Previous Post
Next Post

Michael LaMay (courtesy wzzm13.com)

Click here to watch the autoplay video of a Muskegon Heights, Michigan man who carries a rifle to and from the bus stop to protect his daughter. “I’ve been doing this on a daily basis, every day she goes to school. To make sure she gets there safely and home safely,” Michael LaMay told wzzm13.com. So far so good. And Mr. LeMay has every right to do so. But c’mon. Really? Here are three reason why you shouldn’t open carry a rifle in a non-apocalyptic urban environment. . .

1. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t very handy

Most long gun open carriers use a sling to schlep their rifle/shotgun, leaving their hands free for the things people need hands for when they’re out and about. Yes, well, have you tried carrying a rifle with a sling all day? Or even a few hours? They damn thing gets mighty cumbersome mighty quick. Talk about chafing!

2. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t tactically sound

While I’m sure that most long gun carriers are more operationally operational than Mr. LeMay (a scoped Savage?), it’s not easy bringing a long gun into action – unless you carry the firearm in the low- or high-ready position. Which tends to scare good guy non-combatants even more than normal.

A [non low- or high-ready] long gun’s especially clunky to bring to bear compared to a properly holstered handgun. Especially when that properly holstered handgun is being carried openly (should open carry be what floats your boat).

Also, the armed civilian’s first and best response to a lethal threat is to escape or evade the attacker(s). Running with a long gun isn’t all that easy either. Add a daughter to the team and how are you going to grab her and bring your long gun to bear and fire while running for cover or concealment? Not that you couldn’t have a handgun as well, but you know what I mean.

3. Open carrying a long gun in the city makes you the target

I’m not speaking here of the “shoot-me-first” conundrum that is open carry, generally. I’m talking about responding police officers.

AFTER an attack, when your gun’s hot and the perp is not, you want to put your gun away. [NB: That’s providing you’re no longer in danger. If you are in danger, hang on to your gun, leave the scene, holster ASAP and call 911. You have no legal obligation to disarm or remain at a dangerous crime scene.] A long gun isn’t easy to holster, is it? A cop sees you at an urban crime holding a long gun? Say goodnight Dick.

And, of course, there’s the “he’s a spree killer!” prejudice against people carrying long guns in urban environments. What’s that all about? I remember when teachers carried rifles to school to use as blackboard pointers. Yes, well, as Mr. LeMay discovered, the police didn’t get the memo from 1957. So it is what it is. And what it is is SWAT bait. Or . . . it stops being bad guy protection when the police (and neighbors with proverbial pitch forks) start thinking the bad guy is you.

Better to open carry a handgun. If you want deterrence, it’s gotta be a Smith & Wesson 686 in a proper holster. It’s eye candy for the kids! It’s nostalgia for the oldies! It’s death-on-a-stick for the bad guys! As opposed to the scary ass (to the po-po and the public) boom stick that is an openly carried long gun.

Previous Post
Next Post

218 COMMENTS

  1. Tactically unsound and hard to bring into action? Don’t we always say that a pistol is what you used to fight your way back to your rifle?

    While being obviously armed does present some tactical disadvantages, openly carrying a rifle has got to be a 99.999% deterrent. There are just too many unarmed people to go goofing with the one guy who brought a rifle to the party. The press coverage likely helps, if you know that there is going to be a guy schlepping a rifle around the block perhaps crime pays better somewhere else.

    That is an odd choice for a defensive arm, but the first rule is have a gun, and perhaps that’s the only gun he has.

    • it’s a very inexpensive gun, a $1000 AR is probably out of his price range and a $500 bolt gun might be a bit impractical. Cheapy .22 is good enough for him. Also the people whining about open carry, just stop being ridiculous. It’s a right protected by law. If you don’t like it, treat as you would hate speech and move away from it.

      • If he insists on openly carrying a long gun to protect his daughter, I’d think he’d have enough common sense to get himself an inexpensive shotgun, load it up, and go from there. A whole lot more effective than lugging that scoped hunting rifle around.

        • Perhaps, cost aside, it would be illegal to do so where he lives.

          I don’t know the Michigan law in detail, but I do recall they vary not only by type of firearm (pistol, rifle, shotgun) but also by location within the state.

          All that aside .. It’s not my choice to make, it’s his.

        • The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?”
          “NO Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”

        • Forget whether or not open carry is valid, consider WHERE he’s open carrying.

          I grew up in that area. In Muskegon Heights today I’d be carrying a back up rifle as well….

      • The right to open carry a rifle is beside the point. There’s a time when things are a good idea, and a time when those same things are a bad idea. If I was to walk down Compton yelling out “Nigger” as loud as I could, even though I have the right to free speech, does that make it a good idea? Hell no.

        Just, for the love of God, Allah, science, whatever, don’t be stupid in your actions. Don’t take the attitude of “It’s MY rights and fuck anyone else who has a problem with me exercising MY rights”. You’re taking the same attitude as those who would seek to take your guns, or the rights to possess and carry them, from you. Use discretion.

        • Succinctly put.

          I’d like to see the OC-fanatics crowd exercise their First Amendment rights in the way you describe.

          That would be “interesting.”

          I fear the point will still be lost on the radical OC advocates.

        • You’re torturing the analogy. Yes, it’s a comparison, of sorts, of the exercise of two rights, but the similarities end there and so should the validity of any conclusions drawn.

        • No “torturing” at all, you just don’t happen to like it because it underscores the stupidity of the kind of unthinking, fanatical OC thinking we see on this blog site each time the issue comes up.

        • I rarely find myself agreeing with Paul, but he’s got you here. Like the whole chipotle thing: sure, you’re allowed to do it, but why would you when it’s deliberately provocative? If “I’m legally allowed to do this” is your best justification, you’re probably doing it wrong. This guy is worried about protecting his daughter. Fine. The reason I got into guns was for personal protection. Concealed carry is a much more effective and less provocative/dangerous option. Plus, dude leading around a young girl while toting a rifle makes law enforcement jump to a completely different conclusion…

        • Paul. You haven’t sat down and talked with this man as to why he made this decision; the crime rates for the Muskegon heights, (as Googled) is five times the national average. OC’ing a gun might be the best action to a possible verbal or actual threat made towards him or his daughter. Making definitive statements as to his motivations before all the facts are is, Ummm, inadvisable.

          Mean while you continue with your hypocrisy in your continuing ad-hominem attacks in your attempts to dehumanize and degrade gun owners you disagree with, “the stupidity of the kind of unthinking, fanatical OC thinking we see on this blog site each time the issue comes up.”

          One of many examples of your continuing of “do as I say and not as I do”.
          You may not realize that to use character attacks when you are threatened by another persons beliefs or actions you disagree with is a very strong sign of insecurity.

        • Why does everyone agreeing with me lately have to preface their remarks by saying they don’t often agree with me?

          Can’t we all just get along?

          Bring it in for a big group hug, except you, Anon.

          Go pound sand, or your pet monkey, whatever works for you bro.

        • FLAME DELETED. I know what you are, McCain. You can’t help but reveal it. Third-rate employee.

        • ThomasR, have you noticed that you rarely, if ever, have anything of any substance to contribute to conversations on TTAG, other than to whine about how you don’t like my posts, accuse me of ad hominem, while indulging it in it yourself?

          Kind of funny, if you ask me.

          Now run along and have your mommy wipe your tears, pat you on the head and tell you what a good boy you are.

          LOL.

        • Oh, Paul: And your continued inability to disagree with someone without using derogatory, demeaning and insulting remarks. Either you are a twelve year old trying to act like a grown up and failing miserably; or you are an adult that never learned what the word mature meant.

        • Yeah; WB; Paul actually accused two other posters of being paid government stooges; it is strange that he would say such thing. Maybe it was a guilty conscious; or an attempt at deflection. It would explain a lot.

    • +1 A sling is not a handle or a purse strap. A sling is the one accessory I have on all my rifles. It’s part of my stance and I practice bringing the gun to bear from a slung position. Make sure it is adjusted to the proper length and know how to carry it so it can come from your back to on target all while being an asset, not a nuisance.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=hasty+sling

      -1 on the scope though, for many reasons I’m too lazy to detail here

      • Maybe you can show us how well you do bringing a hunting rifle with the sling this guy has, on target, and making accurate shots at a moving target from, oh, let’s say, ten yards away with a hunting scope.

        THAT is one of the major points of RF’s article.

        • I don’t know what difference “hunting” makes. His tools not tacticool enough for you? My battle rifles are more manageable with a sling that without so whatever this carries is not as bulky as a Mosin or Mauser. But don’t believe me. I’m only repeating what Appleseed, Elmer Keith and many others have said.

          As to 10 yards, you pulled that distance out of your backside; but at any range I’d rather have a rifle or shotgun than a handgun. A target is only moving relative to your position if it’s trying to get past you. 1000 yards or 2 if it’s closing on you the bearing doesn’t change. Now I have to carry a trench gun to satisfy the mission requirements of your tactical fantasies?

        • Where do you live where you’re legally allowed to shoot someone at 10 yards and call it “defense”? You have some issues.

        • Anon, you betray your ignorance, again.

          How fast can a person holding a knife get to you from thirty feet away?

          Answer that question and you, maybe, will get this figured out.

        • At 5′ 9″, I have a 22″ stride when walking normally. At a sprint, 10 yards would be a few seconds. You’d either have to be really fucking quick and really fucking lucky to unlimber that rifle and get an accurate shot off before I’m on you.

          This is all assuming someone charges you from a distance instead of just walking up and sticking you once said person’s within arm’s reach. Or would you just point your gun at any swinging dick that happens to be walking on the sidewalk at the same time as you?

        • @Paul T McCain

          Since the MDA, oops, I mean TTAG, censorati have deleted my reply, I’ll answer your question again:

          If you were the knife-wielding person in question, I would have 30 minutes for you to traverse the 30 ft due to your … physique. I would have time to sit there, have a cup of coffee, and walk away while you took 5 breaks, wheezing, on the way there.

        • @Ben
          You are assuming the person is staying still or is going to shot you with the rifle instead of striking you with it to get space and then firing.

          fact is no one knows how fast he is capable in getting his weapon in the ready, his fighting experience, and etc.

          So its absurd to talk with any certainty at all about the weapon he is carrying or how its worthless or untacticool and etc.

          Its a damn shame when the mayor of the town offers more support for the man in saying what he is doing is perfectly legal, than a supposed pro 2nd amendment gun blog

    • Those were my thoughts as well. More power to him!

      I have carried a rifle all day. Know how to run with it as well.

      My pistol is used to get to my long gun….but then I have to pick one. 🙂

    • I read the rest of the post Ardent; you make one of the most calm, rational and sound statement as the first post; and then it goes downhill from there.

      I noticed that the man said that as long as he is “living in Muskegon heights” he would keep carrying the gun to pick up his daughter.

      So what’s so special about Muskegon Heights? I googled crime rates for the M.H., it turns out to have five times the national average for violent crime rates. It doesn’t go into detail as to if there was a defining event that caused this man to make this type of choice about OC’ing a rifle to protect his daughter. But I bet you there is an actual personal threat that was said or done to this man or his daughter to have him make this decision.

      To me, many of the posts are really just projections of each persons prejudice for or against OC’ing. without the information to make an informed decision on whether this man was being reasonable or not.

    • ” if you know that there is going to be a guy schlepping a rifle around the block perhaps crime pays better somewhere else. ”

      Hoo-RAH! It’s obvious, despite whatever Joe Friday always said, that crime DOES pay. Or else there wouldn’t be many criminals.

      And the best we can ever do is to ensure that, by our actions and our preparation, the crime will go someplace else.

      +100,000

  2. Love all these fruitcakes open carrying rifles into restaurants and bus stops. Even the Marines leave their weapons outside the chow hall.

    • Aside from boot camp, where you’d have a gear guard posted, I’ve never seen a Marine leave his rifle, pistol, or weapon outside any DFAC in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, or wherever else that we might carry. Walk up to the clearing barrel, go Condition 4, step on in, get your chow, maintain control of your weapon while eating, get up, and go. All with your weapon on your person. The furthest a weapon would wander would be our SAW gunners resting their weapons underneath them on the floor, bipod down, muzzle away.

    • Are you kidding me? Some of the most infamous spree killings with the highest body counts have been carried out in restaurants. The Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre. The Port Arthur Massacre. The San Ysidro McDonald’s shooting. There’s also Britain’s Levy Bellfield, aka “The Bus Stop Killer”, whose victims included a 13 year old schoolgirl.

      These are just off the top of my head and I could likely think of others. These should suffice to rebut the notion that restaurants and bus stops are some kind of magic fairy-protected safe zones where nothing sinister could ever happen and only “fruitcakes” think otherwise.

    • You and your FLAME DELETED name-calling again.

      It ain’t flattering, and it sure as HELL ain’t free.

    • show me a Marine that is more than arms-length from his/her weapon, and I will show you a Marine about to get chewed out by his/her Gunnery Sergeant

  3. Lets try not to dive into the “Open carry is bad” pool all at once as an overreaction to a couple of jackwagons in Texas.

    • It’s not just a couple of jackwagons, it is way too many people who are so rabidly advocating for open carry they will not even pause for a moment to consider tactics, sound reasoning, and proper behavior for open carrying and, if they are doing it to “make a statement” not consider that they are only, pardon the expression, shooting themselves in the foot.

      • So Paul, you agree with the 2nd Amendment, but with conditions, exclusions, and asterisks? In other words, you don’t?!?

        • Again, the tone-deafness of some people boggle the mind. There’s an appropriate time to exercise your rights, and then there’s an inappropriate time.

          If I walked into a gay bar and yelled out “Fuck all you faggots, First Amendment bitch!”, even though I do have the right to free speech, that doesn’t make it a good idea to say what I did.

          Don’t be dumb, please. You only make it worse for yourself and everyone else.

        • He only supports rights when hidden from view. He disguises his church as a Wal-Mart so as to not offend people of other religions….wouldn’t want to be considered a first amendment fanatic.

        • Damn straight, he doesn’t. Give thanks and praise Paul McCain isn’t on my shoulder, chirruping in my ear.

      • And yet, Paul, despite the antics of these jack wagons rabidly (which implies they’re crazy) demonstrating for open carry, we have BOTH major party candidates for Texas Governor this year vowing to support open carry legislation. Of course, the Democrat is lying straight through her capped teeth, but it still speaks volumes that even a lying liberal must pretend to favor open carry if she’s to be taken seriously in the race. So much for your “shooting themselves in the foot” crazy man theory. I imagine the sting of being so wrong gets easier with such great frequency as you’ve experienced, right?

        • Yes….you have it right! The two candidates back OC in spite of idiots like you denouncing it, and because plenty of savvy firearms owners with suitable amounts of gray matter have made their opinions on the matter clear.

  4. None of your reasons for dismissing his open carry are valid.
    They are your opinion and pretty ill informed and reasoned on top of that.

    1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.

    Handy is subjective, if the man remembers to open carry and does it in a responsible way I don’t see how you can claim the act isn’t hand to him.

    2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right. They need to put articles of clothing over their weapon, then if they need it they can do a tactically sound shirt sweep. SMH.

    Tactics are determined by the situation internet commando. You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.

    3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
    Oh police might shoot you, are you serious?
    Police shooting innocent people happens when people don’t even have guns, and most importantly from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.

    Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.

    • COMMENT MODERATED

      “1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.”

      They are soldiers in active combat zones, carrying their AR rifles on two point slings, usually in low ready, with quick target acquiring optics. This guy is schlepping a hunting rifle with a scope. He could not get off a kill shot quickly enough no matter how hard he tried were some BG to come up to him with a handgun.

      Plus, show me examples of police routinely walking around with their scoped sniper rifles on patrol.

      POINT FAIL.

      “2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right”

      If you would have bothered to read RF’s comments, you would see he is talking about THIS guy carring a scoped hunting rifle. The police carry their sidearms openly. Huge difference. No, the guy was not doing it right.
      POINT FAIL.

      “You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.”

      English syntax fail.
      Proper writing. You don’t has it.
      POINT FAIL

      “3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
      from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.”

      From a logical stance what you said just makes no sense. RF’s point is that if you stroll around with your scoped hunting rifle, yes, you do make yourself a “target” for the police who will, logically, be somewhat interested in a man strolling his neighborhood with a hunting rifle.

      Logic. You don’t has it.
      POINT FAIL.

      “Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.”

      Seems to me that the only Call of Duty wannabe here is the guy carrying his Savage hunting rifle with a big old hunting optic on it.
      POINT FAIL

      • So let me get this straight.

        The critique is that open carrying a rifle is not handy, I bring up that obviously it is handy for the man doing it and it seems handy to soldiers in warzones. To this your response is but those are modern rifles, he is carrying a hunting rifle. You seem to really believe the type of rifle matters with regard to the response I made which is that obviously the rifle is comfortable to him and obviously open carrying a long rifle is demonstrably handy to the people who do it with their life on the line.

        You do this and have the nerve to call those who support open carry as being mentally unsound. SMH

        I read the post, open carrying itself even with a hunting rifle and scope is not tactically unsound until we have a actual situation which to put the action in context. That is what you and the author don’t seem to understand. Tactically is derived from Tactics, tactics are the though process of completing a task. We aren’t presented with a task to complete so any talk of tactics or an action being tactically unsound is ridiculous on its face because there is nothing to evaluate. Its nothing more than back patting by anti-open carry advocates to try to give weight to their preference of concealed carry. Typical of the action of most anti-gunners actually.

        Now the final point, I’m sorry if what I wrote makes no sense to you. It is pretty clear though and I don’t have the ability to think for you. The fact is the police’s actions are just that the action of the police, not the gun owner. If the gun owner is legally meeting all his obligations then he is not at fault for the police violating his right because of their own fears. So again, its a bogus argument that logically is close to blaming a woman being raped for “dressing sexy”.

        Get it together man.

        Stop trying to attack people on your side like your critiques are anything else other than your opinion.

        • [The critique is that open carrying a rifle is not handy, I bring up that obviously it is handy for the man doing it and it seems handy to soldiers in warzones.] [You seem to really believe the type of rifle matters with regard to the response I made which is that obviously the rifle is comfortable to him]

          See my post below. Rifle carry in a war zone is a necessity, it is not comfortable. Carrying a holstered handgun is more comfortable than slinging a rifle, that is just a fact, not really an opinion. If you say otherwise, you haven’t carried a rifle long enough.

          [I read the post, open carrying itself even with a hunting rifle and scope is not tactically unsound until we have a actual situation which to put the action in context.]

          We ARE talking about a specific situation, with context. If you had read and comprehended the post, you would know that we are discussing a man who carries a rifle every day to the bus stop with his daughter. I suppose if he really wanted to be “tactically sound”, he could cover her from a concealed position, and be ready to snipe the waves of hajis that will be attacking. But carrying a slung, scoped rifle while walking in the suburbs? I guarantee a holstered handgun would be faster into action.

          [Tactically is derived from Tactics, tactics are the though process of completing a task.]

          wat?

          [Now the final point, I’m sorry if what I wrote makes no sense to you. It is pretty clear though and I don’t have the ability to think for you. The fact is the police’s actions are just that the action of the police, not the gun owner. If the gun owner is legally meeting all his obligations then he is not at fault for the police violating his right because of their own fears. So again, its a bogus argument that logically is close to blaming a woman being raped for “dressing sexy”.

          Get it together man.]

          Again, we are not discussing the ethics of police shootings here, wrong article. I know a lot of people jump at the chance to blame the cops for almost anything, but that is just not the point here. You may not be at fault if you get accidentally shot by the police while brandishing your rifle at a crime scene, and you may have all of the righteous justice of the heavens on your side, but you will still be just as dead. I’ll stick to my handgun.

        • I saw your critique wulfgren and it still does not address the contention I made.
          the charged levied by RF was that open carrying a long rifle is not handy.
          To that I said sure it is handy to open carry a long rifle, if it wasn’t soldiers in warzones and policing the world over wouldn’t shoulder rifles.

          carrying a holster handgun might be more handy to you, but obviously it isn’t more handy for this person. See again, handy is relative to the individual involved, you can’t transpose your feelings and preferences onto someone else.


          No we aren’t talking about a specific situation, because he is simply walking his daughter to school armed. There is no situation to evaluate any tactics because the only objective he has is walking his daughter to the bus stop and picking her up from the bus stop. So I guess while you are fighting a war in your head of what could, should, and might happen, he is living his life, protecting himself and protecting his daughter with his weapon of choice. Really end of the discussion after that.

          You aren’t discussing the ethics of shooting but you are saying he is to blame if he gets killed by a cop because he is exercising his right.

          Like I said before your stance is akin to blaming a woman for getting raped for “dressing too sexy” It isn’t a law abiding citizens job to make sure everything in their life is done to appease cops. It is the cop’s responsibility to make sure that he performs his actions properly. Period.

          So the whole critique of making himself a target for the police is a non starter, because it isn’t the gun owners job to provide the police anything, especially, ESPECIALLY when he is exercising his rights and not violating the law.

        • Not sure I should jump in the middle of this, but a coupla things stuck out as I’ve read the back and forth’s here.

          One of the sticking points seems to revolve around whether or not carrying a scoped hunting rifle around is ‘handy’. Handy is subjective with no obvious right or wrong answer. If all you own is a hunting rifle with a scope, and you want to be armed when you’re out and about, it’s pretty handy. Right? But if you own a sidearm, along with that rifle, then no – most would say it’s not nearly as handy for what this dude is doing.

          Tactics. Another very subjective point. Whether or not it’s tactically sound to carry around a scoped hunting rifle depends on your goals, your environment, and your training. If you want to hunt deer, it’s obviously tactically sound to carry around a scoped hunting rifle. If you live in town, wish to be armed, and only own a scoped hunting rifle, it’s tactically sound to carry said rifle. Now, is it the most tactically sound move possible? Again, depends. If he has a sidearm, I’d say no. Unless he’s carrying low and ready, he isn’t going to be able bring that rifle to bear nearly as quickly, or as securely, as a holstered sidearm. Especially if he is accosted from behind. If he finds himself in an ‘announced’ SD situation, where he can see the threat coming and has time to take cover and prepare, the rifle will be superior. If he’s attacked without warning, odds are that rifle will be difficult to bring into action and a different weapon would be preferable.

          We can go on and on and debate tactics all day, coming up with scenario after scenario, and not have a clear answer. It’s probably why the gun market is so diverse.

          I will say this though – the idea that something is a ‘right’, and because of that ‘dammit I’m going to do it’ and there’s nothing wrong with that is itself, wrong. Principle and the reality of our current political environment are often at opposing ends of the spectrum. People use the ‘if I yell nigger’ in the hood as an analogy, and frankly, it’s an accurate one. Because of stuff like that, we now have hate speech laws on the books that openly infringe on the 1st Amendment, in the same way that CC laws, open carry laws, etc, infringe on the 2nd. So while carrying a rifle around town may very well be your right, I’m not of the opinion that’s it’s the best way to secure the future of that right.

          We need to be very thoughtful and give consideration to the bigger picture when we decide to become activists.

          Anyway, carry on (pun intended)…

        • @David

          [See again, handy is relative to the individual involved, you can’t transpose your feelings and preferences onto someone else.]

          What in the world makes you think I am trying to “transpose” my feelings and preferences on someone else? I think his choice is a poor one, but he can do as he pleases. When you carry out actions in public, you must expect that there will be scrutiny of your actions. My expressed opinion is in no way a command to anyone, or even an attempt to say that he shouldn’t be able to do it.

          [No we aren’t talking about a specific situation, because he is simply walking his daughter to school armed. There is no situation to evaluate any tactics because the only objective he has is walking his daughter to the bus stop and picking her up from the bus stop.]

          That….is a specific situation. Unless the man comes under fire from a dug in position at least dozens of meters away, I can’t see a situation where the rifle would be a good choice. And again, just to reinforce, I am NOT saying he shouldn’t be able to do it, I am just saying that I think it is a poor choice. That is my opinion, no more, no less.

          [So I guess while you are fighting a war in your head of what could, should, and might happen]

          wat?

          [he is living his life, protecting himself and protecting his daughter with his weapon of choice.]

          Good for him. Have I said he shouldn’t want to protect his daughter?

          [You aren’t discussing the ethics of shooting but you are saying he is to blame if he gets killed by a cop because he is exercising his right.]

          Lamenting the likely outcome of a choice is not the same as saying he should be “blamed”. I believe it is not unlikely that he would be shot by the police in a crisis, however my estimation of the odds is not ascribing blame, per se. As I have stated, my arguments have nothing to do with the ethics involved, that is another debate for another day. However, exercising rights comes with responsibility. And AGAIN, I am not saying he shouldn’t have the right, I am merely expressing my opinion on his actions.

          Also, your rape analogy is ridiculous.

        • Dude, think for a second about about your logic on the third point. This has nothing to do with who would be at fault if the police erroneously shot a person legally open carrying. The argument is you’re INVITING the behavior, making you and your daughter less safe. Sure, you’re legally allowed and the cop would be violating the law, but it’s making such an event more likely which is strictly counterproductive. That cops shoot unarmed people erroneously is completely irrelevant to this point.

        • @Dave
          If you have a problem with a right, that is your issue.
          There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising a right.
          Now I know in your mind you might think you are simply being “reasonable” just like the anti-2nd amendment advocates, just like the anti-1960s boycotters and civil rights activists who though blacks should just be model minorities and that would solve their issues rather than bringing it to attention.
          It is a losing strategy and it is the strategy those who would see the protections on are rights removed.

          A right not exercised is a right lost.
          Now its clear to see you are on the side of if something offends your sensibilities it isn’t just against your sensibilities it is now in your view “ethically” or/and “morally” wrong and that is sad to see but atleast you are open in your view that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.(This is what you have expressed)

        • @Pseudo

          You are inviting the police to harm you illegally by exercising your right? Okay. Like I said before that is the exact same reasoning in blaming the victim of a rape for “dressing too sexy”. Fact is you aren’t inviting anything wrong or malicious in exercising your constitutional right and following the law.

          You can try to dress it up all you want, but the 3rd point is simply blaming a potential victim of poor police work for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

          If you think the 2nd amendment grants a state privilege of gun ownership just say so outright, but as of right now the 2nd amendment protects what the fuonders believed was a natural right of gun ownership free of government restriction. That means if you are exercising your right and following the law there is absolutely no grounds for you to be assaulted, kidnapped, or beaten and killed by the state for doing so. Period.

          Seems when it comes to OC’ing a lot of you aren’t 2nd amendment supporters at all, you are just statists in sheep clothing, who would no sooner use the state to violate their restrictions to enforce your own opinions just like the anti-gunners and hoplophobes.

        • @Wulfgen

          What makes me think you are transposing your views on someone else? The fact that you are transposing your views and sensibilities on someone else. We know you think his choice is a poor one, you have a right to scrutinize to your hearts content, no one has said otherwise.

          All that said you really said nothing to respond to anything I said, you wanted to transpose your concept of what is handy and/or comfortable on someone else who has chosen to act different from you. I simply pointed that out.

          Walking your daughter to school isn’t a specific situation to discuss tactics, unless the tactics are which route he takes to walk his daughter to the bus stop and back home. You aren’t discussing that though, you are making some claim that he is acting tactically unsound in walking his daughter to the bus stop, something that makes no sense since he is able to accomplish that perfectly fine without getting lost, losing his life, or failing to accomplish the objective. So what are you talking about? I know you are voicing your opinion, I’m critiquing your opinion and the opinion of RF.


          Lamenting the likely outcome of potential illegal behavior by cops and putting the burden of cops actions on a law abiding citizen exercising his rights is blaming the victim, whether you want to admit that or not.

          Exercising your right is simply exercising your right, there is no responsibility that comes with it. There is a difference between violating someone elses rights and exercising your own before you go that route as well.

          The rape analogy is perfectly apt to what you are presenting. You are saying that the cops will be likely to shoot a legal gun owner if they hear about a DGU or a shooting, you then say that open carrying makes the person a target for that. You ignore that the law abiding citizen has no obligation to make life easy for a cop to do his job, and has legal protections to ensure that he can exercise his rights. If a cop shots him he is wrong and it is entirely on the cop. Just like a rapist is responsible for raping a person, you would never claim a woman shouldn’t have been dressed “too sexy” as to contributing to her rape. So why do you use that argument when it comes to the armed hired hands of the state?

        • Either this is not the same Jus Bill we’re accustomed to, or he’s been bought off by someone.

          Think about it.

        • David_TheMan, I just can’t stand it. You open carry a long arm in any suburb of any major city on either coast and you will encounter police. The encounter is both your right and their duty, because they do NOT know you or your intentions. Move threateningly toward them and you WILL be shot, and possibly killed. You were exercising your right and that is the result. Would being right make you any less dead?

          I’m reminded of an apocryphal story from my youth that illustrates this.

          A man was in the subway, and spits on the tracks. This is a crime, and a cop spots him. He writes him a ticket for two dollars. The man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” The cop tells him to tell the judge.

          He goes to see a lawyer. “What should I do?” he asks. The lawyer says “Pay the two dollars.” The man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” The lawyer tells him he’ll see him in court.

          On the appointed day they appear in front of the judge, who says “Spitting in the subway. Two dollar fine. Pay the clerk.” But the man objects, “It’s my natural right to spit. I won’t pay the fine!” “30 days in jail” says the judge, and the Bailiff hauls him off.

          A few days later the lawyer visits him. “What did I do wrong?” the man asks. “It’s my natural right to spit.” The lawyer replied “I agree it’s your natural right. But you should have paid the two dollars.”

          Moral of the story – exercising your rights in the wrong place and at the wrong time can have bad personal consequences later.

        • Having your dog in the backyard when the wrong cop is chasing a perp through it, your dog will be shot dead, but the dog didn’t do anything wrong.

      • Perhaps you can’t and perhaps the guy in the video can’t but I can sure point shoot a target inside 30 feet by pointing the rifle and looking over the optic. For all we know this guy might be an expert in the technique.

        Furthermore, and as I’ve pointed out, a rifle in the hand is sure one hell of a deterrent. Who picks on a guy with a rifle, really?

        The speed of his deployment is never going to matter because no one is going to challenge a guy packing a rifle around.

    • David, there are so many things wrong with what you are saying, I got on my computer just to reply to you.

      [1. Open carrying a long gun isn’t handy, guess you should tell the soldiers worldwide how unhandy carrying a long gun is. Oh that is right, you are conflating your personal opinion with a fact.

      Handy is subjective, if the man remembers to open carry and does it in a responsible way I don’t see how you can claim the act isn’t hand to him.]

      As someone who has carried a rifle for perhaps thousands of hours, I will tell you that it is not handy to have a rifle banging against you all day. Soldiers carry a rifle because they need to be prepared to engage targets at hundreds of meters. If you live in a neighborhood where you feel there is a realistic chance of engaging targets at hundreds of meters, then you should probably move out of a war zone. I don’t care what you say, carrying a rifle is not convenient, or handy, when strolling around Anytown, USA. Notice how cops leave them in the car until there is a pressing need?

      [2. Tactically sound? Are you serious. Again guess we should tell all the police in the US and around the world who are armed and openly carry that they aren’t doing it right. They need to put articles of clothing over their weapon, then if they need it they can do a tactically sound shirt sweep. SMH.

      Tactics are determined by the situation internet commando. You can’t objectively say anything is doing in open carrying is sound or unsound because their is no situation to apply his actions and critique. Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.]

      We are discussing open carried rifles here, not handguns, therefore that is a facile analogy. “Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point.” That’s funny, that is what I think every time I read one of your posts, Mr. Anti-Internet-Commando.

      [3. How does open carrying a long gun make you a target?
      Oh police might shoot you, are you serious?
      Police shooting innocent people happens when people don’t even have guns, and most importantly from a logical stance that is on the police and the US justice system which encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later, not on a legally responsible gun owner and carrier.]

      Do you SERIOUSLY think that you have any reasonable chance of survival if you are brandishing a rifle when a bunch of cops roll up hot on a shooting in progress? I would give you low odds of survival. Is that wrong in the grander sense of things, as you pointed out? Yeah, probably, but that is not the point of this article. RF was pointing out valid reasons on why carrying a rifle in town is a bad idea, not arguing the ethics of police shootings. Your point is invalid.

      [Look I know you want hits, but you really should put out better formed articles than this. Garbage articles like this do this site a disservice, it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.]

      “Call of duty wannabe commandos?” That’s funny, because that is exactly what I think of anyone who wants to carry a rifle around in the ‘burbs. Don’t like the articles? Don’t click on them. Or better yet, start a David The Man blog, and then you can put out well written, well “formed” articles that all the non internet commandos will love.

      • Okay now we have the other guy.

        Okay Wulfgen, the key word is handy, not comfortable. On top of that, if you are telling me that aas a soldier you would rather have a concealed rifle or a concealed handgun rather than a rifle. Is that what you are telling me, that would be more handy for you in a combat zone?

        Answer that and we will get back to that line because I think you are trying to move the goalposts from handy to comfortable, even though again the concept of what is handy is subjective to the individual.

        Yes we are discussing open carried rifles. I find it funny in your response you never actually countered anything I said though, you attacked me, but that was it. This is typical of people who argue from emotion but not from logic. I think we now see what camp you are in with regard to open carry. Also the conept of open carry was posited as unsound to this I brought up soldiers walking around in combat with their rifles and police with holstered pistols, logically there is no difference if the point is that it being carried openly is the part that is unsound, as RF says.

        If a person uses a rifle defensively and then using their sling positions it in to be at the ready, how is that brandishing? You are presenting a false argument to try to give your critique weight and like RF and McCain you are failing, because there is no substance to your argument. If a man uses his gun defensively and the police are called its the police’s job to come on the scene and assess the situation, not start shooting at anyone they see with a gun. If the gun owner is peaceful and responds to lawful commands then how is it his fault if the police outside the scope of their power and authority and murder him because of their hoplophobia regarding non-cops with guns?

        Like McCain you seem to be emotionally invested into being anti-OC to the point where you present no rational arguments at all. I expected more from those on the pro-2nd amendment side.

        • David, the problem is not that we are not presenting any rationale arguments, the problem is that the reasons we are presenting require a basic level of reasoning skills to understand that I fear you lack.

          COMMENT MODERATED

        • David, I am on my out the door, so I don’t have time to reply right now. However, a proper reply will be given, I assure you of that.

        • No McCain, what you are presenting is your idea and opinion.
          Instead of saying you don’t like it though, you and RF want to act like there is a real reason for your stance outside of it offends your sensibilities. that is all.

          Most of your arguments have been deconstructed and refuted but like I said with you it is a emotional issue, not logic.

          Fact is the man is exercising his right and taking care of his daughter and there is nothing wrong with that. Better to have a gun and not need it (any gun) than need one and not have it. Also open carry and concealed carry is a distinction without a difference, all arguments for open carry boil down to cosmetics.

        • [Answer that and we will get back to that line because I think you are trying to move the goalposts from handy to comfortable, even though again the concept of what is handy is subjective to the individual.]

          Um…no. That is a silly question, and you are setting up a straw man argument. My point all along has been that I think carrying a rifle is silly in that man’s situation. I never said a handgun would be handier than a rifle in all situations.

          [Yes we are discussing open carried rifles. I find it funny in your response you never actually countered anything I said though, you attacked me, but that was it.]

          I countered everything you said, paragraph, by paragraph. I honestly don’t believe that you thoroughly read my post, and that if you did, you did not comprehend it. So, this time, I will go by every few sentences. And as far as attacking you, I only repeated back what you were accusing RF of: you accused him of being an “internet commando”, you said “Stop spouting non-sense and thinking you are making a point. You arent.”, you called his article garbage, and then you said, “it makes the site seem like it is run by a bunch of Call of duty wannabe commandos.” So who started with the attacks?

          [This is typical of people who argue from emotion but not from logic. I think we now see what camp you are in with regard to open carry. ]

          This is your whole problem right here, you are confusing my expressed opinion about one man’s actions with my beliefs on his rights. I have never said, and never will say, that he shouldn’t have the right to carry his weapon as he pleases. I believe in the right to open carry. I also believe in my right, and anyone else’s, to express my opinion on his actions, especially in the comments section on a gun blog. Nowhere did I say he shouldn’t be allowed to do it, I just think it is a poor choice.

          [Also the conept of open carry was posited as unsound to this I brought up soldiers walking around in combat with their rifles and police with holstered pistols, logically there is no difference if the point is that it being carried openly is the part that is unsound, as RF says.]

          RF specifically said that he felt a holstered handgun would be a better choice, and he has never (in my memory) outright attacked all forms of open carry. Again with the straw man argument.

          I am not going to quote your last couple of paragraphs, because this is probably too long already. However, just because you don’t agree with me, does not mean that my argument has no substance. On the contrary, I have provided quite a bit of substance, whether or not you agree with my opinion. If you want to open carry a rifle, fine that is your choice. It is not mine.

          I also take exception with your repeated accusations that I am arguing simply from emotion. That is dismissive and rude, as you have no idea of my emotional state. We disagree, that is all.

        • @Wulfgen

          Asking you a question isn’t presenting a strawman, its asking a question. I haven’t misstated your position I’m asking for clarification. I know what your point is, I disagree with you point and obviously the man does as well, which is why he carries a rifle and has been doing so for months.

          So this is just another example of you trying to lay down your opinion in defense of makign the argument that someone the man’s valuation of a rifle being handy is wrong. (Something I disagreed with this article about and seemed to cause you to respond to me to disagree with me)

          You didn’t counter anything, you expressed more of your opinion, but you didn’t actually address anything I said. Yes I accused McCain of being a internet commando because of statements he made, I did no such thing to you, so I really don’t understand the need for you to attack me, but again that is on you, and I have replied back to you and you still haven’t responded to any of my points with anything of substance. You took this whole paragraph to complain about what I posted to another member. Seems you really don’t want to discuss the meat and bones of what I presented.

          I haven’t confused your position at all. I haven’t said anything about your view of rights in this line of discussion. You are now pulling statements out of your ass wholly. I guess you use this to paint yourself as being attacked or what not, but everything I’ve said is simply factual. You haven’t countered anything I’ve said logically. You have complained about what I wrote to someone else, you tried to lie and say I presented a strawman of your argument when I asked you a question to clarify, and now you are going on about what you believe are rights, when in this paragraph you replied to I only said you argue from emotion and we know where you stand with regard to open carry, which from what you have written it is clear you are anti-OC.

          RF said and I quote
          “2. Open carrying a long gun in a city isn’t tactically sound”

          I responded directly to that contention. So no again that isn’t a strawman that is a direct critique on what RF wrote and I responded to that contention by pointing out that apparantly soldiers and cops Open carrying aren’t tactically sound. You then tried to say oh but it is different with a soldier and I responded that OCing period is simply not unsound tactically no matter how you cut it.

          Now it is sad that either you haven’t read the article you want to discuss or don’t know what strawmen arguments are but it makes no sense what you have written from a logical perspective. It is simply outright lies and ignorance of the article and the conversation strain. You shoudl pay more attention.

          You can take exception all you like. I’m just calling it as I see it. You haven’t taken the time to logically argue anything I’ve written. Over this thread a commentator named “Dave” atleast logically responded to what I wrote, even in disagreeing he actually understood and responded to what I wrote, not babble emotion and personal feelings as if they were relevant.

        • David, I’m with you. We can’t expect this to stop. It will probably get much worse. All we can do is express what’s right in our hearts, take the bumps and bruises, and die knowing we struggled for what we know is right.

      • I can’t make heads or tails of your post. Might I suggest a writing class at the community college?

    • I see a guy who, for some reason, fears for his child’s safety, and carries the gun that he has. Maybe there are coyotes in the area, maybe rattlesnakes. Perhaps he’s not in the mood to spend $800 on a new gun we would all approve as “tactically sound” from our superior perches. Point is he feels he has a reason to carry, and he has a gun to carry. What’s the fuss? Did he say he’s making a statement? I thought he said he was protecting his child. And we want to pick a fight with him? If you think he’s “hurting the cause”, carry him a better gun and give it to him. OOops, not that important, right? Then STFU.

  5. Obviously Mr. Savage has mastered the art of quick scoping.

    I’m sure he has used it thousands of times playing Call of Duty.

    He’s GTG.

    And besides, as the reporter said: “You look intimidating!”

    But at least he is ready to grab a quick bite at Chipotle with the other Chipotle Ninjas.

  6. I’m surprised the bus even stopped to let children off if this guy was standing there with a rifle. If the bus driver and children all the knew the guy, then maybe that’s ok, but for all outward appearances, I bet any passing police officer will about crap their pants if they saw this guy at a bus stop and a bus was rolling up.

    Second, if he’s that worried, he should drive his daughter to school. What exactly does he think will happen at the bus stop? If an attack is going to happen (I’m assuming the father thinks it’ll happen via another student) then it’s reasonable to assume it’s going to happen on the bus or at school. It stands to reason he should be by his daughter’s side 24/7 if he really thinks bus stops (and who knows what else) is that dangerous. Home schooling is an option, you know.

    But really, with all the school shootings being in the media, this guy thinks it’s a good idea to brandish a rifle at a bus stop, with children everywhere. Sigh.

    Sure, crazy people target soft targets. We know that. But there is a valid way to carry without scaring the sheep or alarming the police.

    • I don’t know what he’s afraid of, and neither do you. I don’t know if he has a car, or even a driver’s license, and neither do you. This sounds like writing a novel by committee, each person coming up with his own favorite plot twist.

  7. The reason open carry is bad is you become a high value target. Any where you go, the bad guys will see what you have on, and either avoid you, or set to take you down with out a chance to defend your self.
    Then your rifle is literally pried from your cold dead fingers.
    Pistols are less noticeable. If you are in an area where open carry is common, its not a problem. Down town anycity U.S.A. You become a sore thumb.

    • What’s funny as that even well into the 1950s, it was not at all unusual to be carrying a long-gun down and through what is now Times Square. Yeah, sure, the times may change but our rights sure as hell don’t.

      • As far as I can tell from reading the Constitution, any law that prevents a law abiding citizen from carrying a gun any time any where is unconstitutional.
        Practical is another story. A rifle draws attention. It makes you a target. I’d rather not get shot by a bad guy, or a bad guy in a uniform if I can help it.

        • A rifle certainly draws attention (at least in some circles it does anyway), but it doesn’t make you a target by any means.

      • That was all before 9-11, the GWOT, indefinite detention, pervasive monitoring, and universal training of everyone to fear everything. Hell, I used to open carry my rifle on the IRT subway as a kid and nobody gave me a second look. Today the cops and three-letter agencies’agents would be all over me like a cheap suit if I tried that.

        Times are much different, bud.

        • So,,911, a false flag event to curtail our rights, should be invoked to destroy our rights?

          DAMN, you gave in for someone’s song.

        • Sorry dude, but absolutely none of that even begins to diminish in any meaningful way the fact that our rights still haven’t changed, regardless of the march of bullshit laws passed by crooked politicians to be enforced by those cops that are on a power trip.

  8. One big reason:

    To quote Dr. Venkman; (Bill Murray);

    “Your scaring the straights!”

    I’m all for OC, CC to each his/her own depending on that particular state’s law.
    But a rifle at a bus stop? Wee bit much unless the bus stop is in bear country Alaska. Methinks a pistol would be a better choice.

  9. 1. This sounds kinda toungue in cheek. 2. Bolt gun with 26″ bbl…not really practical but makes a statement. 3. When my paperwork comes back, an M4 SBR will be my EDC gun for my vehicle and my street if need be.

  10. I don’t know why there is such an anti gun bias at this website. Your being afraid of a rifle is not a good enough reason t be against rifles.

    • Because so many anti-rights fanatics have emigrated to this site. They don’t take the Bill of Rights seriously, except for the First Amendment, and they’d scream bloody murder if you tried to infringe upon THEIR 1A rights.

      Read the Constitution. It means what the hell it says.

    • Skyler is another MDA sock puppet. It’s been a while, Bubba. How’s Mikey doing? Still sitting in short chairs?

  11. From what I can gather, Muskegon Heights is not a nice place to live … residents experience plenty of violent and property crimes. A safety conscious person would not live in such an environment unless they cannot afford to move anywhere else. That means the man probably cannot afford a handgun, either.

    If all you have is a rifle and you cannot afford a handgun, you use what you have.

    As for comments about the “necessity, need, or propriety” of taking his rifle to the bus stop, consider this. In the last year a father who accompanies his to daughter to/from the bus stop used his concealed handgun to thwart teens who targeted him for the knockout game while waiting for his daughter’s bus. That event occurred within 90 miles of where this father lives.

    • uncommon_sense you are probably 100% right. I live about 20 miles from Muskegon Heights and it is like a miniature version of Detroit in some places. I give the guy credit for taking it upon himself to do something about the safety of his daughter.

  12. I have never in my life needed to carry an AR15 to get a breakfast burrito.

    Being against OC of rifles for stupid reasons, is not being anti-gun. I found everything Robert said to be spot on. I’m not going to tell somebody that they cannot OC a rifle, but I am more than happy to tell them how stupid they are being. I will explain to them that they are not helping ANYTHING, and are in fact helping the anti-gunners make their point.

    You don’t need to exercise your rights physically or literally. They are not getting fat.
    You are scaring people. Wearing an MP5 clone to Denny’s isn’t normal. It never will be.
    You can defend yourself equally well with a concealable gun.

    You have a right to bear arms. But you don’t have to be a tool.

    • You sound just like the antis, who will proclaim that they’ve never needed to carry a gun at all to go anywhere.

      • No… his point is this is not Israel or Iraq. There are no imminent threats that justify the need to brandish a rifle openly. And by brandish I mean putting your finger near the trigger and holding it in front of you.

        If this guy had the rifle slung on his shoulder, that is a more acceptable way to carry considering he is not in imminent danger and it is less alarming than carrying the former way.

        I’m going to keep repeating this until it sinks in: The layman cannot magically know you are a good guy with a gun (visible or not). For all they know, you could be a bad guy with a gun.

        Seeing someone with a rifle at a bus stop could be a father waiting on his daughter, or a person about to be the next “spree killer”. From the outside, they would appear the same.

        However, being a good guy with a gun, I know how NOT to scare the sheep and I choose that option, for the same reason I don’t wave around my firearm in a mall for no reason. I don’t want the attention nor do I want to cause alarm. It’s plain stupid to do so.

        If this person only has a rifle as a means to self-defense and feels it necessary for his daughter, there are steps he can take not to alarm anyone else. Like slinging that rifle over his shoulder and dressing normally (ie. not in all black for pete’s sake) or carrying it in a rifle bag (again, not black). Hell, I’m sure he could even find a bag that allows “quick access” if he feels that is a must. Google is your friend. There are lots of “covert” CC methods available specifically for this purpose.

        If you’re going to OC, at least do it smart. Don’t dress in all black or wear tacticool crap please. That’s just embarrassing and doesn’t even fit the environment you’re in (suburbia).

        • “There are no imminent threats that justify the need to brandish a rifle openly.”

          Until there is. No one knows when or where violent criminals are going to strike. If the victim knew beforehand, the victim would go some place else.

        • Uncommon..
          tell me…

          Do you carry a fire extinguisher everywhere?
          How about antivenin?
          How about a simple epipen?

          Odds are more likely that you will need one of those specific use items, more than a rifle.
          Hell, I have used all three of those things more often in one month, than I have needed to carry a rifle to taco bell in my entire life.

          So, yeah.. I’m all for carry… but let your carry choice make some damn sense.

        • Exact same arguments apply to a pistol, concealed or not. So, shall we all agree to simply outlaw guns altogether? Or shall we get serious?

        • Larry,

          I’ve had people crawling my ass for having this opinion for ages. But it’s real simple.

          When you CAN concealed carry, it makes more sense to do so. Because a concealed pistol does not frighten the flock. But people jump all over me because I dared say that they should do something other than what they want to do.

          Do I feel you should be able to OC an AR in town? Sure. If you have a reason to, go right ahead. Going to the range? Going hunting? Riots nearby and you own a business, sure thing.

          If your reason is “To normalize it for the sheeple” or some such nonsense, you need to rethink your motive. Because you are NOT normalizing it. You are essentially carrying the one weapon most likely to scare antigunners, or even UNBIASED INNOCENTS who normally wouldn’t care either way.

          In a case like the original post, my first thought is “Why doesn’t he call the police?” If there is a real reason for him to carry a gun to the bus stop, why has the cause of the problem not been addressed?

          For me, carrying a pistol is more than enough, “just in case”.

        • Sean,

          People in the U.S. reported over 1 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies in 2012. And people who do not trust law enforcement agencies experienced countless additional violent crimes that were not reported. When snakebites are that common and a single antivenin works for all bites, I will carry antivenin with me. And if two million people spontaneously combusted every year, I would seriously consider carrying around a fire extinguisher as well.

          But the probability of an event doesn’t matter. That father is a free man. He can carry around whatever he damn well pleases. What if he carried a sign to the bus stop every day … a sign that said, “(racial slur of choice) are useless!” Would that sign be offensive to many people? Sure. Would many people say he has no sense carrying such a sign? Sure. Would that increase the probability of someone violently attacking him? Sure. NEVERTHELESS, IT IS THAT FATHER’S RIGHT TO CARRY SUCH A SIGN. And it is that father’s right to carry a firearm.

        • Why is this repeatedly getting lost? Sure it’s his right. They’re saying it’s a bad idea. That he shouldn’t do it, not that he should be legally prohibited from doing it. This doesn’t have anything to do with his rights. Dude walks around with a sign with racial slurs? I’m going to judge him, not call for his arrest. Same thing here.

    • “Being against OC of rifles for stupid reasons, is not being anti-gun”

      The hell it doesn’t.

  13. The only reason open carry of anything is perceived as bad, as all arguments against open carry are inextricably mired in deliberately fabricated perceptions that were practically invented and protected by the so-called lamestream “news” media, is because people are born and bred to think it is. All this without a single, solitary shred of evidence to hold it up besides the stock-standard “because it just is” mantra.

    That is literally all there is to it.

    And don’t get me started on the wholly indefensible the “it’ll make you an HVT” bullshit, because that is precisely the only thing that it is: unsupported and unsupportable bullshit. That is, unless someone somewhere can point to any evidence at all of such a thing happening regularly. Sure, there will be a precious handful of purely anecdotal occurrences to be certain, but arguments built solely on anecdote are exactly what the anti’s use against us.

    So, is anyone going to help us out here?

    Anyone?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so, either — and that’s precisely because it just doesn’t happen on the regular.

    About the only thing right in this entire article is that it’s just not as convenient as carrying a handgun, which should go without saying. As for me, personally, that is the sole reason why I don’t openly carry a long-gun.

    It should not and does not matter which tool we pick for the job of providing our own personal security (which is solely our responsibility remember). All that matters is that we damned-well should have them and should definitely damned-well be able to carry them without question nor concern. Period.

    • Only just as much as you are a poster child for the anti-rights movement by making arguments based entirely on “need” and “propriety”, just like the they always do, immediately rendering everything you say based on such arguments totally irrelevant.

      Thanks for playing.

      Oh, and one more thing: if protecting our rights — which does include the open-carry of long-guns thank-you-very-much — makes me any kind of fanatic (which it doesn’t by the way), then I don’t want to be anything else.

      That’s as far as this conversation is going to go. Have a nice day. 😉

      • I think the post above this one (and this post as well) can be deleted, as the post it is in reply to no longer exists. Yep.