Shooting someone for throwing a punch will make your defense attorney richer. Do you remember the reason for a concealed carry permit? It's not to protect other people or society. It's so that you can protect yourself and your family from the threat of death or grievous injury, not so that you can play hero and stop crime. Leave that sort of thing to the professionals. They get paid for it, and their organizations have much deeper pockets than a private individual. Myself, if I'm in a bank thats being robbed, I intend to do nothing other than be a good witness unless absolutely necessary to protect myself and my own family.
Motivation behind open carry?
- Thread starter Go West Young Man
- Start date
- Status
Having grown up in Louisiana, I actually did not know you could legally open carry until just recently. I still have a house over in N Louisiana and one time going over there, the combined state police and local sheriffs dept had a drug check set up on the interstate. As I was almost home I pulled off the exit just prior to the actual checkpoint. One of the several sheriffs cars pulled out behind me and flashed his lights for me to pull over. Nice young man we had a brief conversation and as I had my truck door open, I thought and pointed down to my loaded 45 and he said don't worry, we are gun friendly. I repiied that I knew that and when I was in college there knew quite a few officers from all the time I spent at the range.
Although that is true, try doing it in downtown New Orleans or even Metairie (suburb adjacent to N.O.) I live across the lake and recently saw an older gentleman at the Home Depot open carrying, obviously not a LEO. I was somewhat surprised to see it, but not at all alarmed. I was of course concealed carrying at the time. When I was attending Jeff Cooper's Gunsite many years ago, it was very refreshing being able to open carry in semi rural Paulden, AZ. Everybody did it. You could walk into a grocery store or restaurant open carrying a cocked and locked 1911 and nobody batted an eye. But I wouldn't try it in Phoenix either. The tactical advantage and low profile of CC trumps my want for expressing my rights anytime I'm in an urban area.
I actually see it quite often in Phoenix. The cigar shop is a haven for open and concealed carry (no permit needed here) and I've even seen patients at our clinic with sidearms. I prefer concealed, but if I'm hiking I open carry and if I happen to go to a store, restaurant, etc afterwards, I keep it on me, but always use a safety holster. I hope I never need it, but I'd rather have it if needed than wish I had one when I didn't.
I think that open carry is a matter of common sense. It makes ultimate sense to open carry while hunting or hiking.
Open carrying in a general public situation may feel good on some level but just does not make sense from the perspective of offending people around you. Just my personal opinion.... ymmv.
Open carrying in a general public situation may feel good on some level but just does not make sense from the perspective of offending people around you. Just my personal opinion.... ymmv.
If you were in a situation where you knew your family was safe, but somebody was shooting other people and nothing was being done about it (say you're in a restaurant and somebody is killing people but you and your family could just duck out a nearby door and escape) would you attempt to kill the shooter to save others who aren't members of your family?
I would agree with your bank robbery scenario as long as that's all that was happening and no violence was occurring. If violence is occurring, the carrier of a weapon, concealed or not, might have to make a split-second decision about whether to try to end what is happening or let it go on. It's a great responsibility with ramifications that can affect not only your life but the lives of others whether you like it or not.
If it seemed the only option available, I would have no problem defending/protecting the life of somebody else who is helpless in the face of violence; legal consequences be damned.
The problem we have here is much like IDPA problems. You know what is going to happen so your gaming it. Don't try to game self defense situations. If your in a bank and that turns into a robbery that could end or turn into a murder scene. You won't know till it's over. I guess I am glad I Iive in Texas where we can use lawful deadly force to protect a 3rd party without fear of civil lawsuit.
I like that ability to use deadly force when necessary. Wonder how many other states have this same perspective on the law.
You know that's a real moral dilemma. What is the risk of bodily harm to yourself or your family. Do you have a responsibility to defend those who choose not to be able to defend themselves or their families, or worse try to deny you the right to be able to defend you and your family? I live in Texas where even the use of deadly force to protect property is legal and in the past has been upheld in a few cases, one man in the greater Houston area protecting the property of a neighbor.
Mike, I understand what you are saying and don't disagree per say. OTOH, it is useful to play though scenarios in your head about what you might do if.....? Just two days ago I was sitting in a hotel restaurant with SWMBO, who noted my absent stare, did what most girls do and inquired "What are you thinking?" My reply was " I was thinking what I would do if an active shooter entered this restaurant right now....." She only smiled and chuckled, she knows I like to always sit with my back to the wall and/or my gunside inside the booth, be able to observe the exits and entrances, etc. If you play enough scenarios through your head, if the day ever comes, you will have a frame of reference upon which to base an immediate plan of action, rather than be stunned and have no clue as to what to do when the unexpected happens to you and yours. Granted, you cannot anticipate unforeseen turns of events, no battle plan survives first contact. But having thought through various possible responses to numerous situations can sharpen your tactical decision making process. Apologies for the thread hijack!
Nothing against IDPA, etc. Great for gaining gun handling skills, but the "gaming" aspect is one of the reasons I lost interest in it as a training tool, still lots of fun.
They're only "offended" because it's abnormal. If more people carried openly--and were unfailingly polite and friendly--it would go a long way toward changing images.
The idiots wearing rifles on tactical slings at the local coffee shop are doing more harm than good, though I understand why they're doing it (protesting the fact that carrying a rifle thus is legal, but not a handgun). Still, where it's legal to carry something (dare I use the word?) reasonable, doing so while displaying the behavior of a good neighbor will associate the two.
Have you ever had to face an unstable, armed homicide suspect in a crowd of innocent bystanders, including children? I have. You can't initiate any action because of the innocents in the line of fire -- all you can do is watch and wait for them to decide if today is a good day to die. The fact that you can likely kill them before they can react is irrelevant -- you're still stuck. While you watch and wait, the adrenaline is pumping, your blood pressure has spiked, and your heart is racing. After its over, you'll collapse into a chair and watch your hands shake.
Gaming? I don't think so.
Excellent post Kit. As a LEO, I will say there is a reason why banks have silent alarms for bank robberies. It's to not spook Mr. Bank Robber. There's also a reason when we show up to a silent bank robbery call, we don't go rushing in to make entry, but instead, we quietly wait outside for Mr. Bank Robber to come out.
I hope mikewood understands we do this in order for it to NOT turn into a shootout or hostage situation, while innocent women and children are in the bank. I would hope and pray that he realizes a CCW does not give him the trained ability, to assess and discern the constantly evolving situation of a bank robbery and the situational awareness skills it takes to interject himself into that volatile situation, UNLESS he is PERSONALLY confronted by Mr. Bank Robber.
I would suggest as a witness in the bank who has a CCW, to sit back and patiently wait, and see if Mr. Bank Robber does only just that. Which is what most bank robbers do. They rob the bank and leave. If the police are outside waiting for them, then good. If not, then he only got money which can be replaced.
However, if you do throw caution and discernment and common sense out of the window and confront Mr. Bank Robber inside the bank? And innocent people get killed or hurt because of it? You will have a whole lot more to worry about than just a 3rd party civil lawsuit mikewood. Even in Texas. Trust me.
Last edited:
Think about it. If you were with your family at a restaurant and a shooter comes in shooting. If you get up to engage the shooter with your gun out, the minute the shooter sees you, your family becomes either an automatic target or a back drop behind you for flying bullets.
And I don't know anything about your family, but my family who normally does what I tell them to do, they love me so much, if they thought I was putting myself in danger, they might not do what I say and "get out!" when I tell them. If you would risk your life for strangers in that restaurant, don't think your family would just do what you say and not risk their life for you.
As a LEO, I am sworn to intervene and place myself between harms way and the innocent public, even when off duty. But I am not sworn to do that with my family. If I am alone, or with my cop buddies, The shooter will meet God's judgement and I will arrange the meeting. But if I am with my loved ones and can get them out, that is what I will do.
Does this common wisdom change in light of the current trend of active shooters, where there is no objective for the perp to escape,and the intent is mass casualties?
I don't disagree with your premise and example above, just wondering
I'm sure the people you serve and are sworn to protect would appreciate the fact that you would grant your own family priority over theirs in such a situation if it did arise.
Well sir, I don't know if it's common wisdom, but I try not to entangle my individual wisdom, motivations, loyalties, priorities and personal responsibilities of my deeply loved family members with what's going on in the current trends of active shooters.
I hope that answers your question. Maybe I could give you a more specific answer with a more specific question?
We're not super heroes muhle, just regular guys, trying to do an exceptional job. I have no qualms giving my life for another muhle.
If I rephrased your own post, I could say the exact same to you. "I'm sure your family that you are sworn to protect would appreciate the fact that you would grant strangers you don't even know priority over theirs in such a situation if it did arise".
I am curious, you would not try and help your family get out first if an exit door was right there beside you, just as the question was posed? And if not, why not muhle?
Last edited:
I guess what I was thinking is what if the hypothetical dinner had been in Paris a few weeks back.Well sir, I don't know if it's common wisdom, but I try not to entangle my individual wisdom, motivations, loyalties, priorities and personal responsibilities of my deeply loved family members with what's going on in the current trends of active shooters.
I hope that answers your question. Maybe I could give you a more specific answer with a more specific question?
The police chief of Washington DC said on 60 minutes last week that while they still don't advise civilians to engage an active shooter if flight is an option, if flight is not an option then the shooter should be rushed in order to minimize loss of life.
She admitted that this was a departure from what has been advised for many years in light of recent events.
No specific question for you, was simply curious what your comments might be.
- Status
Similar threads
