For the record: I have a carry permit, but I never carry unless I’m traveling.
If Gary Gun-Carry wants to walk around all day with a gun on his hip, that’s fine. But it kinda tells me something about the kind of person he is and I’d have some reservations about hanging out with him. If he came over for a beer wearing the damned thing, I’d tell him to take it off or go home.
So, what, one can waltz into a bank while openly packing heat and nobody bats an eye?
I can hear the teller’s thoughts: ‘Is he going to shoot me? Is he? Oh, never mind, he’s making a deposit into his kid’s education fund.’
At my bank they get antsy if one wears sunglasses.
Kansas has both open carry (can be over-ridden locally) and concealed carry (cannot be over-ridden locally). My CCW instructor told me several horror stories about legit, CCW holders who were harassed very much by the police for letting their concelead carry weapon show on accident. In one instance that happened very near me, the person was reaching for something on a shelf at a grocery store, and his concealed weapon was briefly exposed as his shirt rode up. That led to a “man with gun in the grocery store” call, which led to the person - who was 100% legally carrying his weapon - being subjected to “full armed felony takedown” in the parking lot and a very bad several hours sitting handcuffed in a car until the police finally, reluctantly, allowed him to go home - without charges.
So no, in some areas open carry is not wise. Even if it is legal.
You do understand that the holster has a snap securing the firearm in place, right? That it’s unlikely a child could even unsnap the holster, much less remove the firearm?
When I read a comment like that, it screams that it’s coming from someone with very little firearms experience and an active imagination.
Yet you likely cannot point to one incident of inappropriate gun use by a person with a concealed-carry permit. You’re likely not aware of one incident of inappropriate gun use by a person exercising legal open-carry, either.
So how is this fear rational?
I wouldn’t want to be near the person carrying the gun, especially at a social event. If the event were in my home, they would be asked to take it to their car or leave.
I don’t care for being around guns and would take a dim view of a person carrying one around in public. (Not counting uniformed police officers of course)
I carry going to and from the range, and that’s about it. Once or twice, I’ve used my concealed carry when working a soup kitchen in a questionable part of town, but that’s been literally twice since I got the carry permit. I don’t ever strap on just to walk around the neighborhood.
Which is why I advocate concealed carry. If it’s concealed, you don’t know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there, you’re not worried. Open carry makes people nervous, so the polite thing to do is to carry concealed.
Yes, I’ve seen the snap. No, I’ve never operated such. It may be as stiff as you say. I still suspect that a 10 yo would be able to operate such. (I tend to define children as being 5 to about 12 or thirteen, when they become teens. Younger than that, they’re toddlers.)
Guilty on both counts. I have used exactly two firearms in my life, one long arm, one pistol. I think my posts on the Dope will support the claim that I have an active imagination.
So, explain to me, please - don’t condescend.
If the snap is that much of a barrier to anyone taking the firearm out of the holster, what benefit is there to carrying the weapon in the first place? I had always assumed that the point of having a firearm on one’s person was that it would be available for immediate, and nearly instantaneous, use.
My assumption for the snap was that it was “stiff” requiring maybe a couple of pounds pull, compared to the lighter pull that, say, clothing snaps require. Which is not a barrier most healthy children. I’d always thought the snap was meant to keep the weapon in place, and prevent accidental removal from the holster - not to prevent unauthorized persons from removing the weapon.
Either they’re not trained well in NYC, or more likely, their training focuses more on people carrying unholstered weapons. In the 7 years I’ve carried a properly holstered firearm, not one officer has much as asked me a question. Even when I’ve walked into the police station.
For an adult the snap is not too much of an obstacle (though see below). For a child, well, have you ever seen a 5-year-old try to button his pants? It’s approximately that difficult for a child. It’s also on your hip, and if you have a weapon you’re remarkably self-aware. That’s not to say that accidents couldn’t happen, but the odds are very low.
All the same, I’m with you that open carry at a children’s party is not a good idea.
It’s a tug. It’s enough of a tug that, were I to carry openly (which I don’t, it is of dubious legality here in PA, plus what I said earlier) I would feel you trying to get to it and I’d be able to stop you. It’s not exactly a barrier to unauthorized access, but it’s much tougher than you might imagine.
No, it is not a fallacy. The simple fact of the matter is that if no one has a gun, then no one will be shot. If someone has a gun, then there is the possiblity that someone will be shot.
Retention holsters explained.
Fair enough. That’s roughly what I’d figured the situation would be.
I’m not suggesting it’s a likely event. But I take precautions against any number of unlikely events. Like shutting off my computer during thunderstorms. Given what seems to me to be the demonstrated behavior problems with children in groups, when outside of normal behavior patterns, removing a potential hazard seems prudent.
ETA: Thanks for the link, runner pat.
And if no one is born, the eventually there will be no more human deaths.
The point Bricker was making is that someone who holds a concealed carry license is extremely unlikely to randomly shoot people. If someone is shot, it’s likely to be someone who needs to be stopped from doing whatever harmful action he is doing.
Actually, that’s not exactly what I say. What I say is: people can get hurt from being shot by guns. And I don’t know why this person is carrying a gun; nor do I know whether they have a permit. I know that they, like the SSK couple, may be trying to make a statement; whereas the SSK couple would most likely be making a statement about their right to public affection, the gun-toter may well be making a statement about what a badass he is. Again, I don’t know whether he’s carrying it legally or not. And I suspect you don’t know what the stats are for shootings from permitted people who choose to carry openly like this.
If I’m his friend, sure, I can talk to him about it. But if he’s just some schmoe at the store, how am I to know what’s going on?
Yes, part of it may be ignorance. But fear of a SSK couple has nothing to do with ignorance (unless someone believes that teh gay is airborne). Fear of a guy with a loaded gun, if it’s based on ignorance, is based on a pretty understandable ignorance about the particular circumstances and about which set of statistics about guns from competing ideological sources is to be believed, and so on.
Not a good analogy, I think.
Daniel
If some 10-13 year old kid tried to take my gun, he’d end up with a broken arm, a bruise on the side of his face and no apologies from me. They or their parents are then free to take it up with the police, but I gotta figure most cops are going to tell them they’re lucky to be alive after such massive stupidity - and that my actions constituted justifiable self-defense. Cops know all about that sort of thing.
Because of course the police never do anything bad. They never commit acts of police brutality or anything, and they certainly never shoot anyone by accident.
I didn’t say those things don’t sometimes happen. But it is their job to carry one, so I’m able to put aside my discomfort.
What is it about the Internet that makes people so happy to brag about hypothetically beating up kids? Or do I just hang out with the right crowd in real life?
If a kid reaches for your gun, and it’s strapped into a harness, and you knock the kid away, of course that’s fine. But breaking bones? To be charitable, I think you’re speaking in great hyperbole.
Daniel