Newb with some thoughts on CC vs OC for debate

[EhMOE]

Hi guys/gals. Yeah I'm a newb on this forum, been around AR-15.com for a little while, but more of a lurker looking to learn as much as possible. Gun fan since I was 12, but frankly didn't grow up around many guns outside of the guns we used for hunting. Since then, I've definitely become the gun nut in the family and even moreso with the recent attack on our rights.

So, for a first post, I'd like to throw out some thoughts on concealed carry (CC) versus open carry (OC).

Having recently gone through the CC class with my spouse, I was somewhat brought back to thoughts I'd had years ago. These thoughts also lend toward others' thoughts on this forum in regard to the continuing non-gunner's attitude toward us. Why do we cower so much and choose to CC rather than exercise our rights to OC? I completely understand staying off the radar and not making yourself a target for anti-gun ire, or a target for some psycho at the wrong time, or a target for some cop who's had a bad day. I really get those points. BUT, had we and our predecessors chosen to OC more often over the years and communicate with those who don't understand, could the attitude toward carrying generally be very different?

There are always going to be a number of people who will never understand. I'd estimate that 10-20 years ago, that would be 20% of the population. So let's say, for debate's sake, that 80% of the population gets it, supports one or more well-trained sane people carrying in their presence or may be carrying themselves. Probably at least 75% of that 80% doesn't or never will carry, but could be swayed either direction if their confidence is increased in those carrying. Have we done ourselves any favors by hiding in the shadows? If handguns were a more accepted aspect of society, wouldn't we all be in a better position? Is it too late to change society's view of guns now, or could a different OC system be a way to slowly change perception?

A couple of suggested solutions to some of the existing issues:
1) Develop a system of training, much more stringent than the current CC classes, that provides the necessary (ongoing) training (and mental evaluation) to make a person an effective defender of the public and allows OC in any setting. The system of training itself should be funded by the individual (within a reasonable cost), developed by law enforcement, and there should be some way to easily identify that person's certification (a badge system)? This is a revenue opportunity for law enforcement at the city/county/state level, which politicians love. I suspect with enough participation that these "volunteer cops", something akin to volunteer firefighters but a little less demanding on time, would also lower the demands on law enforcement over a long period of time. These certified individuals can choose to CC or OC at their leisure. Retired law enforcement would be automatically certified.

2) On the issue of private firearm transactions, why can't we make it possible for the CBI (or other state organizations like it) to allow private use of its service? Another revenue opportunity for the state. If an individual purchasing a firearm were to sign-off on the use of CBI's background check for a firearm seller, maybe pay $10, how many of us would use it to confirm that the person buying our gun is legit? I would. I'd likely drop the price of the gun I'm selling by $10 for the peace of mind. The criminals won't use it, but it would help the more responsible gun owners in society to confirm their buyer isn't a bad guy. Seems like a heck of a lot of people on Armslist these days want to see a driver's license or CCW before selling. What the heck good does a driver's license do that person? A CBI check wouldn't solve all problems, but would damn sure help.

Keep in mind, I'm NOT proposing changing any of the existing CC regulations. I'm trying to change perception of the gun in society, which I believe would ultimately reinforce the 2nd and our way of lives.

So, G'HEAD, shoot holes in these thoughts. I can take it.

[Dingo]

I think the "volunteer cop" thing would attract too many of the wrong element. Speaking for myself (although I suspect there are more like me) I could care less about defendig the public - I carry to protect myself, my property, and my family. If the sheep are too pants-wettingly afraid to carry a big bad gun, then I'm all for them providing an enticing alternative for the criminal element to focus on. The answer is for EVERYBODY to carry. More cops just means more people to respond to a crime scene after its been perpetrated.

I like your idea of the private CBI usage, but the only way to prove that people are using it each and every time like Dear Leader and his sycophants want, would be to enter in a serial number of the guns involved. Which defeats the purpose of doing it privately.

[Dingo]

Another problem with the private CBI usage is exactly what you said. Criminals won't use it. So we're left with the decades-old problem of further complicating things for people who already obey laws. I personally don't care what somebody does with my gun after I sell it - that's between them, God, and the almighty state. Once it leaves my hands, it's no longer my responsibility - other than to ensure I don't sell to some partially-myelinated teenager.

We already had a good system of face to face sales. The criminals and the law-abiding alike had access. Which meant people could choose how or if to defend themselves against the 1% represented by James Holmes. Now, the only thing that has changed is that the law-abiding will undergo the irritation of a background check to prove that they're law abiding. Herman-Jamal Rodriguez Chollo Achmedinedad-derkaderk will still get his guns the old fashioned, off the books way, while we stand in line at the counter for CBI to clear us.

[EhMOE]

I think the "volunteer cop" thing would attract too many of the wrong element. Speaking for myself (although I suspect there are more like me) I could care less about defendig the public - I carry to protect myself, my property, and my family. If the sheep are too pants-wettingly afraid to carry a big bad gun, then I'm all for them providing an enticing alternative for the criminal element to focus on. The answer is for EVERYBODY to carry. More cops just means more people to respond to a crime scene after its been perpetrated.

I like your idea of the private CBI usage, but the only way to prove that people are using it each and every time like Dear Leader and his sycophants want, would be to enter in a serial number of the guns involved. Which defeats the purpose of doing it privately.

The "wrong element" would be removed, as much as humanly possible, from this equation through thorough checks and evaluation.

No reason to register a gun with the private CBI usage, just one person checking out another's background. Nobody would need a record of the gun.

[tmleadr03]

Lol. Defender of the public? I am cowering by CC over OC?

Nice first post with emotionally loaded language, been watching the democrats at politics again have you?

[centrarchidae]

1) Develop a system of training, much more stringent than the current CC classes, that provides the necessary (ongoing) training (and mental evaluation) to make a person an effective defender of the public and allows OC in any setting. The system of training itself should be funded by the individual (within a reasonable cost), developed by law enforcement, and there should be some way to easily identify that person's certification (a badge system)? This is a revenue opportunity for law enforcement at the city/county/state level, which politicians love. I suspect with enough participation that these "volunteer cops", something akin to volunteer firefighters but a little less demanding on time, would also lower the demands on law enforcement over a long period of time. These certified individuals can choose to CC or OC at their leisure. Retired law enforcement would be automatically certified.

My question is, why?

What problem exists, to be solved by a new government program? I'll respectfully submit that there isn't one. There are a few people who insist on OC in places where it probably isn't a great idea. There are one or two who have insisted on OC on private property where the owner has flatly said that they're not wanted. But that's just a few attention-starved assclowns demanding that the rest of us pay them attention. Having some new regulatory regime won't make anyone safer or anything like that.

Also, call me crazy, but I have a funny feeling that any program billed as "volunteer cops" will attract a bunch of mall ninjas, ready to enforce every nonsense parking violation and non-existent noise ordinance around.

Edited to add:

The "wrong element" would be removed, as much as humanly possible, from this equation through thorough checks and evaluation.

That's a nice theory. How will you create a cost-effective (okay, never mind "effective," how about "not cost-prohibitive") system to screen out criminals, people on power trips, etc.?

[EhMOE]

My question is, why?

What problem exists, to be solved by a new government program? I'll respectfully submit that there isn't one. There are a few people who insist on OC in places where it probably isn't a great idea. There are one or two who have insisted on OC on private property where the owner has flatly said that they're not wanted. But that's just a few attention-starved assclowns demanding that the rest of us pay them attention. Having some new regulatory regime won't make anyone safer or anything like that.

Also, call me crazy, but I have a funny feeling that any program billed as "volunteer cops" will attract a bunch of mall ninjas, ready to enforce every nonsense parking violation and non-existent noise ordinance around.

Like I said, the problem that exists is perception IMO and its my observation that sitting around doing what we're doing ain't working. I'm with you guys, but I see negative perception growing and we're losing ground with those that can be convinced. I'd love to think that everyone thinks the 2nd is as important as I believe, but I'm afraid we're losing the battle. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and will concede if the next elections go our way, but I'm afraid society, by a majority, just doesn't get it anymore.

[Holger Danske]

Too long too read the whole thing. I prefer CC. And, welcome.

[Great-Kazoo]

EhMOE rhymes with nynCO

[Dingo]

The problem is that the agenda controlling this incremental takeover is not going to be dissuaded by bootstrap, grassroots political statements and action. It is a global, insidious, metastatic evil which will not be removed by anything short of global disaster. We're not fighting the damnocrats... they're just a finger attached to the larger body of evil.