Guns in restaurants draw stares but little outcry

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
You realize, of course, that most of us agree with you....

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
Two words, okay five words: beats the hell outa me!

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
You need statistical proof on the matter of visibility?
How about two hypothetical situations—
—————
Example #1:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar just packed with inordinately horny women, all whom are intensely aroused at the sight of the erectile human male sexual apparatus.
One guy is wearing regular street clothes, the other is stark naked.
They both have erections.
Which of them is going to get the most 'notice?'
—————
Example #2:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar, where —amongst the patrons— there are a few criminals looking to acquire an easy pistol.
The first guy is wearing his arm exposed, whereas the second is wearing his concealed.
The criminals make note of the guy with the exposed arm, and after having a few drinks, he needs to use the restroom.
As he enters that restroom, so too do the criminals, and once inside they pull =their= guns on him, and relieve him of his.
The guy who was wearing his concealed is not molested by the criminals, because he was seen as not worthy of additional attention. Potential perhaps, but not emphatically so. The thought here? If you can see it, then you =KNOW= of its existence.
<quoted text>
Well, until you experience the exhilarating feeling of being eyed by potential thugs, about all you have to go on is supposition.
However, there are other contributors here and bout, who are cops —or were formerly— and one of the things they've mentioned is the 'snatch' or 'grab' maneuver, where someone comes up behind you and grabs your sidearm, yanking it from the holster.
I want you to think about this: Reaction is slower than action in progress. What that means is that when someone is grabbing at your sidearm, your instinct is to lift your arms to see what the heck is going on, thereby facilitating the grab. By the time you actually react to the action, the grab is complete.
It takes an incredible amount of time to 'train to retain,' AND that mental attitude must be a constant ALL THE TIME, just as with situational awareness.
Now granted: If you're wearing shoulder rig, that would have to be a frontal attack, and not so likely. But who wants to take chances?
<quoted text>As a matter of fact!

I think the "open carry makes you a target" stance is about at valid as the "concealed carry laws with turn the streets red with blood" cries of the anti's. Neither has yet proven to be true.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
You need statistical proof on the matter of visibility?
How about two hypothetical situations—
—————
Example #1:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar just packed with inordinately horny women, all whom are intensely aroused at the sight of the erectile human male sexual apparatus.
One guy is wearing regular street clothes, the other is stark naked.
They both have erections.
Which of them is going to get the most 'notice?'
—————
Example #2:
—————
Two guys walk into a bar, where —amongst the patrons— there are a few criminals looking to acquire an easy pistol.
The first guy is wearing his arm exposed, whereas the second is wearing his concealed.
The criminals make note of the guy with the exposed arm, and after having a few drinks, he needs to use the restroom.
As he enters that restroom, so too do the criminals, and once inside they pull =their= guns on him, and relieve him of his.
The guy who was wearing his concealed is not molested by the criminals, because he was seen as not worthy of additional attention. Potential perhaps, but not emphatically so. The thought here? If you can see it, then you =KNOW= of its existence.
<quoted text>
Well, until you experience the exhilarating feeling of being eyed by potential thugs, about all you have to go on is supposition.
However, there are other contributors here and bout, who are cops —or were formerly— and one of the things they've mentioned is the 'snatch' or 'grab' maneuver, where someone comes up behind you and grabs your sidearm, yanking it from the holster.
I want you to think about this: Reaction is slower than action in progress. What that means is that when someone is grabbing at your sidearm, your instinct is to lift your arms to see what the heck is going on, thereby facilitating the grab. By the time you actually react to the action, the grab is complete.
It takes an incredible amount of time to 'train to retain,' AND that mental attitude must be a constant ALL THE TIME, just as with situational awareness.
Now granted: If you're wearing shoulder rig, that would have to be a frontal attack, and not so likely. But who wants to take chances?
<quoted text>As a matter of fact!

Another Voice Heard From wrote:

<quoted text>
Two words, okay five words: beats the hell outa me!

You missed the point wrote:

<quoted text>
Blah Blah Blah, yada, yada yada....same old concealed carry is the best rhetoric. Basely solely on hypotheticals with no real-world cases to supplement.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
So, >YOU< would FORCE open carry, i.e., there would be no choice of carriage?

Missed the POint wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, remember, I agreed with your "to each his own". Personally, I carry open 95% of the time but there is the remaining 5% that I carry concealed. My problem with your comments are two-fold:
1. You preach a lot about infringement of rights yet you advocate for concealed carry which in the state of Washington requires a permit....while open carry requires no permit. This is telling me that you either a) concealed carry without a permit or b) are o.k. with having to ask the state's permission to carry concealed.

Missed the POint wrote:

2. The pros you present for concealed carry are based on nothing more then speculation and use arguments very similar to anti-gun folks. Open carrying doesn't make you a target, helps educate the public on their rights, and allows for faster draws as well as less hassle on what to wear to ensure the gun is concealed.

Missed the POint wrote:

P.S. I used Washington as an example because your ISP Location states Seattle, WA....I just noticed your profile says "Lots of different places" but my point remains the same.

Judged:

1

1

Cumm Gunn wrote:

As long as they don't have any public accidental discharges wit der cumm gunns!

HG Robinson wrote:

What is it with you people and your guns? I wish you were this obsessed about education, ending hunger and poverty, housing for the poor, etc. There are so many worthwhile, positive causes you could fight for.
Personally I think today's gun owners were yesterday's kids who got picked on in high school. I hope caring around a stupid piece of metal makes all of you feel safe and secure.

el politico wrote:

I think if everyone or nearly everyone is going to carry, then open carry is better. But if only a fraction of the people are going to carry, then it is better that criminals not know which individuals are armed. So then concealed carry places doubt in their mind. Criminals have said in prison surveys that potentially meeting an armed (potential) target is more of a deterent than the possibility of getting caught.