite store, Wolf ammo in 6.5 Grendel is the same price as Wolf ammo in 7.62 x 39 (500 rounds for $119.69 for 6.5 Grendel = 24 cents per round).
          Hornady ammo in 6.5 Grendel is slightly CHEAPER than 7.62 x 39 as well as better quality, because the Hornady 6.5 Grendel ammo is top-quality “ELD Match” (20 rounds for $18.52) while the Hornady 7.62 x 39 is merely “SST”, a lesser quality bullet (20 rounds for $19.47).

        2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          Cheaper in that I don’t pay shipping and handling on a 20 round box at the local Rural King.

    2. avatar billy-bob says:

      .9mm FTW!

  21. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    When I feel like wasting time arguing with antis I will OC. Mostly I don’t have the willingness to toss my time educating people who are incapable of retaining even a simple lesson.

  22. avatar MyName says:

    Is that an actual .9mm revolver?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Yep. They are out there. You can buy one for your key chain, too.

  23. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I got one paragraph into this article before realizing that it does not square with my TTAG experience on this topic, nor is it likely written by anyone I’ve heard of or who has TTAG experience themselves. No idea who this Hoober goober is. So there is that.

    Sounds like borrowed content from some oafish, assface gun blog and completely out of tenor at TTAG. What’s next? We all start appending our posts with an asinine default signature itemizing our firearms inventories, followed by a lame, apocryphal quote? Good f’ing grief.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Heeeeyyyyy. Not fair. I was gonna say (write) that.

    2. appending our posts with an asinine default signature itemizing our firearms inventories, followed by a lame, apocryphal quote…

      Sounds like fun. Let’s do it!

      BTW, Sam Hoober has been posting as an author here for a couple of months at least. He’s done some decent gun reviews and his articles generally aren’t bad, though he doesn’t punch up to Farago’s weight (but few people do). I’m guessing his byline appears here thanks to whatever deal TTAG seems to have made with Ammoland.

      –Ing</strong
      (Leverguns and Plastic Fantastics. 9mm ftw!)

      “A .30-30 behind every blade of grass.”

  24. avatar Cameron says:

    I would much prefer to open carry if I didn’t believe that it was strategically stu… ummm, unwise.

  25. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    I’ve has one hip replacement already, don’t want another oneneeded. Transportation by EMTs brought pain to a whole other one . You knock me down, or trip over my own by myself, I can’t get up..

    I open carry on walks by myself, when at my brother & sister in law’s Ranch due to bob cats, gray fox, carrier for rabies from time to time. Wildlife camera caught a young feral hog on our property, which is just down the road from our property, shared road close.

    My sister in law open carries when she walks her dogs on the road

    Don’t open carry Down Town in Fredericksburg TX, don’t want to scare the tourists.

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    Alas there’s no open carry in Illinoisistan. I do see OC in nearby Indiana. It even triggered a snowflake twitterpatting at the Comcast office. “No firearms allowed. Comcast is a safezone(!)”. Seriously 😖😫😄😋 Pretty RARE in Hammond,IN…I’d love to opencarry.

  27. avatar Grumpy says:

    It is more about how you open carry IMO. Conceal carry is by its nature non-threatening and even blatant safety issues unseen. Minor brain farts remain just that if you are concealed. Open carry its all out on the table, if you are unsafe, everyone sees it. You wander into a gun free zone and you are arrested. If you are aggressive in stance or poorly dressed, people will assume the worst. Its also location sensitive, out in the country what is perfectly normal and doesn’t raise an eyebrow will set off all sorts of reactions in the city.

  28. avatar MakPA says:

    I think I have THE answer: Promote:
    – Open-Carry in Right-to-Carry States;
    – Concealed-Carry in Won’t-Issue States.
    We begin with the RtC States where Open-Carry is already reasonably well-established and carry-on in an incremental pattern in RtC States where Open-Carry is legal but not well established. (There is little we can do in the Won’t-Issue States, but it’s obvious that promoting Open-Carry there is not especially productive).

    Let’s face it, California residents move to TX, AZ, NM etc. NJ residents move to PA. The Won’t-Issue States are killing themselves economically and their progressive residents are fleeing to RtC States and spreading their contaminated thinking. We MUST STOP this phenomena! Failing to do so, we will watch 51/49% RtC States turn into 49/51% Won’t-Issue States! For this to happen hurts gun-owners nationally.

    Nationwide, PotG depend upon the staunchest RtC States to retain control of the Senate to stop gun-control legislation. Lose the Senate and any gun-control legislation will pass. Lose the Senate and any anti-gun judge can be appointed to the Federal bench.

    DO YOU GET THIS PotG? Survival of the 2A depends on the SENATE ALONE; and the SENATE is controlled by the RIGHT-to-CARRY STATES.

    Take Texas as an example. Imagine if Texans Open-Carried in Austin and other major cities. How hard would this be to accomplish? If we can’t do this, what chance do gun-rights have anywhere?

    Now, California residents visiting Austin will see Open-Carry with their own eyes. Will they be eager to abandon California and move to Austin? What more could Texans do for themselves to save their State from the ravages of Progressives?

    Now, admittedly, Austin is already a progressive enclave; and, that isn’t going to change much. However, progressives living in Austin can accustom themselves to Open-Carry; what choice would they have but to adapt? Over time, Austin progressives would begin to accommodate themselves to guns-in-civilian-hands. They would remain progressives in ALL respects – it’s just that guns would NOT be the litmus test for supporting/opposing candidates – – – for Senate. Conservative Texans could then elect Senators who were right on gun-rights without having to overcome the votes of gun-control Austin residents (and those progressives dwelling in other major metropolitan areas).

    Texas candidates for the US House who aspire to become candidates for Senate would likely find that gun-control isn’t such an important issue either; even in the district that covers Austin (etc.) Texas candidates for the State legislature who aspire to the US House would reach the same conclusion.

    Surely there must be Texan gun-rights advocates who must occasionally go to Austin for business or pleasure. In Austin, they needn’t fear that they will be seen and criticized for Open-Carrying by – e.g. – members of their church. When they get out of their cars, strap-up. When they reach their appointment in Austin, put their gun-belts in a briefcase.

    We Pencil-tuckians can do the same when we go to Philadelphia; and, so forth.

    It’s important to do so with style. E.g., ware a 3-piece suit and a fancy gun-belt like the Lone Ranger (or some such thing). Start-off with a parade of such people. The important thing is to do so while making an obvious POLITICAL statement, NOT a PERSONAL-THREAT statement.
    – Californians are not welcome to bring their anti-gun sentiments to Texas;
    – New Jersey dwellers are not welcome to bring their anti-gun sentiments to PA.
    Stay where you are; or, if you come here – be prepared to accommodate yourselves to our gun-rights way of life.

    My impression is that AZ and NM are the IDEAL places to begin such a movement. It is ALREADY well established that these States are RtC-Openly places. Migrants from other States better learn to accommodate themselves to “our” way of life – or stay where you are. If 10% of the gun-owners in these 2 States were to make a commitment to maintain an Open-Carry practice in the major metropolitan areas, then the movement would become “a thing” that would easily establish itself in Texas. And so, move throughout the SouthWest.

    If 10% of the gun-owners in other regions – say Michigan or Pennsylvania – picked-up the practice when traveling to major metropolitan areas of their States, the practice would spread. It’s a way a small but dedicated group of gun-rights advocates can defend their rights in their home-States and maintain control over their States’ Senators.

    Observe that it is NOT necessary for everyone to always Open-Carry. If your town is gun-friendly then go-ahead and open-carry in your town. If your town is gun-shy, then open-carry when you go to liberal cities where you won’t bump into your neighbors. Begin with group marches, then follow up with Open-Carry Fridays. You don’t have to open-carry your gun loaded; you don’t have to open-carry a working gun – a facsimile will suffice. There goes the excuse of getting your gun stolen. It will suffice if we reached the point that anyone in Austin or Philadelphia would see an open-carrier once or twice a day on average. Something would have to give at some point. Hopefully, the movement would grow and the average Austin/Philadelphia resident would see 6 – 12 – 18 open-carriers a day. Hopefully, we would keep-up the movement long enough (10 – 20 years) that progressives in these cities would no longer take notice when they saw open-carry in their home-towns. Hopefully, visitors from California or New Jersey would see and decide to stay where they are if they remain hoplophobes.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Would you be suggesting some kind of training for Open Carry permits for Open Carry when not on your own property?

      Are police officers given sidearms before they are trained to carry in public?

      1. avatar JR says:

        Would you be suggesting some kind of training for Open Carry permits for Open Carry when not on your own property?

        Are police officers given sidearms before they are trained to carry in public?

        It must be confusing to police officers to step into an environment where everyone is openly carrying a sidearm more powerful with larger magazines than the one they are carrying, and they are responding to a call to investigate an assault with a deadly weapon.

        What do you think of … When we are on our own property or legally hunting, or walking isolated public lands Open Carry makes sense without a permit?

        What do you think about requiring training and an open carry permit for Open Carry in densely populated environments?

        I think it wise to work with law enforcement. Do you know of a better way to work with law enforcement, than to require training and permitting of Open Carry in densely populated environments? Again, this would not apply to carrying on one’s own property, while legally hunting, or in isolated areas of public lands, and I’m sure there are other scenarios that also make sense but are not coming to mind at the moment.

  29. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I want a rig just like the Lone Rangers. Since I don’t have that I just carry my cell phone in my pocket, set on speed dial 911. Support your local Law Enforcement

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      kys.

  30. avatar anonymoose says:

    It depends on the occasion. Concealed normally, OC for special things.

  31. avatar Kendahl says:

    My preference is for concealment good enough that non-gunners won’t even suspect I’m carrying. This has substantial social advantages. Many places aren’t posted, not because the owners support carry, but because they simply haven’t thought about it. Deep concealment gives them no reason to start thinking. In areas where signs do not have the force of law, open carry or inadequate concealment will get you ejected and, probably, banned.

  32. avatar TP says:

    I don’t know what the “debate” is, if you wanna open carry – do it, if not – conceal it. Don’t quibble over pro-gun rights.

  33. avatar Kyle says:

    I live on the left coast, open carry = no carry for me. I’d be immediately blackballed. my business would cease to exist, and I’d be lucky to walk around the block without police being called.

    ….and I live in a good area of town!

  34. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    I don’t really believe the argument that open carrying makes one likely to be the target of criminal activity. I think it would make one less likely to be targeted by criminals.

    That said, I generally go with lazy conceal carry because it isn’t a crime to open carry. I’m not to worried about someone glimpsing my gun. The reason I go with concealed is to avoid the hassle from haters and morons. If I was independently wealthy (see NSFW clip), I’d open carry 90-95% of the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I don’t really believe the argument that open carrying makes one likely to be the target of criminal activity”

      Think it through. Some posit that open carry announces, “Hey, I have a neato handgun available for taking if you can sneak up on me, quietly”.

      And there have been actual attacks and thefts of open carriers.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Think it through. Some posit that open carry announces, “Hey, I have a neato handgun available for taking if you can sneak up on me, quietly”.

        And there have been actual attacks and thefts of open carriers.

        Too few to be anything more than statistical noise. The only real, common denominator is that the targeted victim lacked necessary situational awareness.

        By contrast, the criminal psyche is reasonably-well understood at this point. Criminals tend to develop tunnel vision, and are not likely to notice an inconspicuously open-carried firearm peripheral to his chosen target.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Those attacked and robbed of their guns are not impressed by the “statistically insignificant” label.

          My comment was not in support or opposition to either means of carry (my .22 peashooter is too large to carry outside a box or bag). Just pointing out that experience shows sometimes open carry results in unintended consequence. Not something to be casually ignored by everyone.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        There are actual attacks on concealed carriers. That doesn’t mean causation (which, according to you, is impossible to prove anyway). I just think that open carrying a gun is more likely to deter a criminal to attack than it is to incentivize a criminal to attack. I also think planning on a mass shooting situation instead of “every day” crime is doing things backwards.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I take no position, either way; none.

  35. avatar William Kelly says:

    I carry concealed. Not because it keeps others from being uncomfortable, though that is a plus. I carry concealed because I don’t want someone won’t get the drop on me ad so I can get the drop on them. Simple logic

  36. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Do what you want.

    Don’t blame me when you’re shot first because you’re open carrying.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The interesting thing here is: the question isn’t which carry method is better than the other, but rather whether or not POTG can stop debating the merits.

      It is clear, based on responses such as this one, that the answer is, “no.”

      In that context, I’d be happy to entertain any empirical evidence you have of open carriers being “shot first.”

  37. avatar miforest says:

    I think open carry has really highlighted the fact that you can carry without a ton of red tape and licenses . when Shall issue passed Michigan the cops at first harassed , threated and even arrested people who carried with a permit. Then some farsighted people formed Michigan open carry. the organization provided information and legal support for open carry to normalize firearms in public . It worked very well , after winning a few lawsuits, they settled for having firearm law training for the officers in the losing municipalities. Police became much less concerned and all kinds of carry have been pretty much normalized now. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/03/open_carry_march.html

  38. avatar Paul says:

    There is a place for open carry. Not to make political statements, as too many try to. But for folks n wilds (sportsmen, agricultural workers, many other fields in the outdoors where a threat (especially a wildlife one) may be encountered. In “civilization”,less so. Obviously, the soccer moms being offended means another voice against us. But more importantly, open carry marks one as a target. A POS knows you are a source of a gun. Do you want to carry in a level two or three security holster, and constantly maintain your ability to use it? An armed POS knows you are the first target when his time to act is there. Yes, cops open carry. They are also highly identifiable, with uniforms, or if plain clothes at least a badge displayed, and thus a target…and often are targeted for that reason. Been there, done that. I prefer concealed carry for that tactical edge. If you are where open carry is permitted, and do so, well good for you. I will try to cover your six…

  39. avatar Alan says:

    Years ago, it was in the mid 1960’s, while working at Allied Chemical in Hopewell, Va., I stopped into a diner type place in Petersberg one Saturday afternoon. Sitting at the counter, I noticed the guy sitting next to me was armed, he had a small framed pistol in a belt holster. No activity between this man and myself, and his being armed bothered me not at all, other people might have felt differently, that being their problem

  40. avatar Ro M Gall says:

    As a resident of a state that does not have a shall issue clause in its constitution, I am forced to either carry illegally or not at all. Both scenarios have consequences. That leaves me with a choice to leave the state. Tax paying, soon to be retired, departing…with my money!

  41. avatar Roymond says:

    I don’t care how you carry so long as you’re happy with it. I do care that for the most part concealed carry these days means surrendering yourself to the state to be treated like a criminal in order to exercise a protected right. I don’t think highly of the message that sends the government.

  42. “Concealed carry affords you the element of surprise. No one knows you’re packing unless and until you reveal your sidearm.”

    That is why concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. What do you think the Supreme Court was referring to when it said in the Heller decision that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and secret advantage and unmanly assassination is not a right?

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.””

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…”

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897)

    Also, concealed carry is of no use to me. I don’t carry a purse or wear a dress.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Also, concealed carry is of no use to me. I don’t carry a purse or wear a dress.

      Can we stop arguing about method of carry?

      No. Because this sort of bigotry exists on both sides of the debate.

  43. avatar Mikey Mike says:

    Can we stir up an argument about not arguing? Really? Somedays I just cannot internet.

  44. avatar John W. says:

    Just a question, why do many law enforcement officers that open carry on duty, at the same time, also carry a backup concealed firearm?

  45. avatar JR says:

    Does anyone disagree with “Backup in any situation, makes sense.” ?

    Police are trained for situational awareness.

    How do we encourage only those with situational awareness mastery to OC?

    There will always be differing opinions, just like there are many religions. Even though the same physical and spiritual “laws” of the Universe govern all creatures, we take sides that seem to protect the social “programming” into which we were born/raised and continue to dwell. As with some unbelievable religious “beliefs” they don’t make any sense, yet those beliefs help to distinguish the “aware” from the “unaware”.

    Point is … When we rationally look at specific situations in detail, I think we will find that there is less division between OC & CC perspectives, and those that do not align probably wouldn’t align with any well-reasoned approach.

    That’s my sermon for today.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email