Open Carry AR

[BikerRN]

I don't put much stock in "reasonable" because as NS2 so aptly described, it is subjective. I will do what I think is right.

Well that's too damned bad, because God forbid you ever wind up on trial for a lethal force encounter, the doctrine of the "reasonable" man is what you'll be measured against, whether you think it's right or not.  And as Frank Ettin said, "Speech may be free, but it's not free of social consequence."  That entire post could bite you in the ass someday, my friend.

It may very well do that.

However I will do what I think is right. Right is determined by my own moral code. I made the decision a long time ago that I could live in prison if society deemed that I was not fit to live amongst society, but I would prefer to not test that decision. Sometimes, actually often, doing the right thing is the hardest thing one can do.

To give you, and other readers some perspective, I place the safety of myself and my loved ones, as well as those under my "mantle of protection", above all others. If that safety can be attained following society's laws, so be it. If not, as I said, I place the safety of me and mine above all others. I take that oath with all sincerity and seriousness. I lost the right to be carefree and reckless when I said, "I do." It is my job to come home to her and if I can't do that, then to ensure that she survives. I do not look to endanger innocents around me, and seek to avoid confrontation, looking for an avenue of retreat if at all possible. Sometimes however there is no retreat that is safe. Society's laws are subject to change, and often people doing the right thing are the one's castigated.

Things will generally work themselves out as to how they should be, but not before somebody pays the Piper. Who pays has yet to be determined. There is no free lunch. If you use a firearm for self defense, not only should you consider what taking a human life will do to you, but also what defending your actions will cost you, as well as the liklihood of going to prison. If you can't live with those consequences I'd venture that one shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Biker

[NS2]

There is no free lunch. If you use a firearm for self defense, not only should you consider what taking a human life will do to you, but also what defending your actions will cost you, as well as the liklihood of going to prison. If you can't live with those consequences I'd venture that one shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Biker

+1

[Devereaux]

+1 to Biker

Eric, you need to stop sitting in some loft thinking of "logic". IF you should ever be so unlucky to face a deadly situation, there will be no "reasonable man" with you - there will only be YOU, and what you see, think, feel at the time.

[NS2]

I see two sides to this road.  One side based in logic, reason and theory and the other side based in experience.  All plans are valid until the first shot is fired.

The middle of the road is where all the danger resides here.

Eric is right.  We need to plan accordingly so that we can survive the aftermath of the gunfight.  I agree with this completely.

Biker is correct also.  If we focus our attention on planning to survive in court, we may do so at the detriment of our physical survival.

The trouble is in finding the middle ground that will work in both worlds.  We can do many thing to mitigate our risk of an un-just prosecution.  Things like obtaining professional training, training logs, weapons maintenance records, not altering our carry guns without justifiable reason.  We can also seek out the advice of counsel and find out through case study exactly how the laws of our area have been applied and adjudicated.  Most important of all, we can plan ahead and look to avoid any potential conflict so that we don't end up in court.

Unfortunately, for some, there has been or will be a time when dealing with the situation at hand will be all that matters.  The SD encounter will happen in real time and there will be no reasonable men available to provide advice.  All you will have is yourself.  All you will have is your training and preparation.  If that training and preparation included more focus on legal matters than on threat termination then you are likely to revert to that level of training.  For me, I would prefer to have my mind focusing on the actual fight and not what will happen afterwards.

Both Eric's and Biker's points are valid.  They are just on opposite sides of the road.  One wants to focus on surviving the fight because his experience tells him that is what is important.  The other wants to focus on the aftermath because his road has provided him with a different level of expertise.

Neither position is incorrect.  Neither is more valid than the other.  Each is important to the overall survivability of the armed encounter.  One is the cart and the other is the horse.  Don't spend so much time worrying about the cart that you freeze up when you need to use the horse.  The armed encounter is likely the highest level of stress we will ever experience.  We all know that we will revert to our most base level of training when placed under that stress.  What do you want that level of training to be when your life is on the line?  Horse, or cart?

[Devereaux]

It is said the no plan ever survives first contact. That is not to say that planning is a bad thing. There is much benefit from the process of planning. But at the sharp end, it is execution that carries the day. That is neither plan nor planning. Knowing what you have to do, when you have to do it, and how to do it WILL end up, most likely, with a "harmonious result".

But keep planning - gives you insights about "when" and "what".

[Uninformed Opinion]

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

[Eric R Shelton]

Eric, you need to stop sitting in some loft thinking of "logic". IF you should ever be so unlucky to face a deadly situation, there will be no "reasonable man" with you - there will only be YOU, and what you see, think, feel at the time.

Take a MAG40.  Or a MAG20 classroom session.  Knowing that Biker has been there, I'm actually dismayed at his unwillingness to be reasonable sometimes.  At no point have I ever said that we shouldn't carry a firearm, shouldn't use lethal force (perform the indicated response), or anything else that one might surmise from reading his responses.

Before we go all thread-drift here and start ranting about principles, let's get this back on topic: Why would you carry an AR-15 into a restaurant and how in the name of John Moses Browning would you defend your actions as reasonable to a jury of your "peers"?!  If you suspected rifle-levels of trouble, don't we all know the first course of action is escape?  Seriously, defend yourself to a jury out of that question.  (I'm not saying it can't be done, and quite frankly I'd love to see it!)

Biker's a stubborn s.o.b., and I like him, but because of that and the thread drift/escalation of "principles" here (in quotes because the biggest principle exercised here is being judged the winner of an online debate), I'm bowing out.  I quit.  I'm done with this thread and I'm washing my hands.  This has gotten to the point where y'all are blinded to the narrow scope of the issue and confusing moral codes for the logic of carrying a rifle around.  Good luck with that.

[BikerRN]

Eric, you need to stop sitting in some loft thinking of "logic". IF you should ever be so unlucky to face a deadly situation, there will be no "reasonable man" with you - there will only be YOU, and what you see, think, feel at the time.

Take a MAG40.  Or a MAG20 classroom session.  Knowing that Biker has been there, I'm actually dismayed at his unwillingness to be reasonable sometimes.  At no point have I ever said that we shouldn't carry a firearm, shouldn't use lethal force (perform the indicated response), or anything else that one might surmise from reading his responses.

Before we go all thread-drift here and start ranting about principles, let's get this back on topic: Why would you carry an AR-15 into a restaurant and how in the name of John Moses Browning would you defend your actions as reasonable to a jury of your "peers"?!  If you suspected rifle-levels of trouble, don't we all know the first course of action is escape?  Seriously, defend yourself to a jury out of that question.  (I'm not saying it can't be done, and quite frankly I'd love to see it!)

Biker's a stubborn s.o.b., and I like him, but because of that and the thread drift/escalation of "principles" here (in quotes because the biggest principle exercised here is being judged the winner of an online debate), I'm bowing out.  I quit.  I'm done with this thread and I'm washing my hands.  This has gotten to the point where y'all are blinded to the narrow scope of the issue and confusing moral codes for the logic of carrying a rifle around.  Good luck with that.

The definition of reasonableness changes as society changes. I'm not big on change.

Like I said, I will do what is right for me and mine. That doesn't often change, only the methodology may change, be it 1810, 1910, or 2010.

Biker

[TravisLeibold]

Jeez...

Society tells us that carrying a rifle around in public would be considered UNREASONABLE, and probably there would be a perception of overkill and instigation in using that rifle in the prevention of felonies out on the street.  But, if said rifle was used to bring a quick end to an especially savage felony,( think Luby's cafeteria or North Hollywood) and there was no negligent/collateral damage, would the rifle toter still be considered paranoid/unreasonable after the fact? Or would people say, "Thank God that guy was there with that rifle"? 

I would think that police would have the same considerations. Pull an AR for a regular traffic stop and get your butt chewed. Pull your AR because your gut told you, and it turns out you have a car-load of cop killers pulled over, no problem.
 
Biker: I agree with you that we ought to be able to carry a rifle if we friggin feel like it, and not have to worry about people crapping thier drawers, but that is just not the case. If we want to change this, my suggestion would be, rather than shouldering an AR to the grocery store, we could scabbard a lever gun on our backs and ride around on motorcycles. That would only be one step beyond a rifle in the back window of a truck, and people would probably be less afraid of a .44 Mag 1894... go figure...

Insidious Incrementalism.... a borrowed tactic from the Anti's...

[BikerRN]

Eric,

I never said that it was "reasonable" to carry a rifle in place of a handgun. What I did say was that we should be able to if we so desire. Sadly society has turned to where a person even carrying a handgun is often viewed as unreasonable. I don't happen to view carrying a handgun, or even a rifle as unreasonable, but reasonableness is subjective. It is reasonable in AZ to carry your 1911 in an open carry mode and walk in to your local Ace Hardware. Do that in New York and you'd incite panic. I am saddened by society's shift away from self determination, and gun control laws and the varying views of reasonable are only symptoms of that.

I never said I would carry in such a manner, but I wish it was that I could, and not create panic or trepidation in the hearts of my fellow citizens.

We are both looking at the problem from different angles if you will. I am less concerned with the legal aftermath than I am the physical survival of an encounter. That may come from having seen what I affectionately term, "The Beast". I know from firsthand expirience that "The Beast" comes in a variety of ages, races, genders, and physical capabilities. One has to survive "The Beast" before one can worry about the lawyers. I have prepared for the lawyers as best I can, but having done that I find it is better for me to prepare for my meeting with "The Beast" again.

There is no one size fits all answer, but to limit conversation because of possible legal aftermath is dishonest and a disservice to comrades that may stumble upon these words at a later date, or maybe not considered them before. I would hope that discussion of topics such as this provides food for thought. I know that I have been immensely helped by such conversations, and some of those conversations have helped to keep me vertical given my past job expiriences. Fighting is ugly and brutal, BTDT, got the T-Shirt. To deny that is to deny reality.

Biker

[Eric R Shelton]

Insidious Incrementalism.... a borrowed tactic from the Anti's...

I'm all for that!  All I've said is this guy skipped a few steps.   

Biker, now you're talking reasonably again.  And again, I've never said we shouldn't be able to carry our rifles or what-have-you.  Not even close.  Nothing of the sort.  What I said was this guy made a poor judgment call.  My frustration with what you were typing was related to thread drift that could very easily be misconstrued into "Damn the laws, I'm going to do what I think is right."  That is dangerous territory my friend, and I'm unsure if there could be any legal ramifications upon me or the GRRN for engaging/allowing/encouraging that kind of talk.  (I think most people here know that sadly, "free speech" is bull****.)

You're a damn fine tactician in most everything you do.  (except grilling steak!  LOL!  I kid, I kid...)  All I'm asking is that you think strategically as well, and set yourself up for victory in all arenas of life.