WSJ article takes smack at Open Carry-Have Gun, Must Flaunt It?

By NANCY DEWOLF SMITH
Like a fly on a birthday cake, the subject of open carry—legally wearing a gun in public—keeps landing in the news and nobody can swat it down. Those who would like to be rid of it range from some of the most ardent gun-controllers to some of the fiercest believers in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Many of the latter live in the 43 states where it already is legal to openly wear a handgun (although rules vary about whether it can be loaded, etc.). That the majority of people who could walk around outfitted for the OK Corral choose not to do so ought to be a hint that the minority who are most eager to force open carry on the rest of us might belong in a special category of bozos.

Consider the case of James Goldberg, who walked up to the counter of a Glastonbury, Conn. Chili's restaurant in 2007 costumed in camouflage and wearing a pistol. Police were called and Mr. Goldberg was arrested, only to be cleared after it was determined that since he had a permit for the weapon he was not breaking a law.

While news reports in 2007 described Mr. Goldberg as the night manager at a liquor store, he told the Hartford Courant this month that he is a "trained firearms instructor, sells guns at a Newington gun retailer and runs a business that provides security for business executives and entertainment industry celebrities." Whatever else Mr. Goldberg is, he's a thoroughly modern Millie. Back in the day, authentic cowboys didn't sue when the going got tough, especially not for "emotional distress."

Equally unimpressive were the armed types who gathered in a Virginia Park this month to demonstrate support for open carry and their opposition to government in general and the Obama administration in particular. Like the characters who now make a practice of wearing handguns into Starbucks and other places of business, such demonstrators may yet turn out to be a godsend for the antigun crowd.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471204575210742190085972.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTThirdBucket

Just because you can doesn't mean you should

however keeping an OC law on the books to prevent some poon calling the police because my shirt bunched up is also nice in NC.

But that time is not EVERY TIME!

How about your fire extinguisher? The answer is you don't really know because you can't predict the future, so you have those items easily accessable all the time.

It's a personally choice thought ultimately. I don't carry all the time because I choose to follow the law and I can't bring my weapon onto the military installation where I work. Other places that I can't carry I generally avoid going to as much as possible. Given the choice I will always conceal carry myself

Trying to reason with these people is like trying to reason with a box of rocks. I certainly admire the stamina of those who make the attempt.

Yes, its a great tool for a very specific event. At home, in my opinion is the best place for a gun. Out in public, you are taking a risk. Yes, I am talking about "what if you do something you shouldn't?"

You say you'd never do that huh? Never say never.

But then again, I'm strange. I don't think there should be any law barring you from taking your gun everywhere. But again, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Neither you nor I want to legislate the matter

Neither you nor I want to legislate the matter

which is why you never draw your weapon unless you or someone else is facing severe bodily injury or death.

It's a very serious responsibility and if you do shoot and injure or kill another individual it will be a life changing experience, and not necessary for the better. It's not something that you ever want to do.

Still, using a firearm in legitimate self defense is better than facing months of rehab or ending up six feet under.

I guess I missed the memo.

It's a personal choice...not a black and white decision

to detach your personal opinions from your policy stances. It's something I try to do(with mixed results) and it's something I think we all need to aspire to.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the period 2004-2008, over 70% of nonfatal violent victimizations occurred outside the victim's residence or property (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44), so it would appear that you're more likely to need a gun out in public than at home.


Life isn't risk-free; a lot of it is balancing one risk against another. In this case, is the risk that I will "do something I shouldn't" (whatever that may entail) so much larger than the risk of myself or my kid becoming the victim of violence that the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits?

I would just avoid going there. Most people with carry permits do not go looking for trouble.

Unfortunately, I don't have a calendar that reminds me that I should carry a weapon on a given day. I can't think of many places where you are totally safe from attack. You can go to a Walmart or a grocery store and be attacked in the parking lot. You can go to church on Sunday and God doesn't post an angel at the door to stop a nutcase.

I don't fear an attack as I practice situational awareness and I don't do stupid things like visit an outdoor ATM at 3 am. Sometimes, life comes at you fast. You can do everything right and still end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You always hope that you will never have to use a weapon for self defense, but it's best to have one in case you do need it.

It's a lot like winning the Lotto. There's very little chance that you will win a given lotto, but you have absolutely NO chance if you don't have one ticket.

Just because the WSJ can publish a completely fabricated and hyperbolic "issue" opinion, under the guise of the First Amendment, doesn't mean they should.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nancy Smith needs to lighten up.