Open carry vs concealed carry-

[ss51]

 

[Silverback]

Both equally effective

 

[com7fy8]

cute . . . funny . . . yes . . . but >

For humans with guns >

I suppose that someone showing a weapon could be considered a source of a gun, by certain people.

 

[ss51]

Not everyone who claims to be Christian walks in Love, joy, peace, etc.

 

[98cwitr]

idk...open carry seems to paint you a target. I prefer concealed for this very reason.

 

[ss51]

Yes! And it contributes to safety as the perpetrator knows not who is and who isn't carrying.
Probability of apprehension is the deterrent to crime.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes! And it contributes to safety as the perpetrator knows not who is and who isn't carrying.
Probability of apprehension is the deterrent to crime.

Except violent crimes. They don't seem to care.

 

[ss51]

Even violent crimes.

 

[Shane R]

When I was a teenager and really learning to shoot handguns, we could go out and have a range session at the Conservation Club and cruise into the main part of town to grab lunch at McDonald's with holstered pistols on our hip and no one thought much of it. 11 miles down the road at the county seat they would have likely soiled their pants and then called the Sheriff's office on us. That was 20 years ago.

As time has gone on, this has become a more sensitive topic. There are rural places where open carry is fine. There are urban places where it's a quick route to a bad day. Is the law substantially different? Not so much. But the community expectations and the enforcement are.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the open-carry crowd are total douchers? I encountered one a couple of weeks ago at an aviation museum. He had taken his girl-friend there to impress her with his knowledge of WWII aircraft. He had a Glock on his hip, in plain sight. And he was an arrogant prick who considered himself an expert on every airplane on display in that museum: reminded me of the guys who occasionally make the news for carry AR-15s in a 3 point sling while they shop at Kroger or something.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

reminded me of the guys who occasionally make the news for carry AR-15s in a 3 point sling while they shop at Kroger or something.

Have you ever tried to pick good apples or cabbage ar Kroger with an AR-15 in a shoulder sling? The darn thing keeps sliding off and falling onto the floor.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

And he was an arrogant prick who considered himself an expert on every airplane on display in that museum...

Was his name Chad by any chance?

 

[Unqualified]

Why not shoot them in the leg for crimes that are not executable.
That’s why they are mad at cops. They use lethal force for a rebellious teenager running away. If the only way to arrest somebody is to shoot him, drug crazed or something, then shoot him in the leg or both legs. This is a good thing for cops and concealed or open carry. And you have mercy on him and give him another chance. Death is so final and liberals cry out for every life- a good compromise? Shoot to kill?

 

[Unqualified]

American Rifleman’ has stories of shooters in self defense using their guns to defend their homes, property, and themselves. They don’t have the law arresting them in some states. Which is really.
Are there unpublished stories of concealed carry guys using their weapons to stop crimes. I don’t hear about it much any where.
I can recall a terrorist act and a famous guy. So much controversy that it ruined the point. They aren’t very much celebrated in this country. USA. Are there stories that viewers can relate about actual crimes being concluded in public by a good guy with a gun?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The clear answer to all of this is longer sentences, better treatment, and sensible rehab programs, for lawbreakers. We also need a model that determines whether an individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. Those that can't, even though they commit petty crimes, should never be released.

 

[Unqualified]

While I agree with that I am also for capital punishment for those deserving. At least for murderers and others. But who can think clearly enough these days to make sound laws. Law enforcement becomes so costly when you have to jail them, rehabilitate and help back into normal life. Think of all the people who are on the streets that shouldn’t be there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

While I agree with that I am also for capital punishment for those deserving. At least for murderers and others. But who can think clearly enough these days to make sound laws. Law enforcement becomes so costly when you have to jail them, rehabilitate and help back into normal life. Think of all the people who are on the streets that shouldn’t be there.

I agree that capital punishment has it's place.

We should stop looking at imprisonment as a liability but as a resource. What is the justification for providing for prisoners with no return on the investment? Many prisoners were employed before being incarcerated. Who has filled that void in the workforce? So many useful projects could be done with prison labor, if everyone got onboard. Why is it assumed that when the door is slammed shut behind an offender that suddenly he or she has no useful skills, skills that society needs, and that prisoners can use to recompense their victims.

 

[Unqualified]

A very good idea, they should compensate, they should work. Maybe not like the chain gangs, but can they be trusted on the job. Where they are used now, like forestry and fires but more of it, on roads and make work. But on money making and productive jobs like manufacturing. This would give a sense of purpose and trustworthiness that would lead to rehabilitation.

Manufacturing because they could be a source of cheap labor for business to grow America.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A very good idea, they should compensate, they should work. Maybe not like the chain gangs, but can the be trusted on the job. Where the are used now, like forestry and fires but more of it, on roads and make work. But on money making and productive jobs like manufacturing. This would give a sense of purpose and trustworthiness that would lead to rehabilitation.

Manufacturing because they could be a source of cheap labor for business to grow America.

When feasible offenders should not be incarcerated. The rich pay fines while the poor go to prison. This has to change.

 

[98cwitr]

Why not shoot them in the leg for crimes that are not executable.
That’s why they are mad at cops. They use lethal force for a rebellious teenager running away. If the only way to arrest somebody is to shoot him, drug crazed or something, then shoot him in the leg or both legs. This is a good thing for cops and concealed or open carry. And you have mercy on him and give him another chance. Death is so final and liberals cry out for every life- a good compromise? Shoot to kill?

Because intentionally shooting not to kill produces reasonable doubt to threat of life in court and to a jury.

 

[Silverback]

Why not shoot them in the leg for crimes that are not executable.
That’s why they are mad at cops. They use lethal force for a rebellious teenager running away. If the only way to arrest somebody is to shoot him, drug crazed or something, then shoot him in the leg or both legs. This is a good thing for cops and concealed or open carry. And you have mercy on him and give him another chance. Death is so final and liberals cry out for every life- a good compromise? Shoot to kill?

People that intrude into your home, try to car jack you, or abduct your wife or child, are not looking for someone to play checkers with. In these situations you have just a few seconds to act. If we expect people to try and warn them, talk them out of it, or inflict a non lethal wound first, then you are essentially asking the person to continue putting themselves in danger.

In Florida, we have a very strong castle doctrine (don't confuse this with stand your ground) There is a presumption under the law that intruders into your home, are there to take your life, the life of another residents, inflict great bodily harm, or commit a forceable felony such as abduction, rape, or arson. This presumption also extends to your automobile, and any structure attached to your home, such as a garage, or screened in porch.

In these cases the resident is fully justified in using deadly force, and if the intruder dies, well, it just went down that way, the person shot made his choice, they were in the exact situation they chose to be.

It doesn't matter if they are intoxicated, high, or just stupid...you don't intrude into someone home.

The resident is protected from arrest, indictment, or civil liability...you will still be interviewed though, and your weapon will be taken from you and sent to the crime lab.

Which brings me to the next point...no castle doctrine is airtight, there are things the resident can do which will endanger there protections under the law, specifically;

1. You used an illegally obtained firearm
2. You modified the firearm (trigger job, semi-auto to full auto conversion)
3. You shot the fleeing intruder in the back (unless he's abducting a child for instance)
4. You in-grave sayings on your firearm (such as abandon all hope)
5. You throw racial slurs at the intruder
6. You post childish signs on your property such as insured by Smith & Wesson.
7. Attempts to clean-up the scene
8. Delay in reporting the shooting

It will be argued that these actions go straight to the residents state of mind, that he was hoping for a chance to use the castle doctrine, were over zelous, or racist...most of these arguments fail in court...but not always. Having an illegally obtained, or modified firearm will likely see the resident go down.

So where does this leave us. Use a legally purchased stock firearm, avoid conversation with the intruder, continue to shoot the intruder until he is no longer a threat, call 911, and don't speak to anyone until you speak with an attorney.

Warning shots, trying to talk the person down, or inflicting non lethal wounds simply put the resident in further danger.