You may start a topic here for an Open Carry Log -- a place to relay places and any events which may occur.
 #72171  by Jonnybow
 
astro, THAT'S your argument? Wow, talk about coming in with nothing.........If I hurt your feelings, get over it and put your big boy pants on for a change. If you have issues with what I'm saying, you probably fall into the same category as others I have no use for. Constructive? That's what I was being, I think someone who carries a weapon should be responsible enough to understand how the weapon works, what it does and what to do when it doesn't do what it's supposed to. That is constructive. How can you argue with that?

bmel17, there is a competency test for voting, it's called being responsible enough to register and be able to spell your name and not be a felon. In order to OC, you only have to be a non felon......

As far as the other two comments, OK I see your point BUT if no-one points it out to him, someone else might do the same thing.
 #72173  by astro_wanabe
 
Jonnybow wrote:astro, THAT'S your argument? Wow, talk about coming in with nothing.........If I hurt your feelings, get over it and put your big boy pants on for a change. If you have issues with what I'm saying, you probably fall into the same category as others I have no use for.
I'm not even going to address your lack of maturity here.
Jonnybow wrote:Constructive? That's what I was being, I think someone who carries a weapon should be responsible enough to understand how the weapon works, what it does and what to do when it doesn't do what it's supposed to. That is constructive. How can you argue with that?
You didn't merely point out that he needed to check the firearm's operation as others did, you went out of your way to paint all new carriers as imbeciles that act "ridiculous." Big difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks. If you have no use for people on this board you are free to leave. I argued with your point by making counter-points, i.e. that the chance of the firearm helping him is >0% and the chance of it failing and making a situation even worse than if he was disarmed is pretty darn close to 0%, thus the benefit outweighs the risk.
Jonnybow wrote:bmel17, there is a competency test for voting, it's called being responsible enough to register and be able to spell your name and not be a felon. In order to OC, you only have to be a non felon......
You've apparently missed the whole point of "rights" - that they belong to each of us as individuals, and aren't dependant on whether or not you personally approve of their usage. If you don't like that we are able to live our lives without your permission then feel free to live in a bunker somewhere.
 #72174  by bmel17
 
Jonnybow wrote:astro, THAT'S your argument? Wow, talk about coming in with nothing.........If I hurt your feelings, get over it and put your big boy pants on for a change. If you have issues with what I'm saying, you probably fall into the same category as others I have no use for. Constructive? That's what I was being, I think someone who carries a weapon should be responsible enough to understand how the weapon works, what it does and what to do when it doesn't do what it's supposed to. That is constructive. How can you argue with that?

bmel17, there is a competency test for voting, it's called being responsible enough to register and be able to spell your name and not be a felon. In order to OC, you only have to be a non felon......

As far as the other two comments, OK I see your point BUT if no-one points it out to him, someone else might do the same thing.
You can give criticism without being harsh. This is a site to educate, not make him feel like an idiot.

As for the competency test, the point is that requirements PREVENT and make it more difficult for legal rights to be exercised. You want more requirements, I say no thanks. Requiring more, more, more creates a barrier to legally carry open or concealed and prevents citizens from self defense. To OC you only have to be a non-felon you say, but you want formal training? Which is it? Some of my informal training has been quite better than my formal training.

As for pointing out this to him, I'm pretty sure we pointed that out to him a few posts ago....
bmel17 wrote:just an FYI - you should always clean and inspect a weapon before you fire it. sometimes surprises or junk are left inside firearms during the production process.

most will not carry a weapon before they fire it. this is to ensure it is fully operable and able to carry out its intended purpose

Notice it's concise, to the point? Also non-alienating?
 #72175  by bluedog46
 
I am only replying.

I agree 100% with a competency test for voting as it is a very serious thing. I am all for training to carry a firearm, but as long as a pulse ( sometimes not even that) is required to vote I support the intention of the second amendment.
 #72176  by iamdude
 
davidtor wrote:Yea I understand. The gun is awesome! My next 2 guns I'm getting are the glock 23 gen 4 .40. And the Beretta 92A1 or 96A1 in a .40 also. Can't wait and I was looking at shotguns for home defense
I'm sure you have already done your research, but the 92A1 is the 9mm version, while the 96A1 is the .40 S&W version of the same gun. I'm sure x-ring can order it for you if they don't have it in stock.
astro_wanabe wrote:
Jonnybow wrote:Hold on, did you guys really let the fact that this guy hadn't even fired the weapon once before wearing it on his hip slide by with little attention?
The biggest gripe I have with the few folks I have had interaction with while OCing is the simple stuff. I'm talking about firearm safety, lack of firearm knowledge and then there's this, not having a clue if the gun will even cycle a round BUT having it on your hip. WTF?
I truly believe that EVERYONE who decides to carry a weapon should have to receive formal training. You have to have formal training to operate a motorcycle, operate a car, fly a plane, carry concealed..................

I mean, carrying a weapon is for your safety and the safety of your friends and family. Why the hell would you carry if you have no idea if the weapon will even work if you should need it to? Might as well just have a club or big stick. ridiculous.
Having 1 round fire and the second fail to cycle is still 1 more round fired in his defense than if he wasn't carrying at all, and if it fails completely it's still a lot more threatening than just pointing his finger going bang bang! How about you quit whining, be glad he's willing to carry in the first place, and give some CONSTRUCTIVE help! Sheesh!
What about firing one round and hitting something, or someone he is not targeting? I have to agree with Johnnybow to a point. One of the reasons I haven't started OC'ing yet (besides not being able to find a holster,) is because I want to be sure I am competent enough to actually hit what I'm aiming at. I know, being a noob to handguns myself, there is a bit of nerves and adrenaline that goes along with shooting a gun you are unfamiliar with. It took me about 4 trips to the range to calm the nerves and start improving my grouping. Amplify that by being put in a situation where you are fighting for your life, and that's a bad combination for someone who hasn't even fired their weapon yet.

There is a responsibility that comes with OC'ing, and I would agree that going out one day to buy a shiny new gun, and then strapping it to your hip the next day, is irresponsible. I'm not sure of what davidtor's previous experience with guns is, but it sounds like his gung-ho attitude could be a detriment. I'm also not sure how much research he has done on the laws, and how to handle a stop by a LEO, but from following this thread, it seems his decision to OC so soon, may be jumping the gun.

Agree or disagree, that's just my $.02
 #72179  by Mr.Skellington
 
So the ending point of this is:

Before someone straps a pistol to their hip they should make sure the firearm is in proper working order and they are proficient with it.

Although its not required to do, it is something that really should be done.


Point made?
Moving along?
 #72182  by Jonnybow
 
Yes, moving along.

Thanks for reinforcing my belief astro, Now I'm certain of my first impression.
 #72186  by photog
 
Jonnybow, I agree with you. Training and proficiency are crucial. However, you AND astro need to tone it down a notch with the name calling....

Mr. Skellington, you are on point as usual. Also glad that you are back on board Sir!!!
 #72190  by bluedog46
 
"Can't we all just get along"?


As a thought. If someone is new and does not know much about firearms there are tons of guys on the site who would go to the range with you or show you show to break down your firearm and clean it and so forth. There is no stupid question except the one you dont ask especially with something like a firearm.
 #72195  by Jonnybow
 
You know, I would help this guy in a New York minute if he wanted it. Me and the wife are at the range every week keeping our shooting skills sharp.
I don't pay too much attention to people calling me names, it doesn't bother me much. My feelings didn't get hurt, hope astros didn't either. We all have our pet peaves I guess, doesn't make us enemys at least in my eyes.
I re-read what I wrote, never called anyone a name. I was harsh as allot of folks here are when they are discussing something that is important to them.