TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Besides, the 1A doesn’t apply to private forums nor does my objection to the negative feedback reflect in any way on my respect for the 1A.

Exactly. And neither does criticizing open carry show a lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment. I and other posters here who do that aren't the government.

It shows a lack of respect for other firearms owners and carriers. The antis love it when we disrespect each other. But hey! As long as you get to exercise your “right” to criticize everything is just fine.

If they get their gun taken like guy in the news story that prompted this thread, then do they really deserve respect?

Are you going to publicly criticize any LEO who get their weapon stolen? The criticism should be directed at the thief not the victim. Based on the lack of information in the story I think he deserves a little break.

I think I’m gonna go shower. This pig wrestling is making me feel dirty.

The thing is these sort of disagreements tend to stifle real constructive discussions on advantages, and methods. There are some important issues that deserve discussion about CC and OC. but the bigger issue of whether one should or shouldn't matter to anyone but oneself. Calling people dumb because they choose to carry a different method than you do is insensitive inappropriate and just plain dumb.

I would like to point out that there is no one perfect way to carry for every single person. I am a critic of SOB, pocket Gonad femoral artery, or Open carry. But circumstances vary and have made these the best option at sometimes for me. Any method that we do choose to carry does have disadvantages or drawbacks. But sometimes an often criticised unpopular method of carry may be the best for a given situation or individual.

kw5kw wrote:

OlBill wrote:Why do police officers open carry?

The law requires that they carry open.

Ok. Why?

CleverNickname wrote:

OlBill wrote:Why do police officers open carry?

Uniformed officers open carry because they're in uniform, and police officers in the US are all armed. Police officers in plainclothes seem to conceal most of the time. If a criminal sees a uniformed cop, since the criminal knows the officer is carrying, then concealing the officer's gun doesn't help nearly as much. But as an LTC licensee, it's much, much easier to blend in with the general public who isn't carrying by concealing.

To go off on a bit of a tangent, during the 1980 Iran embassy siege in London, there was a UK cop who was assigned to guard the embassy who was taken hostage. He was able to keep possession of his concealed handgun because the terrorists holding him hostage thought he was unarmed (as most UK cops were and are), so they didn't bother searching him. That wouldn't be the case in the US; they'd assume any cop was armed.

anygunanywhere wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Isn’t that special. Your sharing your contempt for those who decide to exercise their freedom in a different manner as yourself.

It's not incompatible to think that the right to OC should exist and also think that it's a bad idea for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time.

People have the right to wear a neon green Borat-style over-the-shoulder banana-hammock in public too, but just because they can doesn't mean they should.

When they do decide to OC those who have great respect for the 2A shouldn’t denigrate and criticize to the nth degree. We get enough of that from our enemies.

If you can't take some mild criticism, maybe you should reflect on your amount of respect for the first amendment.

And what good did it do him?

From your link

Lock was later frisked, but the gunman conducting the search did not find the constable's weapon.

. They searched him despite knowing he was unarmed because English cops are unarmed?

Also from your link

but was unable to draw it before he was overpowered, although he did manage to press the "panic button" on his radio.

Maybe he should have been open carrying. Of course he probably would have died.

Lock' s contribution was apparently his ability to lie well, covering up the Intel gathering. Not his firearm. Was the SAS concealed carrying when they rescued him?

Why do cops open carry?

Not seeing how that is relevant to the topic. What the police do or are required to do is not especially relevant, as we are not police officers and do not have similar duties.

It is interesting to note that police generally have substantial retention holsters, because their firearms were being grabbed by criminals, either from behind or during scuffles/arrests.

There are zero details in the story link. As mentioned earlier, I would like to see video so we could get some idea how he was carrying, what sort of holster he was using, and what type of gun. At this point, I can only assume the guy did not have a retention holster and someone was able to snatch the gun and run away.

As for the other argument, I am not fan of OC, but I like having the option and there will occasionally be situations where I need to use it. However, people do lots of things in life just because they want to or can.

Liberty wrote:
The thing is these sort of disagreements tend to stifle real constructive discussions on advantages, and methods. There are some important issues that deserve discussion about CC and OC. but the bigger issue of whether one should or shouldn't matter to anyone but oneself. Calling people dumb because they choose to carry a different method than you do is insensitive inappropriate and just plain dumb.

I would like to point out that there is no one perfect way to carry for every single person. I am a critic of SOB, pocket Gonad femoral artery, or Open carry. But circumstances vary and have made these the best option at sometimes for me. Any method that we do choose to carry does have disadvantages or drawbacks. But sometimes an often criticised unpopular method of carry may be the best for a given situation or individual.

Please indulge me while I give one personal example where I believe that OC is the right choice for me. I work in a place where the carrying of firearms is frowned upon, and per our employee manual is grounds for termination. Accordingly, I choose to not carry while at work. My dress code also calls for tucked in button down shirts in warmer months (sweaters are OK when it is cold).

My usual EDC is a 1911 carried in an OWB holster. IWB carry of anything beyond a mouse gun being a severe challenge due to back issues. My usual MO is to get dressed, snap on my OWB holster and head to work. When I get to work I unholster in my car and go into my office. But if I stop to get gas, or go somewhere for lunch, then I choose to OC my 1911. Other options include untucking my dress shirt and looking like a slob, or pocket carrying my J frame. I have considered both of these and after weighing all pro's and con's I have decided that my best option is to OC my 1911.

Is this decision "dumb"? I don't think so. Is this the "dumbest thing I could possibly do in a public place"? No. I can think of around 100 things I could do in a public place that would be "dumber". Just off hand, slapping a cop in the back of the head, unprovoked, would definitely be "dumber". But I will say that I believe people who call others "dumb" for making these decisions are, at best, ignorant. And to copy a phrase from another poster in this thread, let me just say "bless their hearts".

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If nothing else, this should encourage everyone to carry a BUG.

Why?

If someone manages to grab your primary gun (whether it is OC or CC), would you rather have access to a back up gun or not? Personally, my answer is "yes, having access to another gun would be better than being completely disarmed in that circumstance". By asking this question, I am guessing that you are not quite as certain as I am on this point.

I'm curious as to why you might prefer to be completely disarmed in that (admittedly unlikely) scenario.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If nothing else, this should encourage everyone to carry a BUG.

Why?

If someone manages to grab your primary gun (whether it is OC or CC), would you rather have access to a back up gun or not? Personally, my answer is "yes, having access to another gun would be better than being completely disarmed in that circumstance". By asking this question, I am guessing that you are not quite as certain as I am on this point.

I'm curious as to why you might prefer to be completely disarmed in that (admittedly unlikely) scenario.

In this circumstance where someone has grabbed your pistol in the middle of a Walmart, you appear to be arguing you should go for a BUG gun, this assuming some sort of shooting exchange in the middle of a Walmart.

If it were me, thats not prudent. Frankly they would not have grabbed my carry in the first place. Concealed means concealed.

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If nothing else, this should encourage everyone to carry a BUG.

Why?

If someone manages to grab your primary gun (whether it is OC or CC), would you rather have access to a back up gun or not? Personally, my answer is "yes, having access to another gun would be better than being completely disarmed in that circumstance". By asking this question, I am guessing that you are not quite as certain as I am on this point.

I'm curious as to why you might prefer to be completely disarmed in that (admittedly unlikely) scenario.

In this circumstance where someone has grabbed your pistol in the middle of a Walmart, you appear to be arguing you should go for a BUG gun, this assuming some sort of shooting exchange in the middle of a Walmart.

If it were me, thats not prudent. Frankly they would not have grabbed my carry in the first place. Concealed means concealed.

There are thousand ways for such a scenario to play out. Don't get caught up with only one.

I am only discussing the topic of the actual event.

1911 Raptor wrote:

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

cedarparkdad987 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If nothing else, this should encourage everyone to carry a BUG.

Why?

If someone manages to grab your primary gun (whether it is OC or CC), would you rather have access to a back up gun or not? Personally, my answer is "yes, having access to another gun would be better than being completely disarmed in that circumstance". By asking this question, I am guessing that you are not quite as certain as I am on this point.

I'm curious as to why you might prefer to be completely disarmed in that (admittedly unlikely) scenario.

In this circumstance where someone has grabbed your pistol in the middle of a Walmart, you appear to be arguing you should go for a BUG gun, this assuming some sort of shooting exchange in the middle of a Walmart.

If it were me, thats not prudent. Frankly they would not have grabbed my carry in the first place. Concealed means concealed.

It is a LICENSE TO CARRY NOT A CONCEALED TO CARRY!

The concealed means concealed quote no longer applies.

It does if you are old like me. Why are you shouting sunny? My hearing is fine.
Concealed means concealed. Open means everyone knows your business.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Liberty wrote:
The thing is these sort of disagreements tend to stifle real constructive discussions on advantages, and methods. There are some important issues that deserve discussion about CC and OC. but the bigger issue of whether one should or shouldn't matter to anyone but oneself. Calling people dumb because they choose to carry a different method than you do is insensitive inappropriate and just plain dumb.

I would like to point out that there is no one perfect way to carry for every single person. I am a critic of SOB, pocket Gonad femoral artery, or Open carry. But circumstances vary and have made these the best option at sometimes for me. Any method that we do choose to carry does have disadvantages or drawbacks. But sometimes an often criticised unpopular method of carry may be the best for a given situation or individual.

Please indulge me while I give one personal example where I believe that OC is the right choice for me. I work in a place where the carrying of firearms is frowned upon, and per our employee manual is grounds for termination. Accordingly, I choose to not carry while at work. My dress code also calls for tucked in button down shirts in warmer months (sweaters are OK when it is cold).

My usual EDC is a 1911 carried in an OWB holster. IWB carry of anything beyond a mouse gun being a severe challenge due to back issues. My usual MO is to get dressed, snap on my OWB holster and head to work. When I get to work I unholster in my car and go into my office. But if I stop to get gas, or go somewhere for lunch, then I choose to OC my 1911. Other options include untucking my dress shirt and looking like a slob, or pocket carrying my J frame. I have considered both of these and after weighing all pro's and con's I have decided that my best option is to OC my 1911.

Is this decision "dumb"? I don't think so. Is this the "dumbest thing I could possibly do in a public place"? No. I can think of around 100 things I could do in a public place that would be "dumber". Just off hand, slapping a cop in the back of the head, unprovoked, would definitely be "dumber". But I will say that I believe people who call others "dumb" for making these decisions are, at best, ignorant. And to copy a phrase from another poster in this thread, let me just say "bless their hearts".

Do you go throughout your day at work with an exposed empty holster or do you mean you remove the holster and gun when you say you unholster?

Concealed means concealed. Open means everyone knows my business and my business is protecting me and my family. I want them to know. No guessing, no question.