Shooters

The only reason I'd bother is if there is some kind of gun community event to show it's no big deal and hopefully desensitize. From a practical point of view it makes no sense to show your cards unnecessarily. Originally Posted by endurance

I always thought of the open carry law as an application of the Overton Window in service of gun rights and not really as something that most gun owners would do on a daily basis.

If I did get a license to carry, I'd carry concealed at all times for reasons that've already been stated eloquently in this thread already.

My workplace is absolutely freaking out over open carry and fearing the worst. We'll see what happens in the following days, though.

Like Stewie I'd rather keep things under wraps when out and about. No sense inviting trouble.

I'll keep my Kimber concealed. I don't see how advertising I have a gun is going to make life my more secure. Lotta assholes out there. Originally Posted by budman33

Exactly - just seems like it would tempt someone to try to steal it. Seems pretty inconvenient for me - having a full-size 1911 or Stainless P226 or a heavy revolver trying to pull my pants down. Maybe it works for the plastic pistol crowd, though.

I am not positive, but I think that if you are transporting a firearm, stop off for a beer, and get pulled over, you are toast - even if it is in the trunk.

The Grand Power is pretty slick. Been stocking them for about a year now, and everybody's been happy with them.

I'll stay concealed most of the time, but it'll be nice not having to worry about printing.

I think there are some that actually want to do it, and some that will appreciate not having printing be an issue.

The overton window thing might be useful to counter the slippery slope used by the gun banners.

I was surprised that places like Dell and IBM (local campuses) for example are so anti - I guess williamson co. is red enough for LE=god, but not enough for strong 2a support.


To save anyone following the original subject, to save you some googling:
- fixed barrel - very accurate design
- tilt barrel - very reliable and cheap to manufacture
- rotating barrel (like the Grand Power) - somewhere in between those two for reliability and accuracy, maybe not cost(?)


Nice clip recently of a guy just doin his thing (at the risk of posting a faux news link lol)
http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local...68804212-story

I always thought of the open carry law as an application of the Overton Window in service of gun rights and not really as something that most gun owners would do on a daily basis.

If I did get a license to carry, I'd carry concealed at all times for reasons that've already been stated eloquently in this thread already.

My workplace is absolutely freaking out over open carry and fearing the worst. We'll see what happens in the following days, though. Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

[QUOTE=endurance;1057654963
I was surprised that places like Dell and IBM (local campuses) for example are so anti - I guess williamson co. is red enough for LE=god, but not enough for strong 2a support.

[/QUOTE]

I work at one of the IBM buildings. No guns allowed in the building. There is an upside and downside to every decision. The downside to not allowing guns in the building is, as I'm sure you know, someone could come into the building with a gun, assuming he could get past the door security which is not that difficult (tailgating), and start firing away at unarmed employees. Has never happened. On the upside, how would you like to fire an employee knowing he/she might be carrying?

So should IBM (or Dell) change a policy that has been 100% effective for decades in order to appease a small handful of employees who for some reason think they need to carry a handgun into the building?

correlation != causation

Again, you can't figure out that someone who would actually kill someone in that manner wouldn't be following that rule in the first place.

I work at one of the IBM buildings. No guns allowed in the building. There is an upside and downside to every decision. The downside to not allowing guns in the building is, as I'm sure you know, someone could come into the building with a gun, assuming he could get past the door security which is not that difficult (tailgating), and start firing away at unarmed employees. Has never happened. On the upside, how would you like to fire an employee knowing he/she might be carrying?

So should IBM (or Dell) change a policy that has been 100% effective for decades in order to appease a small handful of employees who for some reason think they need to carry a handgun into the building? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would venture to say that most licensed handgun/firearms owners will continue to opt for the concealed carrying of their firearms. But, for those who now choose to open carry, more power to them as that is now their right.

Personally, given the choice of the two, I would always opt for concealed carry over open carry. The benefit - for me - of the new open carry law is that I now don't have to be so overly concerned with total concealment. If I print or if I reach/stretch and a barrel/holster is slightly revealed for a split second, it's now no big deal. Whereas before if those instances were to happen, you would have a problem; a legal one.

What does bothers me about this whole open carry law are the idiots out there who have never owned a gun and who aren't trained and proficient in the use of firearms who go out to places like Red's, Academy or Cabela's - buy a gun without any research or experience and immediately begin totin' it around - because they now can. Ran into a guy just this past Sunday at Cabela's that was out to buy a gun JUST SO HE COULD OPEN CARRY. Didn't know what he wanted, what he was going to buy. All he was concerned about was how good it would look on his hip. No shit. To him, it was more of a fashion statement than anything else. Those are the fuckers you need to be concerned about. As a firearms instructor, that's the type that bother me. Idiots who don't have any respect for the firearm and the responsibilities of gun ownership in general.

correlation != causation

Again, you can't figure out that someone who would actually kill someone in that manner wouldn't be following that rule in the first place. Originally Posted by endurance

Doesn't matter. If something works effectively why change it? There is absolutely no upside in allowing handguns into the building. Do you think that the people who made the decision to ban handguns from the building had any other reason than the best interest of the employees in mind when they made the decision?

I would venture to say that most licensed handgun/firearms owners will continue to opt for the concealed carrying of their firearms. But, for those who now choose to open carry, more power to them as that is now their right.

Personally, given the choice of the two, I would always opt for concealed carry over open carry. The benefit - for me - of the new open carry law is that I now don't have to be so overly concerned with total concealment. If I print or if I reach/stretch and a barrel/holster is slightly revealed for a split second, it's now no big deal. Whereas before if those instances were to happen, you would have a problem; a legal one.

What does bothers me about this whole open carry law are the idiots out there who have never owned a gun and who aren't trained and proficient in the use of firearms who go out to places like Red's, Academy or Cabela's - buy a gun without any research or experience and immediately begin totin' it around - because they now can. Ran into a guy just this past Sunday at Cabela's that was out to buy a gun JUST SO HE COULD OPEN CARRY. Didn't know what he wanted, what he was going to buy. All he was concerned about was how good it would look on his hip. No shit. To him, it was more of a fashion statement than anything else. Those are the fuckers you need to be concerned about. As a firearms instructor, that's the type that bother me. Idiots who don't have any respect for the firearm and the responsibilities of gun ownership in general. Originally Posted by TxHarleyGuy

Thank you!! That is exactly why I do not support Constitutional carry.

In my opinion the more you show off the smaller your dick and are compensating for your insecurity. Concealed is better, why show your cards unnecesarily.

Of course it matters. If the rule isn't actually the reason that noone got killed then changing the rule does no harm.

There's no upside for *you* since the rules sit well with you, there is upside for people that are impacted. It's not all about you btw.

And many corporate rules are in the interest of the company, not the employee (duh?)

Doesn't matter. If something works effectively why change it? There is absolutely no upside in allowing handguns into the building. Do you think that the people who made the decision to ban handguns from the building had any other reason than the best interest of the employees in mind when they made the decision? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you think that the people who made the decision to ban handguns from the building had any other reason than the best interest of the employees in mind when they made the decision? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

This statement is naive at best, utterly stupid at worst. Those businesses who chose to disallow firearms on their premises are taking potential insurance, liability, and legal issues/costs into account. These, without a shadow of a doubt, will overshadow and be at the forefront of any 'best interests of employees' considerations. Business/company FIRST, employee(s) ALWAYS second. Always.

macho bullshit Originally Posted by sue_nami

May be a valid point for open carry but I have more female friends with CHL than male friends.

Of course it matters. If the rule isn't actually the reason that noone got killed then changing the rule does no harm.

There's no upside for *you* since the rules sit well with you, there is upside for people that are impacted. It's not all about you btw.

And many corporate rules are in the interest of the company, not the employee (duh?) Originally Posted by endurance

You are wrong in every statement you just made. You have absolutely no idea whether or not the rule has kept anyone from being shot inside the building. Allowing employees to carry guns inside the building could very well have led to the death of other employees. Since no one has ever been killed inside the building, the rule has been 100% effective.

There is absolutely no upside to allowing employees to carry weapons inside the building when no employee has ever needed a gun. Had an employee ever needed a gun inside the building and did not have one when needed, then I would agree with you.

Corporate rules, at least for IBM, are made in the best interest of the company and the employees. Certainly not all policies are in the best interest of ALL the employees. In this case the company has determined that allowing employees to enter the building with handguns is NOT in the best interest of the employees. Does not affect the bottom line of the corporation. It is simply for the safety of the employees. Whether or not I, or any other employee, supports the policy, is irrelevant. IT WORKS!