Seriously, whats the deal with open carry?

Exactly! The whole idea of defending your life is the ease of doing so. But it only takes one situation of blaming the attack victim to set a precedent that can be hard to break. IMO that's why prior criminal records should be a HUGE factor when it comes to justifying why you felt you were in danger. When the truth comes out that the "little angels" you killed have a history of violence and mayhem, it gets pretty obvious to a jury (hopefully).

The best way to carry a gun in a vehicle is on a pintle mount.

1) Say you're going squirrel hunting with your trusty Ruger Mk1. Wouldn't it feel silly to have to conceal it from the squirrels?
2)

I think the reason I am about to give gets perverted over time by the carrier into an ego status symbol and intimidating power symbol, but there is a reason for it that on some level is not such a problem. It is sort of like a flag our identifier. When you have the gun on your hip I am sure you will have people come up to you and talk guns. Sort of like if you walked around with a phaser on your hip star trek fans would come up to you and talk trek. People come up to me all the time and comment on my anime or my little pony t-shirts. It is a way to meet people when you are not the type to just start up conversations.

I am not saying every person showing their gun off is looking for friendly gun chat, and there are certainly better ways to put that flag out, but it is a reason. I also do not think that reason rises above the dangers to others carrying a deadly weapon around brings. I happen to have a machete I like a lot, and I could talk about the fun things I do like roaming around cutting up things. There has also been use for it occasionally, so why can't I carry it into the store I bought it from or Wal-Mart? Why do I have to leave my machete in the car is when I go to taco bell? I am not there to kill anyone, and if some sword wielding madman comes in I could fight him off. Bell, if the guy next to me pulled out a gun I could chop off his hand pretty quickly, or at least mangle his arm to uselessness. I just really do not need it and some stupid person might hurt themselves with it, including me. It is not so necessary to my identity I carry it around.

It's actually just a practical fashion. Cowboys wore guns all day because they wouldn't be dressed if they didn't. Cops are somewhat the same but in a uniform. Swords and daggers likewise used to be a practical fashion, little different than carrying an umbrella in London. Carry an umbrella in LA and people would think you were either crazy or were somehow using it as a weapon.

I would have no problem with Tererun or anyone walking around with a machete as long as they weren't recklessly swinging them around. It's like that those asian "gherka" miltary troops (I think that's the group) who have those knives on them at all times. Very few people who walk around loud & proud with a weapon have intentions of using them for crime. It's the guy holding that machete under his coat in a convenience store at 2:00 AM that's generally the problem. I do know not many people try the "look at how cool I am with my AR-15" game in Georgia because thousands of people have AR-15's so you won't impress anybody.

Actually, a lot of people carry umbrellas in LA, as sun protection.

I hope the above illustration sufficiently explains the matter.

You obviously do not know me and my machete very well. There was a law and order episode where whoopie Goldberg said people listen to you when you are holding a machete. I have found this to be true. Plus a gentle tap with a machete leaves a reminder that stays with you. For instance every time I think about doing yard work with the machete without wearing gloves I have a reminder on my left thumb to put some thick gloves on.

He open carries because it's illegal for him to walk around with his micropenis sticking out of his fly.

Samurai swords put out a "badass" vibe to the extreme. Anything that takes mad skillz and years of training to shoot or wield says "the real deal." Even other bowhunters who use the modern compound bows or crossbows (even those are compound) tip their hat to an old-school recurve. Here's a pic of a 1968 bow with a 2013 9 mil.
The 9 mil is because anyone can pick one up and use it with five minutes training, even a child. The Ben Pearson 43# draw weight however........not so much! 1,000 arrows shot and you start to get in the ballpark of barely competent. Also effective-wise you may survive a few shots with the 9 mil - one shot with the bow in the vitals and you are gone in about 15 to 30 seconds. It's unsurviveable, full stop. It's in one side and out the other and the razor sharp broadhead means the wound channel will...not...clot up and stop bleeding. Tendons, ligaments, ribs, and everything else in the arrows path is broken or shredded also. All without making a sound other than a "zzzzzzip!" and a thud/smack like getting punched. That is some badass shit right there! Just a stick and a string powered by your own muscle and hand-eye coordination. 10,000 year old technology at it's finest!

There is no point to open carry and those fools are just making themselves targets.

Yeah, pretty much.

Again - I'm begging for proof! they may be fools (we cannot disprove an opinion) but do you have proof that the open carry people are making themselves targets? You might be right - but I would sure like to see some evidence backing up your claim.

Given that Republicans in Congress have made it illegal to study any aspect of gun violence (or rather made it illegal to use public moneyto do that) I cannot. There aren't any studies newer than the mid 1990's.

As Republicans and the gun industry are trying to hide the data and prevent it from being collected or studied... Well, that tells me they know facts aren't on their side.

Or maybe you are just full of shit. I fucking guarantee that if there was any credence to people practicing "open carry" were specifically targeted as crime victims over & above that of the average unarmed persons AKA "soft target" every swinging dick anti-gun liberal would be all over that like white on rice and you fucking know it. If any criminal interviewed in prison (or ex con out of prison) ever said "yeah, we had a plan to carjack that lost looking nerdy guy, then we saw a guy walking down the street with a big ass cannon of a gun strapped to his hip! So we shot him and then attacked the nerdy guy and took his car" I would love to see that. If not, then it's never fucking happened. But go ahead and blame your delusions on the Republicans!

There is no good reason to have to blanket ban any and all studies on gun violence. It is literally illegal to use any federal research funds to study that issue. We even saw thousands of scientists recently write an open letter to Congress to try to get the research ban lifted but Republicans, shitty corrupt people that they are, ignored them.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/cdc-gun-violence-research-ban-doctors-for-america/

You really should read that so you will at least be able to discuss the matter from a position of knowledge. It explains the 1997 Dickey ban on gun violence research. As I said, the reason the NRA wanted all research into gun violence stopped was because it knew facts were not on their side.

Compensating for a lack of substance somewhere else maybe? Playing John Wayne? Maybe even trying to provoke because hey, why carry around that shiny open holster and never have a reason to draw.

Stupidity on parade either way. But personally I think those attack dogs are much more dangerous. They are uncontrollable. At least most sane, untrained John Wayne Jr.s can be counted on keeping the piece where it belongs or pointing it in the right general direction (as opposed to 'certainly shooting a bystander while shitting their pants in a truly critical situation'). Those dogs? They sure like child meat.

@oldfella1962 I was just trying to explain why I roll my eyes whenever the NRA tries to claim "where are the studies" because they are being so dishonest. They know there are no studies because they were the ones who lobbied to outlaw studies on the topic.

Certainly open carrying might deter some potential shenanigans, but as soon as the open carrier comes across someone it doesn't deter, they're dead meat.

This is your opinion or fact? If someone is not "deterred" from a crime (be it robbery, rape, assault, etc) while encountering an open carrier will that potential criminal kill the open carrier? Has this ever happened? If so, how often? And how would we actually know how many crimes are actually deterred since we cannot accurately study crimes that never actually happened?

My opinion.

He or she would be the first one I'd kill if I were that un-deterred potential criminal.

The reason public money was banned from being used to study gun violence is because the CDC had already had an outcome: gun control. That was their goal. So they would take any study and bend it to that end game.

Why can't the rich bastards like Bloomberg, Soros, and others conduct a study?

#1 If they hire people and do not interfere with the study, the study will not support what Bloomberg and others believe about guns. In other words they don't want to fund a study that will tell them they are in the wrong.

AND

#2 If they interfere in the study well obviously no one would pay attention to it.

Open carry should be legal everywhere.

But people who open carry are stupid.

Exceptions:

1. Those who live in a state where they are forced to open carry
2. Those who live in Alaska

Fair enough - of course (and thank goodness) most criminals don't want to kill people - they want to rob/steal/deal their drugs/etc.etc. with no opposition. Most use weapons to ensure fast compliance with their demands or self defense from other criminals. You can't make much money behind bars for murder. The exception would be people who are on a mission to kill or shoot the joint up, for example a drive-by shooting. Those people are cowardly, that's why they spray bullets at a house full of kids and old people that happens to have rival criminals inside. In that case they are hoping that the criminal rivals are not armed, because they would rather not get shot - hence a "drive by" so they can get away fast before anybody returns fire. Aside from all this the most likely possibility for targeting the people armed for deterrence first is a pre-planned military operation where you already have carte blanche for killing. Substitute terror attack for "pre-planned military operation" and it's pretty much the same scenario and reasoning, just for different purposes.

When I lived in Alaska I was amazed to find some idiots carrying their bear protection in their backpacks the equivalent of a woman living alone and keeping her gun under her mattress.
"excuse me mister rapist, can you take a quick break and get off me so I can retrieve my gun from underneath us?"

Why would a person in Alaska need to keep a gun handy? There are very few blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics there, much less black Hispanic Muslims.

Pesky critters like bears and enraged moose but I see your point - there are ZERO coons!

Marina Sirtis has certainly lost a bunch of weight