The Open Carry Argument

[Unfettered Might]

my thoughts exactly.

if you dont think so then just ask the poor girl that recently had her head bashed in with those steel toe boots. it put her in a coma for several weeks. i think that situation would fall into the category of deadly force. especially if the aggressor persists.

and face it. most fist fights now days aint fist fights. they start that way, but quickly turn very violent. read the paper and watch the news if you dont think so. kids and most criminals use weapons now days cuz thats the cowards way out. and if i can prevent a hospital stay by pulling my gun then so be it. nobody said i have to squeeze the trigger. thats only if the moron insists on continuing. :angry:

She should have acted. At some point in that fight I'm assuming she expressed the desire to retreat from the fight.

I will agree with your assement of most fights nowadays. My generation was probably one of, if not the last one, that using weapons were frowned upon.

Unfortunately, if you were facing an equal opponent and you pulled your gun and they were not armed, you would go to jail. There is something called the Lesser of Two Evils defense and it would not apply to you in that situation because the threat of physical violence does not justify the threat of deadly violence.

You can only defend yourself on what you know not what you think.

 

[Unfettered Might]

It must be REALLY different in Kentucky. I can't speak for "most" states, but in my state,S.C., if you use force against a person, like a fist fight, as you say, I can claim threat of bodily harm. Therefore I am in imminent danger, and I have the right to use deadly force. When you start a fist fight, to you, it might just be a sport. To most, it's a use of violent force that sometimes ends in permanent bodily injury, or death. Either way, a concealed carry person is going to pull a weapon on you.....and "most" are going to fire a couple of shots when they pull it. You'll never have a chance to get to your weapon to use it.

A simple threat of bodily harm should not justify deadly force. Getting a busted lip or a black eye does not end your life so you should not be justified in ending theirs.

To make things clear, I do not like fighting, but I know how to fight. I haven't been in a fistfight in over 18 years. I am not a violent person so don't go away from this thread thinking so. Where I grew up fist fights were not uncommon and I ended far more than I started. The ones that I did start, they deserved it.

One shouldn't run their mouth too much, if they don't want to have to settle things physically, pretty simple to me.

 

[ecocks]

I have never heard it called "bodily harm" but there have been numerous discussions on disparity of force and how that applies to being in fear for your life.

While I would agree about holding your tongue when prudent, not every fight is started by two willing participants. It only takes one.

If I interpose myself between my family, friends or an innocent I'll take a punch or two but if I'm squared off against superior power, strength, speed or endurance, I'm going to be evaluating very quickly whether disengagement is possible and if the others are clear.

I recall one security video clip of a big guy throwing some guy around in a pizza place (Philly maybe?) while a half-dozen people watched. The attacker was around 6'4"-6'5" and pushing 300 lbs. The victim was maybe 5'10"-5'11" and would have been lucky to hit 175. Personally, from watching the beginning of the attack, the kicking after he was down and the punches thrown (by the attacker), I would have been hard-pressed not to feel in fear of my life. Equally sobering was watching the people witnessing it, who moved as far away as the walls would permit and turning their backs on the scene. I tried to think what I would have done if I had been in that line watching this unfold. The employees called the police. The attacker turned out to be an ex-convict, out for less than 6 months, and they got him for stealing the guy's cell phone (which was clearly recorded on the video) and sent him away again.

 

[The Dude]

She should have acted. At some point in that fight I'm assuming she expressed the desire to retreat from the fight.

I will agree with your assement of most fights nowadays. My generation was probably one of, if not the last one, that using weapons were frowned upon.

Unfortunately, if you were facing an equal opponent and you pulled your gun and they were not armed, you would go to jail. There is something called the Lesser of Two Evils defense and it would not apply to you in that situation because the threat of physical violence does not justify the threat of deadly violence.

You can only defend yourself on what you know not what you think.

im sure the young lady did, but that didtn stop the threat from continuing his assault.

i beg to differ.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds

these are some of the laws regarding self defense and use of force for the state of Tennessee. However the code goes on to include the following,


(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

 

[GOV5]

A simple threat of bodily harm should not justify deadly force. Getting a busted lip or a black eye does not end your life so you should not be justified in ending theirs.

To make things clear, I do not like fighting, but I know how to fight. I haven't been in a fistfight in over 18 years. I am not a violent person so don't go away from this thread thinking so. Where I grew up fist fights were not uncommon and I ended far more than I started. The ones that I did start, they deserved it.

One shouldn't run their mouth too much, if they don't want to have to settle things physically, pretty simple to me.

Let me address those points one at a time. First one: "The threat of bodily harm should not justify deadly force. Getting a busted lip..." Well, actually, yes it does. Most of the time it will get a weapon drawn, at the very least. If you punch me ( which is my fault for letting you get that close to me after the threat had been made), I don't know when you are going to stop. How am I to know you are only going to hit me once? When you start, I am only to understand that you are going to continue until I am physically impaired or dead. Trying that stuff on me will get you shot...at least twice..you know, the double - tap thing.

Second one: "One should not run their mouth...". I agree with you on that point. However, the police and courts don't! That will get you arrested for sure. YOU CAN'T lay hands on people just because they are being jerks. I know it sucks that it's that way, but it is. You will be the one paying the price if you attack them. And you will be sued in civil court, and it will costs you money. The jerk can even be setting you up for that, so be aware when someone acts like that toward you.

Look, I'm not trying to "one-up" you or be a jerk towards you. Forgive me if I sounded that way. I'm trying to let you know that you are going to get into a LOT of trouble if you put your current thoughts and attitude into action. None of us here would like to hear about that happening to you. And remember, once you took the responsibility of carrying a gun, you also took on the responsibility of thinking about the rest of us that carry. You no longer have the right to act as if you are "one". Your are now a member of a bigger group, and your actions will help us or hurt us, depending on what you do.

I, personally, would like to request, or beg, you to have a little sit-down with yourself and do some pre-thinking about how to handle different situations that may present themselves. It will do two things: it will get you mentally prepared so that action is automatic. Secondly, it will ensure that he action is the correct action...the type of action that will not get YOU in trouble, and the type that will shine favorably on ALL of the rest of US. I hope you will consider my request seriously, because if I was on a jury and the case scenario you stated came before me in court, even though I have a CWP, I'd vote to burn your butt.,... for two reasons. One for being stupid, and the other for putting the rest of us straight-thinking CWP carriers in a bad light!

 

[The Dude]

Let me address those points one at a time. First one: "The threat of bodily harm should not justify deadly force. Getting a busted lip..." Well, actually, yes it does. Most of the time it will get a weapon drawn, at the very least. If you punch me ( which is my fault for letting you get that close to me after the threat had been made), I don't know when you are going to stop. How am I to know you are only going to hit me once? When you start, I am only to understand that you are going to continue until I am physically impaired or dead. Trying that stuff on me will get you shot...at least twice..you know, the double - tap thing.

Second one: "One should not run their mouth...". I agree with you on that point. However, the police and courts don't! That will get you arrested for sure. YOU CAN'T lay hands on people just because they are being jerks. I know it sucks that it's that way, but it is. You will be the one paying the price if you attack them. And you will be sued in civil court, and it will costs you money. The jerk can even be setting you up for that, so be aware when someone acts like that toward you.

i have to agree with ya on both points. and just to add that latley in my neighboring town of knoxville, there have been numerous stabbings that occured recently and one in maryville where it started out as a fist fight, but quickly escalated to a much more serious matter, resulting in one boy losing his life. i think ill stick with pulling my gun.
and ive lived your second point. courts dont care. and it cost me around 1,000 dollars when it was said and done.

 

[Liberty1]

btt

 

[NavyLCDR]

btt

Why?

 

[Unfettered Might]

Not sure how I missed this response....

Let me address those points one at a time. First one: "The threat of bodily harm should not justify deadly force. Getting a busted lip..." Well, actually, yes it does. Most of the time it will get a weapon drawn, at the very least. If you punch me ( which is my fault for letting you get that close to me after the threat had been made), I don't know when you are going to stop. How am I to know you are only going to hit me once? When you start, I am only to understand that you are going to continue until I am physically impaired or dead. Trying that stuff on me will get you shot...at least twice..you know, the double - tap thing.

You put that into practice and you will be going to jail, or prison, in Kentucky.

Second one: "One should not run their mouth...". I agree with you on that point. However, the police and courts don't! That will get you arrested for sure. YOU CAN'T lay hands on people just because they are being jerks. I know it sucks that it's that way, but it is. You will be the one paying the price if you attack them. And you will be sued in civil court, and it will costs you money. The jerk can even be setting you up for that, so be aware when someone acts like that toward you.

I was saying that from the perspective of the guy with the gun in his holster. If you own a gun, you shouldn't be running your mouth.

Look, I'm not trying to "one-up" you or be a jerk towards you. Forgive me if I sounded that way. I'm trying to let you know that you are going to get into a LOT of trouble if you put your current thoughts and attitude into action. None of us here would like to hear about that happening to you. And remember, once you took the responsibility of carrying a gun, you also took on the responsibility of thinking about the rest of us that carry. You no longer have the right to act as if you are "one". Your are now a member of a bigger group, and your actions will help us or hurt us, depending on what you do.

I'm starting to think you've totally skewed the perspective my statements were based on. I agree on all points.

I, personally, would like to request, or beg, you to have a little sit-down with yourself and do some pre-thinking about how to handle different situations that may present themselves. It will do two things: it will get you mentally prepared so that action is automatic. Secondly, it will ensure that he action is the correct action...the type of action that will not get YOU in trouble, and the type that will shine favorably on ALL of the rest of US. I hope you will consider my request seriously, because if I was on a jury and the case scenario you stated came before me in court, even though I have a CWP, I'd vote to burn your butt.,... for two reasons. One for being stupid, and the other for putting the rest of us straight-thinking CWP carriers in a bad light!

See previous statement......

 

[GOV5]

I'm sorry if I missed your point. Please excuse me then.

 

[handgonnetoter]

I just hope that NONE of us end up in some kind of fight nowadays. I am sure that pretty much all of us have read the Ayoob files in certain gun magazines in the past. It seems to me that getting out from under a legal battle over who did right and who did wrong is almost impossible these days. Some of the stuff I read in those articles really pisses me off on how the guy in the right takes a legal hit no matter what the circumstance. We are arguing definate rights and wrongs on this subject, but if in a fight, will be tried under a legal system that if full of shades of grey. It makes me sick, the money grubbing lawyers and the system.

 

[Unfettered Might]

I'm sorry if I missed your point. Please excuse me then.

Not a problem.

 

[GOV5]

I just hope that NONE of us end up in some kind of fight nowadays. I am sure that pretty much all of us have read the Ayoob files in certain gun magazines in the past. It seems to me that getting out from under a legal battle over who did right and who did wrong is almost impossible these days. Some of the stuff I read in those articles really pisses me off on how the guy in the right takes a legal hit no matter what the circumstance. We are arguing definate rights and wrongs on this subject, but if in a fight, will be tried under a legal system that if full of shades of grey. It makes me sick, the money grubbing lawyers and the system.

I don't know where this "civil suit" stuff came from, when there are no criminal charges against someone, or they have been found "not guilty" in criminal court. The Constitution never said it's OK to be tried twice, if it's one criminal, and one civil case. It said double jeopardy is ILLEGAL.

There should be ample proof there are GROUNDS for ANY suit before it is brought before a court and taxpayer money is wasted. Not to mention the money the innocent party has to pony up just to defend a case that should never have been permitted to occur.

We need SERIOUS TORT REFORM in this country!!

 

[Liberty1]

btt / OC ban defeated in CA!!!

Link Removed

 

[antiscreed]

I am from Los Angeles county and since I have researched in depth, the OC law here I am wondering what places one DOESN'T carry.

 

[Mainsail]

Well, this is how we do it in Seattle. Oh, and it's loaded:

Link Removed

 

[bralko85]

Not the only reason to CCW

There are more reasons to NOT open carry than the "I just don't feel comfortable OCing". While I see the argument that open carry will deter a BG from confronting you, I don't think it's the best course of action. Just my PO.

For example (some of you probably have heard about this), last November a gunman walked into a coffee shop near Tacoma, WA and killed 4 cops sitting inside. The incident seemed to be premeditated (I don't know if it was, but it's likely). In this instance, open carry by 4 trained individuals did nothing.

Now, in that case, concealed carry wouldn't have done anything either. I understand that. But my point is this: Lets say you were standing in line at another coffee shop waiting to order. Gunman walks in with intent to rob/take hostages/or just start shooting because he had a bad day. You're gun is strapped to your hip, in plain sight. Gunman sees you as a threat, before you see him. You take shots to the back without realizing there was a threat in the first place. Game over.

If your weapon was concealed, he would not have immediately perceived you as a threat. His attention would focus elsewhere, giving you time to make your decision to engage or not, depending on all types of situational factors.

If you're concerned about quick access to your weapon, practice drawing from concealment. I'm nearly as quick from concealment as I am from open carry, and I usually dress to accommodate a quicker draw.

Like I said, this is just my humble $.02, but I wouldn't much like getting shot in the back.

 

[NavyLCDR]

There are more reasons to NOT open carry than the "I just don't feel comfortable OCing". While I see the argument that open carry will deter a BG from confronting you, I don't think it's the best course of action. Just my PO.

For example (some of you probably have heard about this), last November a gunman walked into a coffee shop near Tacoma, WA and killed 4 cops sitting inside. The incident seemed to be premeditated (I don't know if it was, but it's likely). In this instance, open carry by 4 trained individuals did nothing.

Now, in that case, concealed carry wouldn't have done anything either. I understand that. But my point is this: Lets say you were standing in line at another coffee shop waiting to order. Gunman walks in with intent to rob/take hostages/or just start shooting because he had a bad day. You're gun is strapped to your hip, in plain sight. Gunman sees you as a threat, before you see him. You take shots to the back without realizing there was a threat in the first place. Game over.

If your weapon was concealed, he would not have immediately perceived you as a threat. His attention would focus elsewhere, giving you time to make your decision to engage or not, depending on all types of situational factors.

If you're concerned about quick access to your weapon, practice drawing from concealment. I'm nearly as quick from concealment as I am from open carry, and I usually dress to accommodate a quicker draw.

Like I said, this is just my humble $.02, but I wouldn't much like getting shot in the back.

It's pretty lame when a person has to resort to comparing a pre-meditated hit on four uniformed police officers to an open carrier getting shot standing in line waiting for coffee. The Brady Bunch and the Violence Policy Center also have to make such far fetched comparisons to support their position. But if that works for you, go for it. I don't buy it.

Seriously... the cops were shot because they were wearing blue uniforms and badges, not because they were wearing guns.

 

[mappow]

Sorry to jump in but my post on another OC thread concerning SC Law is applicable and I think relevant (redundant?)

ALL that use the same argument against OC use the process of thinking that a tactical plan has been established, hit the guys/gals carrying OC then complete the mission. TAKE OUT the OC's first. That thinking is great if you're actually planing a mission. BUT MOST violent crime that's committed is NOT by a professional, military minded criminal. MOST are crimes of opportunity and convenience. Yes some are planned but I have yet to read any credible story that Joe Citizen was targeted by BG's first prior to robbing the store, the bank Yadda-YAdda-Yadda.
Deterrent of OC and or the thought of CC will and does keep most criminals from committing crimes. The stats prove it.

 

[handgonnetoter]

I don't know where this "civil suit" stuff came from, when there are no criminal charges against someone, or they have been found "not guilty" in criminal court. The Constitution never said it's OK to be tried twice, if it's one criminal, and one civil case. It said double jeopardy is ILLEGAL.

There should be ample proof there are GROUNDS for ANY suit before it is brought before a court and taxpayer money is wasted. Not to mention the money the innocent party has to pony up just to defend a case that should never have been permitted to occur.

We need SERIOUS TORT REFORM in this country!!

I am just writing down what I read in the various gun magazines I get. There have been a number of court cases, that they tell about in the magazines, where the state finds the accused not guilty of charges from the state, but end up getting sued by the family of the bad guy in a civil trial for money or whatever. I would list the magazines here for you to look up the stories for yourself, but I don't know if I am allowed to do that on this forum or not.