I can understand the logic behind CC, but when would open carry be appropriate? Help!

[PistolPackingMomma]

So you figure it's common sense to not carry a gun in a place with lots of money that robbers tend to frequently target? :uhoh: Because people might 'freak out'?

Gosh, well, I'd better stop carrying when I take my son out for a walk, less a motorist freak out and crash. I'd better stop carrying in the grocery store; a freaked out clerk might drop a glass bottle and get cut. Churches, libraries, stores...anywhere that someone's perception and reaction might be negative to my right to exercise self defense.

ETA: I should add that a few years ago, a desperate man on the edge of financial ruin decided to hold up the bank where my mother in law works. I know all the ladies that work there, by name, and I know the two ladies who were held hostage at gun point. The robber told them both they were going to die; that he was going to kill them, and how he would do it. S.W.A.T arrived and eventually the situation was resolved without any bloodshed, but not without emotional and mental trauma.

I have thought many times over the years what I would have done if I'd been there; if I'd been armed, if I'd been unarmed. My conclusion is if I had been there, I'd want to be armed, no matter what happened.

It's not illegal to carry in banks, especially one that does not have signs with weight of law, and you can bet your damn chewy, gooey, lucky stars that my husband and I carry everywhere we go, and if we can't carry somewhere, then we don't go. Peoples sensitivities be damned; my idea of common sense is being armed in places with escalating risk potential.

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

If any building, including a bank, is a posted CPZ, then common sense says to not enter while armed.

If a bank has no CPZ signs, but has a "no hats, sunglasses, hoodies, etc." sign, common sense tells you that the location has cameras and they want to see your face.

It's pacifism that says you shouldn't do something lest you bother someone else.

 

[Dreamer]

At this point I believe only ONE state doesn't have CC in some form.

Actually, this is not entirely true...

Illinois does not issue CC permits to citizens for ANY reason, and I think that is the state to which you are referring.

However, Aldermen in Illinois may carry concealed.

Two sets of laws for two classes of people--one for the "overlords" and one for the "serfs"...

 

[Gil223]

So you figure it's common sense to not carry a gun in a place with lots of money that robbers tend to frequently target? :uhoh: Because people might 'freak out'?

Not "people", bank employees. Customers probably couldn't care less, but I really don't want to face the Roy PD SWAT Team, since the last guy that did left home in a body bag. When I go to the bank I'm not unarmed, just not OC'ing.

Gosh, well, I'd better stop carrying when I take my son out for a walk, less a motorist freak out and crash. I'd better stop carrying in the grocery store; a freaked out clerk might drop a glass bottle and get cut. Churches, libraries, stores...anywhere that someone's perception and reaction might be negative to my right to exercise self defense.

You're free to do whatever you want... as am I.

ETA: I should add that a few years ago, a desperate man on the edge of financial ruin decided to hold up the bank where my mother in law works. I know all the ladies that work there, by name, and I know the two ladies who were held hostage at gun point. The robber told them both they were going to die; that he was going to kill them, and how he would do it. S.W.A.T arrived and eventually the situation was resolved without any bloodshed, but not without emotional and mental trauma.

I have thought many times over the years what I would have done if I'd been there; if I'd been armed, if I'd been unarmed. My conclusion is if I had been there, I'd want to be armed, no matter what happened.

Yeah, you would have saved the day.

It's not illegal to carry in banks, especially one that does not have signs with weight of law, and you can bet your damn chewy, gooey, lucky stars that my husband and I carry everywhere we go, and if we can't carry somewhere, then we don't go. Peoples sensitivities be damned; my idea of common sense is being armed in places with escalating risk potential.

I never said it was illegal to carry in banks, just that it's my personal choice to be more discreet around folks who may already be a bit jumpy. Bank robberies DO happen in the local area. And, once again, I don't go to the bank unarmed... just unnoticed. Pax...

 

[Gil223]

If any building, including a bank, is a posted CPZ, then common sense says to not enter while armed.

If a bank has no CPZ signs, but has a "no hats, sunglasses, hoodies, etc." sign, common sense tells you that the location has cameras and they want to see your face.

It's pacifism that says you shouldn't do something lest you bother someone else.

Glad you got your wife's permission to form an opinion. Congratulations and pax...

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Not "people", bank employees. Customers probably couldn't care less, but I really don't want to face the Roy PD SWAT Team, since the last guy that did left home in a body bag. When I go to the bank I'm not unarmed, just not OC'ing.

Bank employees aren't people? Unless you're holding a ski mask in your hand, why automatically assume bank employees are going to be irrational SWAT happy panickers?

You're free to do whatever you want... as am I.

Thanks for your permission.

Yeah, you would have saved the day.

Oh, did I say that? Hmm...no, no I did not. You seriously deserve a gold medal for conclusion jumping.

I never said it was illegal to carry in banks, just that it's my personal choice to be more discreet around folks who may already be a bit jumpy. Bank robberies DO happen in the local area. And, once again, I don't go to the bank unarmed... just unnoticed. Pax...

Granted, you did not say to not carry. It reads as though you implied it, but you didn't say it outright. Good for you.

 

[OC for ME]

Not "people", bank employees. Customers probably couldn't care less, but I really don't want to face the Roy PD SWAT Team, since the last guy that did left home in a body bag. When I go to the bank I'm not unarmed, just not OC'ing.

Exchange 'bank' with convience store, resturant, dry cleaners, grocery store, department store, home improvement big box store, electronic superstore, city park (if legal to OC), state park (if legal to OC), national park.....

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Come on, folks. If Gil223 is too shy, insecure or emasculated to open carry in a bank that is not a CPZ, that is his (her?) right.

It is also her right to attack other posters here in an immature, passive/agressive way.

I thought the name of this forum was Open Carry Dot Org, a place where open carry is discussed and promoted. Advising that one is too afraid to carry in certain unposted locations, is to invite scorn and ridicule. Such is the nature of Internet forums and should be expected.


If a bank has no CPZ signs, they PROBABLY realize people with guns will come in. I think they PROBABLY won't 'freak out' unless a gun is pointed at them.

I personally don't care how you carry, so please don't belittle MY choice.

And don't call your comments 'common sense' if they aren't.

 

[Gil223]

Exchange 'bank' with convience store, resturant, dry cleaners, grocery store, department store, home improvement big box store, electronic superstore, city park (if legal to OC), state park (if legal to OC), national park.....

NOPE... just the bank! Pax...

 

[Gil223]

Come on, folks. If Gil223 is too shy, insecure or emasculated to open carry in a bank that is not a CPZ, that is his (her?) right.

First of all, I don't have to get my wife to say yes to anything. Now, who's "shy, insecure or emasculated"?

I thought the name of this forum was Open Carry Dot Org, a place where open carry is discussed and promoted. Advising that one is too afraid to carry in certain unposted locations, is to invite scorn and ridicule. Such is the nature of Internet forums and should be expected.

Your first error was in trying to think... ask your wife. My guns, my choice, and I don't try to tell anybody they should follow my example. The summers get pretty warm here in Utah, and during the summer months I OC 99% of the time. If I should need to enter a weapons restricted area (by law), my weapon gets stored in one of my saddlebags. Otherwise, my shirt goes over my WoC. The word "afraid" was never mentioned in my post. However, I am not one of your rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, "if you don't agree with me you're wrong", OC'ers. Utah is an OC state, and the Utah State Constitution acknowledges and specifies the RKBA -

Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

If a bank has no CPZ signs, they PROBABLY realize people with guns will come in. I think they PROBABLY won't 'freak out' unless a gun is pointed at them.

This is the second iteration of your first error (see above). They probably know (intuitively) that people with guns come in, but I feel that they're much happier not seeing those guns, so - given the location - I try to be accommodating. I have never seen anybody except LEO's OC'ing in any financial institution (except security personnel years ago), and I have lived in 11 states and 4 foreign countries. If you wish to do so, I certainly wouldn't fault you for your choice.

I personally don't care how you carry, so please don't belittle MY choice.

For somebody who " personally don't care how you carry", you certainly made an issue of it. I didn't address your choice at all. That which is considered correct by any one of us, may always be considered improper by another. This is a "forum" - a place to express opinions, not to dictate to others.

And don't call your comments 'common sense' if they aren't.

And don't blame your inadequacies on me. Your inability to understand "common sense" does not negate its existence, it just validates Will Rogers claim that: “common sense ain’t all that common”. Pax...

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have never liked CC, even when I was a cop and we were required to CC when off duty. I think a lot of CC people get PO'd by OC people who they think are not as good as them, or they didn't have to put out money to carry. Some cops feel the same way, some depts allow them to OC some don't. IMO CC is definitely a disadvantage if the caca ever hits the fan, and OC seems to prevent the caca from hitting the fan in the first place. Besides OC is just more comfortable IMO.

 

[berettabone]

Gil223...give it up........lots of losers who just want to fight...find another blog where they are adults...you'll be better off......your opinion won't be constantly attacked , and you may find some adults.......

 

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Aww, don't go away! We were just starting to have fun!

Really, Gil223 recommended against OC'ing in a bank. He says he's never seen anyone OC in a bank, and that must make his recommendation okay. That's called a logical fallacy. Just because he hasn't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

When I told him it's not common sense to think a 'no hats' sign means 'no guns', he argued against a logical fallacy I hadn't used when he said:

Your inability to understand "common sense" does not negate its existence...

This is fun because you just never know what Gil223 is going to come up with next.

:lol:

 

[davidmcbeth]

Why do police OC? Answer that and you'll know why OC is actually better than CC ...

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Gil, sugar, if you can't engage in debate without constant sneering, derision, condescension, name calling and personal attacks, then you're NOT contributing. You're trolling, and poorly at that.

Go back to the kids table until you mature some, or can at least learn to fake some manners.




~Btw, keep your "pax". I think you need as much as you can get.

 

[MAC702]

NOPE... just the bank! Pax...

Ever wonder what the percentage of banks robbed is compared to convenience stores? Now figure in the number of times the clerk is actually shot...

 

[Gil223]

Ever wonder what the percentage of banks robbed is compared to convenience stores? Now figure in the number of times the clerk is actually shot...

Actually, MAC, I never have wondered about that until this moment. Thanks for bringing it up! Having no statistics available to support me, I would guess that the percentage of banks to convenience stores is very small... perhaps under 5%. I would also guess about the same percentage of shootings for bank tellers vs convenience store clerks - maybe even less than 5%. As a group, I think bank robbers are a bit more "sophisticated" (as in: more intelligent) than the thugs who rob convenience stores. I also believe that bank robbers (generally) see their gun as a device of intimidation which they use to leverage cooperation from bank personnel (I also understand that there are exceptions to every "rule"). On the other hand, convenience store thugs are basically street criminals. When they are armed they see their gun as the power to take whatever they want from those who work for a living. A bank robber doesn't care about "street cred", but the thug needs that credibility/notoriety for validation on any number of levels, and is not disinclined to use the gun with little or no provocation. (Dealing in generalities is a almost always a risky proposition, which is why I always say up-front that "I am guessing", "I think" or "I believe")

Now, a question for you, my friend... do you have access to whatever statistics may be available in re the above? It would be interesting to see how close (or far off) my guesses are. Pax...

 

[MAC702]

Actually, MAC, I never have wondered about that until this moment. Thanks for bringing it up! Having no statistics available to support me, I would guess that the percentage of banks to convenience stores is very small... perhaps under 5%. I would also guess about the same percentage of shootings for bank tellers vs convenience store clerks - maybe even less than 5%. As a group, I think bank robbers are a bit more "sophisticated" (as in: more intelligent) than the thugs who rob convenience stores. I also believe that bank robbers (generally) see their gun as a device of intimidation which they use to leverage cooperation from bank personnel (I also understand that there are exceptions to every "rule"). On the other hand, convenience store thugs are basically street criminals. When they are armed they see their gun as the power to take whatever they want from those who work for a living. A bank robber doesn't care about "street cred", but the thug needs that credibility/notoriety for validation on any number of levels, and is not disinclined to use the gun with little or no provocation. (Dealing in generalities is a almost always a risky proposition, which is why I always say up-front that "I am guessing", "I think" or "I believe")

Now, a question for you, my friend... do you have access to whatever statistics may be available in re the above? It would be interesting to see how close (or far off) my guesses are. Pax...

I, too, have no idea the statistics. I actually just had the thought when I posted. But I am GUESSING, based on just remembrances of news stories, that far more convenience stores are robbed than banks, and far more store clerks are shot than bank tellers, even if factoring the number of banks versus the number of convenience stores.

I like your espousal of the reasons why.

 

[Gil223]

I, too, have no idea the statistics. I actually just had the thought when I posted. But I am GUESSING, based on just remembrances of news stories, that far more convenience stores are robbed than banks, and far more store clerks are shot than bank tellers, even if factoring the number of banks versus the number of convenience stores.

I like your espousal of the reasons why.

Okay, I was prompted to do some research into the stats, and found some for financial institutions, but nothing yet on convenience stores. (I'll continue searching for awhile)
Bank Crime Statistics (BCS)
Federal Insured Financial Institutions
January 1, 2011 – March 31, 2011 http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2011/bank-crime-statistics-2011-q1http://

In a nutshell, 1,092 financial institutions (banks, S&Ls, and credit unions) were robbed in Q1 of 2011 - 90 days! Much higher than I would have guessed... that's roughly 340 per month mean average. "Loot" was taken in 88% of the robberies, 20% was recovered. Acts of violence were committed in only 4%, and the verbal threat of having a weapon was used in almost twice as many robberies as was a weapon actually displayed. (There's a surprise!) And, the big winner seemed to be "oral demand".

There are several tables at the website for those who may be interested. And, thank you for the kind words! Pax...

P.S. I found some stats on convenience store robberies, but the ones from the NCJRS (National Criminal Justice Reporting System) are seriously dated (1998) don't give numbers, just percentages, and are taken from victim interviews: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/173772.pdfhttp://
Describe injuries:
Injury to body - Frequency - 4 Percent - 18.2
Trauma to head - Frequency - 15 Percent - 68.2
Gunshot wound - Frequency - 3 Percent - 13.6

Describe cause of injuries:
Struck in face/body Frequency - 7 Percent - 53.8
Cut with knife Frequency - 3 Percent - 23.1
Gun shot Frequency - 3 Percent - 23.1

These are supposedly multi-state stats, and Table 2 has a lot more data in it than is posted herein. The above is just what I found of interest. Based upon data for frequency and percent, it seems that they interviewed slightly over 100 victims. And, I still have no idea how many convenience stores were robbed. Like most government functionaries, the NCJRS took 81 pages (most of which were explanations of their particular choice of statistical methodology, and background information) to "cut to the chase" and say what probably could have been said in 10 pages. (I'm not thrilled with their report, but some folks might be)

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Snipped for relevance

Glad you got your wife's permission to form an opinion. Congratulations and pax...

First of all, I don't have to get my wife to say yes to anything. Now, who's "shy, insecure or emasculated"?

Your first error was in trying to think... ask your wife.

Perhaps you should have your wife read these posts to you, since you seem incapable of understanding the mystical symbols that appear on your monitor. I recommend very little, except to the ignorant. To them I recommend 50' of logging chain and a D9 Cat, to help them pull their head out.

Perhaps you aren't a native-born American, and are still taking ESL classes. If that is not the case, please refer to my recommendation to the ignorant, above.

you moron.

Now, just wait a few minutes and I'm sure the night nurse will be coming around with your bedtime dosage of Abilify. Para bellum...

I call it as I see it...After a few rounds of that, with the same derisive, condescending individual, it does become a vexation.

Huh, pot, kettle?

If you re-read the posts of "MyWifeSaidYes", you will see that I didn't begin the "sneering, derision, etc". If you re-read all my initial post to a given thread, you may see a little disagreement now and then, but no derision or attacks. As for "derision and condescension", you certainly have shown you possess your fair share of that:

Oh yes, you're the victim here.

I could "fake some manners", I suppose... but I would never use the term "sugar" in an attempt to disguise my true attitude (BTW - it doesn't work for you either).

"Sugar" is southern slang, much like "Hon" or "Dude". If you choose to see something offensive in it, well, refer to your own comment about ignorance.

There's no room at the "kids table" right now... perhaps you'd be willing to give up your seat there? And, I understand "trolling" to be looking for an argument, which I am not. I simply state my opinion. However, I am well aware that others here will bring the initial condescension and discord. After 20+ years of military service, I don't run from a fight, I just respond in-kind. As I said at the end of my initial post to this thread: Two people in this thread have since proven that assertion to be right on target. (As you requested, there will be no "Pax" for you - the lack of which seems to be a condition with which you are very familiar.) I hope your life gets better soon.

Keep slinging mud, sugar. It looks so good on you.