Missouri Open Carry

[Firefighterchen]

Missouri cities, towns can no longer ban open carry ? GunsAmerica Blog

States going to burn down now that open carry can't be banned and 19 year olds can carry right?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

Missouri cities, towns can no longer ban open carry ? GunsAmerica Blog

States going to burn down now that open carry can't be banned and 19 year olds can carry right?

Why would the state burn down? The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it. The only thing burning will be the extra ammo the BG's burn with the new target-rich environment. I mean, duh!

 

[RJT CCW]

Missouri cities, towns can no longer ban open carry ? GunsAmerica Blog

States going to burn down now that open carry can't be banned and 19 year olds can carry right?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

Yep! It will be terrible. Blood in the streets I tell you, blood everywhere. :sarcastic:

 

[NavyLCDR]

States going to burn down now that open carry can't be banned and 19 year olds can carry right?

Yep! For sure! Just like in all the other states where preemption exists and 19 year olds can carry! :stop:

 

[ADulay]

Open carried many times while in Missouri with no problems. Even had the police show up and order food at McDonalds while I was there and no problems at all.

Open carry is still the most comfortable way to carry 24/7.

AD


Sent from the Glock Range Bag iPad using Tapatalk and a screwdriver

 

[Firefighterchen]

Open carried many times while in Missouri with no problems. Even had the police show up and order food at McDonalds while I was there and no problems at all.

Open carry is still the most comfortable way to carry 24/7.

AD


Sent from the Glock Range Bag iPad using Tapatalk and a screwdriver

THE HORROR!!!

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Quiet Observer]

"The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it."


This is just a variation of the anti-gunners’ theme, “If people are allowed to carry guns in public, there will be more shootings and the streets will run with blood”. Recent history has shown this to be untrue. There have no significant, if any, increase in shootings in OC and CC states. If there were it would be in the media and Bloomberg and others would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

The presence of an OC’er might discourage a robbery, but that assumes the robber sees the gun before entering the store. A pistol carried on the right hip may not be visible when the carrier is viewed from the left side.

My state, Illinois, does not allow open carry. I am OK with that. I realize that many in society are frightened by guns. I believe that I can still deploy me weapon in time to have major effect. There are no guarantees with either carry method. There are too many variables to say that either CC or OC are absolutely the best under all circumstances.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My state, Illinois, does not allow open carry. I am OK with that. I realize that many in society are frightened by guns.

Until the 1960's it was illegal in most places for black people to drink from the same fountains as white people, or use the same bathroom. Why? Because many in society then were both afraid of and hated black people. If those laws were still in existence today would you be OK with them? Even if you were black?

The idea that people's rights should be regulated for no reason other than fear and hatred is abhorrent to me.

Until 1966 it was still legal for states to require a person to pay a poll tax in order to vote. The poll tax laws were also passed out of fear and hatred in order to keep "undesirables" from voting. Would you be OK with that as well? Yet the only way for a person to legally exercise their right to bear arms in Illinois is to do so in secret, after they pay their tax to the government, to cater to the unfounded fears of "many in society" and to ensure that only "desirable" people carry guns in public - and you're OK with that. Why is the 2nd Amendment regarded as less of a right than voting or the right to be free from racial discrimination - especially by people who claim to be "pro-gun" such as you? Please stay in Illinois. We have enough problems in Washington right now fighting people like you who are OK with the government getting to decide who gets to carry firearms and where and how they can carry them.

 

[BluesStringer]

"The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it."

This is just a variation of the anti-gunners’ theme, “If people are allowed to carry guns in public, there will be more shootings and the streets will run with blood”. Recent history has shown this to be untrue. There have no significant, if any, increase in shootings in OC and CC states. If there were it would be in the media and Bloomberg and others would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

Thanks for the free education, but really, your....

...is broken beyond repair.

The presence of an OC’er might discourage a robbery, but that assumes the robber sees the gun before entering the store.

The only thing I assumed is that most readers would understand that I, like every other OC'er I've ever discussed it with, are simply attempting to increase our odds that we won't be attacked. It assumes nothing of the potential attacker, it just potentially (obviously, if seen) gives them more information to go on when choosing a victim.

One would think that it would go without saying that the potential attacker would have to see the OC'ed weapon before using that information as criteria within his/her selection process. That was the only mistaken assumption I made.

My state, Illinois, does not allow open carry. I am OK with that. I realize that many in society are frightened by guns. I believe that I can still deploy me weapon in time to have major effect. There are no guarantees with either carry method. There are too many variables to say that either CC or OC are absolutely the best under all circumstances.

I can absolutely say what is the best under all circumstances for me, and that's all I ever do say, right up until some ne'er do well who has never OC'ed and says he doesn't want to, tries to evaluate my tactics for me.

There's something quite incompatible with OC'ers promulgating the notion of increasing odds with their tactical decisions, and a respondent trying to invalidate their notions by talking about absolutes and "in all circumstances" BS.

And like Navy, I don't care what anyone in general society thinks of my tactical decision to OC. All I care about is having a self-defense plan that maximizes every advantage for me and mine against someone who might choose me and mine as their victims. If you're not thinking in that vein in your tactical decisions concerning guns, you're doing it wrong.

Blues

 

[Quiet Observer]

There's something quite incompatible with OC'ers promulgating the notion of increasing odds with their tactical decisions, and a respondent trying to invalidate their notions by talking about absolutes and "in all circumstances" BS.

I never said that anyone had to follow my decision. I mentioned a few points that someone might consider when deciding how, or if, to carry. I realize that there are many other points supporting and disagreeing with any such decision. I would advise anyone considering carrying a weapon to use other sources, besides this forum, for arguments on carrying. There are numerous articles and books written by professionals, as well as classes.

I do not care how you carry, or if you carry at all. I responded to your statement, “The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it”. That sounds to me like an anti-OC statement and an assumption about a potential attacker. What is the advantage of being shot first?
Maybe you want to give the CC’er extra time to get to cover and then take out the BG. Thank you for your sacrifice.

As for caring about what others think, I think I have that luxury where I live. In other locations or circumstances my decision might be different. In Viet Nam I was part of a USMC team that set up in a small village and protected the area. When we went on patrol I carried my issued M-16, plus grenades and a K-bar. A few Marines did not think a Navy Corpsman should be heavily armed. I understood their objection, but ignored it. Since I also carried a Unit One medical kit and had the knowledge to use it they did not strongly object. Other Marines were happy to have one more person who could make things go “bang”.

Again, I do not care how you carry, or if you carry at all.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I responded to your statement, “The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it”. That sounds to me like an anti-OC statement and an assumption about a potential attacker. What is the advantage of being shot first?
Maybe you want to give the CC’er extra time to get to cover and then take out the BG. Thank you for your sacrifice.

"The open carrier will be shot first" is a made up theory that has not proven to be true in reality even once - without that person also wearing a uniform along with their gun.

 

[Quiet Observer]

LCdr,

I assume that you noticed that I was quoting BluesStringer's statement from page one, and disagreeing with his logic. You need to ask him why he thinks the OC'er will be the first target.
I do challenge your assertion that a non-uniformed OC'er has never been a first target. I do not think either of us has seen enough documentation on robberies and hits to make an absolute statement either way. In general I think that most robberies are not that well planned. I do see a possible scenario in which the bad guy knows that the clerk or owner does OC. He enters the store with a concealed gun and shoots the clerk or owner when his attention is diverted.
Does that mean the clerk/owner should not have OC'ed?
No! This is an isolated incident. Over the years several robbers may have been scared off when they saw the gun and never ever announced a holdup. Who knows?

No Element of surprise: Are you saying that a potential robbery, assault and battery, or rape have never been stopped when the intended victim has produced a gun from under a counter, a purse, or coat? I have seen several news stories in which this happened. The Armed Citizen page in the NRA publication frequently contains stories in which this happened. Does that make CC better than OC. NO, an OC gun may have kept the attack from even starting. Or the criminal may overwhelm the victim regardless of how the weapon was carried.

Am I telling anyone if or how they should carry? No, that is their decision. I will post counterpoints to any argument, OC or CC, not to change the mind of poster, but to encourage those readers who might be considering to carry a weapon to give it a lot of thought and seek other sources on the subject.

I am comfortable doing CC in my local environment, and I do recognize its limitations. I respect your decision to OC.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I am comfortable doing CC in my local environment, and I do recognize its limitations. I respect your decision to OC.

But you are OK with open carry being illegal in Illinois (your post #7) and you have never answered my rebuttal to you being OK with Illinois state law dictating how people must carry their firearms to be legal.

The post by Blues in #2 was 100% sarcastic. If you read all the other posts that he makes, it becomes obvious.

 

[BluesStringer]

The post by Blues in #2 was 100% sarcastic. If you read all the other posts that he makes, it becomes obvious.

Thanks for clearing that up, Navy. I tried before:

"The bad guys will just shoot the OC'ers first and slink back into the night and be done with it."

This is just a variation of the anti-gunners’ theme, “If people are allowed to carry guns in public, there will be more shootings and the streets will run with blood”. Recent history has shown this to be untrue. There have no significant, if any, increase in shootings in OC and CC states. If there were it would be in the media and Bloomberg and others would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

Thanks for the free education, but really, your....

...is broken beyond repair.

But obviously he didn't get that bit of sarcasm either.

Nearly every time the guy posts, I end up wishing he'd live up to his name.

Blues

 

[Quiet Observer]

LCdr,
I said that I was OK and comfortable with the Illinois law. I never said I was enthusiastic about it. The state legislature is controlled by liberal Chicago Democrats. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future. I vote for pro-gun legislators in my district and statewide offices. Our governor-elect is an unknown, except that he has said he is against an “assault” weapons ban. We do know that our present governor is anti-gun and vetoed our present law because it did not have enough restrictions. Even many liberal legislators voted to override his veto, because the Federal court said they had to allow carrying. It still has a lot of stupid restriction. My coming here and ranting about it will do nothing to change the law.

***

Blues,
I responded to your original post, which gave no indication that you were being sarcastic. You could have used an emoticon, or other device, or have posted a clarification in that post without lessening the effect of the sarcasm. In your later post you could have said that you had been using sarcasm. Instead you went into a diatribe about how I was dictating tactics to you. All I did was offer a few counterpoints that another read might consider. Perhaps I share some blame in not recognizing your little animation. They were clever when they first came out years ago, but are rather passé now. Truthfully, I think that they are childish and I try to ignore them.

***

I do not care how or whether either of you chose to carry. At 69 I will make my own decision, based on my readings, classes I have attended, and other sources.

BTW: The *** meaning nothing. I am just trying to separate the paragraphs to make the post more readable.

 

[BluesStringer]

Blues,
I responded to your original post, which gave no indication that you were being sarcastic. You could have used an emoticon, or other device, or have posted a clarification in that post without lessening the effect of the sarcasm. In your later post you could have said that you had been using sarcasm.

Look dude, I responded with sarcasm to Chen. He and I know when each other are using sarcasm. The "I mean, duh!" didn't give you hint that I was being sarcastic? The fact that Chen "Liked" my post didn't give you a hint? The short post was absolutely dripping with sarcasm. Any thread on open carry around here would confirm for you that Chen and I both OC. Everybody but you already knew it, and since it wasn't in response to you at all, I felt no need to dig out emoticons just in case some uninformed newb who's too obtuse to recognize sarcasm when it's dripping all over him comes along.

Instead you went into a diatribe about how I was dictating tactics to you.

I used the word "evaluate," not "dictate."

All I did was offer a few counterpoints that another read might consider.

I need, nor want, either your evaluation, your counterpoint, or your approval for any tactic I might choose for myself. You're still talking as though your missing the sarcasm in my first post is somehow my fault. It's your lack of perception that has caused this misunderstanding.

Perhaps I share some blame in not recognizing your little animation. They were clever when they first came out years ago, but are rather passé now. Truthfully, I think that they are childish and I try to ignore them.

And just above you were scolding me for not using emoticons? Not only is your sarcasm detector broken beyond repair, but your inconsistency meter is pegged in the red. I mean, duh! Good grief. Buy a freakin' clue.

BTW: The *** meaning nothing. I am just trying to separate the paragraphs to make the post more readable.

While maybe a little more readable, your whole post still means nothing, because the whole thing is based on your inability to recognize a joke between friends when you see it.

Blues