Lets look at it this way, if you come to a field that is surounded by signs saying “Achtung Minen” (Attention Mines) you would not believe that you could cross it in all safety because you don’t know where they are.
However, if each mine was marked with a red flag you could cross it without concern. It works the same for carrying concealed the predater doesn’t know if he will be the lucky one to pick the person with a gun. Most criminals don’t want to die so they will hold off till they find a helpless victim. If people are carrying in the open this is an easy choice. When Florida passed its concealed carry only law robbery against the people of Florida went down. With all things there are unforseen consequences, Florida’s DOT required a different type of license plate for rental cars. The criminals knew this and crimes againts tourist went up because criminals knew they would not be armed. It took the State a while to figure this out, and when the did they changed the law to make all the plates the same. After that the crime rates for tourist and residences evened out. The reason to carry conceaded is that even if you are not carrying the bad guys don’t know.
I appreciate all the well thought out responses. Here’s some rebuttals, in neither chronological, logical, or any other discernible order:
Ok, but there are fairly simple ways to avoid this. I’ve seen demonstrated (and tried out myself) a special type of holster that required two things to remove the gun: 1) releasing certain hidden catches while pulling the gun, and 2) withdrawing the pistol at a certain angle.
Releasing the catches did absolutely nothing to slow down the draw time - all it took was a little practice to know where they were, and a slightly modified hand position when drawing. However, if the bad guy didn’t know where they were located, he’d never pull the gun out.
The holster was designed so that attempting to withdraw the gun at just about any angle other than the one the wearer would use wouldn’t get you anywhere - even with the catches released.
Added to that holster, I’ve seen propsals whereby a gun will operate only for its legal user, using such technology as a ring worn by the registered owner and identified by the pistol, or palm or finger prints. (I don’t think either of these technologies has hit the market yet, but they’re being studied and are definitely within the realm of possibility.)
These seem reasonable measures law-abiding gun owners could take to ensure their guns don’t fall into criminal hands while being displayed openly.
Bluepony, your link was faulty. I was told “Netscape was unable to locate the server…” Can you check it and post again?
This doesn’t jibe with what I’ve seen/read. I can’t remember ever seeing a newspaper headline that read, “Jonesville City Council repeals long-standing anti-concealment statute.” Instead, I read about state legislatures allowing the right to carry concealed weapons, as was recently done by Texas Governor Bush.
Can you provide any references to anti-cocneal laws being repealed?
Action Jackson, your mine analogy is astute, and appeals to common sense - but does this actually happen? Can you provide data showing this actually occurs? (I know you say this happened in Florida, but the skeptic in me demands proof.)
And finally, The Ryan: You provide excellent arguments, and I’ll address each in turn.
Seems like a reasonable argument. But then, what is the point of carrying a concealed gun at all if you are prepared to offer no resistance if confronted by a criminal? If you are unwilling to use it, the gun then becomes no more useful to you than a concealed pocket watch. So what is the point of having it??
See my response above to E1. Let me also add that if it’s concealed and difficult for someone else to grab, it’s also most likely difficult for you to grab! Concealing it in a purse or bag renders the gun - if not useless - far less useful than it would be in a holster.
When we’re dealing with the god-like power to take a life with the squeeze of a finger, I don’t think the convenience of the shooter should be much of a concern.
Again, when dealing with the life-robbing power a gun brings, I don’t think how strangers view you should be an issue. So the bookstore clerk gives you an odd look. So? Those who know you personally will know better than to think you’re violent, and those that don’t won’t mess with you.
I welcome y’alls responses to my responses.
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
At common law, a person on public land is free to carry any object on his person any way he chooses. In order for concealed carry to be illegal, require permits, etc., in any state or municipality, that state or local government must have passed statutes to that effect.
Some concealed carry statutes may in fact be as old as the State itself, but most have been passed in this century. (I think.)
The pro-concealment advocates are asking for statutes to be passed which limit or eliminate these previously-passed statutes, thereby restoring their common-law right to carry firearms concealed on their person.
It is unfortunate that the press would report these statutes as “new laws” which “allow” people to do something they would have no right to do otherwise. All these statutes are – and in fact, must be – passed as amendments to the state or local codes which revise or eliminate old text that prohibited concealed-carry.
Ok, what’s the good of this?
And for everyone that was stating that it even the field if the criminals don’t know who’s carrying a handgun, well if they know that the only way you can carry a handgun is if it’s unlaoded, what’s the deterant?..I may have mis-understood these points…so if I’m wrong…tell me, don’t flame me…Thanks
Because you can carry an unloaded semiauto pistol on one hip and a loaded magazine for it on the other. When it is reasonable for you to feel that your life is in danger, it’s okay to carry a loaded gun, so at that moment you can snap the magazine into the grip, cycle the action, and be ready to cause some serious damage in less than three seconds. (You can do the same with a revolver, if you’re carrying a loaded speed-loader or full-moon clip.)
Under California’s loaded-carry laws, you may carry a loaded firearm if a reasonable person in your situation would feel that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Once the danger has passed, you must unload the firearm. “Loaded” means that ammo is attached to the gun in a position ready for firing; a semiauto with a loaded magazine inserted but no round in the chamber is still considered to be loaded for purposes of these laws.
Note that a reasonable fear of imminent danger will not exempt you from the concealed-carry laws.
I think the situation, as with most things human, is more complicated than seems to be being portrayed here. For example:
STARK:
Options, STARK, options. One has the CHOICE to use it, or not. Though your question seems to assume that resistance must always be offered, I would submit that NOT all situations require a life-or-death decision. But if an attacker knows one is armed (as for example in the case of a gun carried openly) one’s options are likely to diminish. The attacker will probably alter hi/r actions and escalate the situation hi/rself, forcing one to respond in kind. (MOST likely(?), they will avoid you. Second-most likely, they will shoot first and rob the body.) Conclusion: concealed is often better than open carry.
MC:
If we instill amorphous fear in the minds of criminals, the result would seem likely to be NOT that they won’t rob or commit crimes, but that they will assume everyone is a potentially-armed victim. Thus the criminal with the itchy trigger finger. I personally would much rather be faced with a calm, confident criminal who knew s/he didn’t need to off me. (Psychopaths are a different, unaddressed category.) Conclusion: Open carry distributes most crime to the unarmed, but said crime MAY be less violent; concealed carry MAY reduce crime, but probably increases its average violence. Advantage?
The Ryan:
You’re darn right it’s not necessarily a good thing. The MOST likely problem, I imagine, would be that irresponsible segment of the open carriers who think that the gun IS for cowing the criminal, who think that Wild West times have come back, as well as that segment of the general population already stressed nigh the breaking point. I hope that those groups are largely unarmed now; at least it seems they don’t often carry, because ‘no one’ does. (As has been pointed out, ‘it’s just not the thing to do.’) But make it easy, accepted, even encouraged to openly carry a sidearm? …and you thought the freeway shootings here in California are bad now! Conclusion: Easy and almost-universal open carry may work great in Switzerland, if the situation is as portrayed (actually, don’t they mostly have rifles there, meaning they don’t carry them on the street all the time?), but in today’s U.S. - at least in the larger metropolises - it’s a decidedly worrisome thought. These problems exist with regard to concealed carry, too, but in a tense urban situation where everyone sees that everyone else is armed (read: cannot ignore the conclusion that the other(s) pose a deadly threat) I imagine we would see escalation more frequently than we do now. In fact, I propose that that is one reason there is so much more deadly violence in gang settings - everyone knows everyone else is ‘packing,’ and no one wants to back down.
So, ultimately, what is most important? Not how many guns an individual has, nor whether we all can see them, but how those who have 'em use 'em. (And that includes the various branches of government.) This speaks to a need for education, calmness, tolerance…basically, all things so sorely lacking, it would seem, from our “society.”
With Respect,
A presently non-carrying, non-gun-owning, former gamebird hunter.