Recently another hit piece written by Bob Owens with Bearing Arms has surfaced. This time of course, he wants to defend himself as not being anti-second amendment. I did chuckle a bit when I read it. Any time a supposed “gun rights” supporter has to defend themselves against such an accusation, there is usually something wrong with that person’s stance on whatever issue we are dealing with. Bob Owens is no stranger to these accusations. As a matter of fact, Bearing Arms has been banned from Texas Carry’s pages because of this very thing. He begins the article with:
“I got a message this morning from a Missouri man who describes himself as a former reader of our Facebook page.”
“Have had enough of your anti open carry nonsense. Might want to look into renaming the page, as it’s currently falsely advertised. You just lost a ‘Like.’
“Sigh.”
Well Bob, you should take note and maybe re-evaluate your 2nd amendment values. They are certainly skewed at best. As a dear friend of mine noted after reading the hit piece; “Does anyone else see the irony of a website called "bearing arms" being totally against "bearing arms?” Indeed, we do. I have done rebuttal write-ups from this anti-carry group before, and now I will once again dive off into the world of fairy-tales, mythology, and emotional fiction. I do find it interesting that I have tried over and over again to get those like Bob Owens to accept my invitation to a formal debate on the issue at hand. To date none have accepted. There are good reasons they won’t. It is so much easier to be a keyboard warrior, and make stuff up than to actually face off with someone who has data, facts, and statistics at their disposal.
So let’s get off into it. I have linked the article so you can read his nauseating anti-carry stance.
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/12/anti-open-carry-anti-second-amendment/
For sake of space I’m going to break this down into the following categories;
1) His credentials/experience
2) His obvious intent with the pics he used to skew the readers view
3) His study of open carry (lack of integrity)
4) The defensive firearms instructors crutch
5) The law enforcement angle
7) His claim to be a “journalist”
1) He begins by laying out his extensive hours of training. “Some of the best shooters and firearms instructors in the world.” That is great! He knows how to shoot a gun and likely is very proficient in defensive handgun use. I personally would like to see the carry community take more training. Here is the thing though, this has zero to do with open carry. Training is a CARRY issue, not a concealed carry issue or an open carry issue. He wants the reader to believe that somehow his training gives him credentials to offer an “educated” opinion on open carry, and it certainly does not. His training creds mean nothing in the discussion, especially when he does not even open carry. He has no experience whatsoever on the issue. He is not in the slightest an expert on this subject matter. He’s a shill for the elite that think they know best in their own minds. The statistics, facts, and data be damned. The peasants need to bow down to him just because he says so.
2) When one looks at the article, one cannot help but notice the pictures he uses. The infamous Chipotle pic of the two guys open carrying their long guns comes to mind. Why post that pic when addressing open carry of a handgun? Very simply, he is unable to get past his great disdain for activism. He is of the old school mindset of play nice, and stay in a defensive posture. That my friend, is how we lost California gun rights but I digress into another topic for another day. He uses these intentionally to skew the readers view. It is intentional, and reveals his disdain for our rights.
3) As we continue down the list, the next one is at best laughable. His study of open carry.
“I’ve paid keen attention to real world open carry incidents as well. I have several news filtering tools with filters set up to specifically capture open carry news. I’ve also of course read forum posts, articles, and discussions with professional firearms instructors, both public and private about the subject of open carry.”
“You know what I’ve discovered?”
“I’ve discovered that the majority of urban and suburban open carriers tend to have little or no defensive firearms training. No, basic gun safety classes don’t count as defensive firearms training.”
This has to be the most disingenuous statement in the entire article. I need only to be brief to make the point. Why does he not address the very same issue with concealed carriers? This has to be the most ridiculous point in the entire article. Again, it has nothing to do with open carry but with the reality that carriers do not take his 400 hours of professional training. There is no difference whatsoever in the training level between open and concealed carry that we can point to. Many of the open carriers that I know have countless hours of training. This reveals his inherent belief that concealed carriers are superior for no other reason than they conceal carry. His arrogance is beyond the norm and he is blinded by his own emotional fairy-tales.
He excruciatingly rails on the gun choices and holster choices of open carriers. I honestly laughed out loud when he said that. The old saying that ignorance is bliss is quite fitting here. This same thing would be said about conceal carriers except for the fact you can’t see their cheap gun or cheap holster. The quality of gun/holster choice again is a carry issue, but he wants to put forth his superior position that conceal carriers only carry top quality guns in a top quality holster? If he had a shred of credibility he lost it with this point.
To compound his lack of integrity, he goes down a road he could never defend in a public debate. Which by the way I have challenged him to. He states; “Instead of deterrence, we’ve found numerous instances (some of which we’ve documented here at Bearing Arms) where criminals saw an openly carried firearm as a target to be snatched.” This, by every stretch of the imagination is intentionally deceptive. We are aware of 6 incidents over the last 20 years of an open carriers being a victim of a crime. On the other hand, we can find more than double the incidents of conceal carriers being targeted AND losing their weapons. That number goes significantly higher when the conceal carrier was able to defend themselves from the attack while retaining their weapon. The fact is, conceal carriers are targeted at an enormously higher rate. Of course he does not mention that, nor will he ever do so in his ramblings. It simply would not fit his elite narrative, and he could never accept that. I will say more on this when we address his supposed “journalism” claim.
4,5) By necessity the instructor crutch and law enforcement arguments must be lumped together. Most of the renowned instructors are ex law enforcement. He is right when he states that most professional firearms trainers with military, law enforcement, and civilian backgrounds do not like open carry. The problem with that is that you cannot compare law enforcement or military with civilian carry. They are chasing bad guys. They are looking for trouble by the nature of their jobs. They are getting into hand to hand situations and so on. We are shopping at Kroger. Our side often points to the fact that law enforcement open carries as a deterrent. That is true beyond any shadow of a doubt. While true, it is simply not a good comparison for civilian carry. Law enforcement’s view is greatly skewed because of the job not because of open carry. They literally go looking for the worst of the worst. They are trying to catch the most horrible people in society. I understand how their view can be skewed. However, trying to correlate that to open carry vs conceal carry is comparing apples to oranges. There simply is no correlation. This is a common mistake in the gun community, and I do not have much heartburn with the fact Bob Owens makes the same common mistake. The only issue is his motives make the mistake look intentionally deceptive. In his case, I concur with that perception. Most of the defensive firearms instructors that we would name are not open carry fans, mainly because of their LE or military background. Not because they have studied the issue or even experienced it in a civilian capacity themselves. It just feels wrong based on their experience of chasing the worst of the worst. Carriers do not do the things they do, therefore there is simply no correlation.
6) Bob Owens states; “More than just being “just” a journalist, I am an advocate for gun rights and best practices among gun owners.” He is neither. Yes, he puts on the gun rights makeup and says the right things in front of the right people. He is anything but an advocate for gun rights. He is an advocate for himself and the elite in his camp. He is an advocate for his way and how he thinks we should look and act. There is no leadership from him or his organization. He has constantly attacked the activist and open carriers. His claim that he’s a journalist? This entire article proves why we all know journalism is dead. There isn’t a shred of journalist integrity in the article. As a matter of fact he makes a comment that shows his willing deception. “Sadly, I could not find concrete examples of open carriers deterring violent crime by their mere presence, as “common wisdom” holds.”
Here Bob, let me help you with a very basic google search;
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/robbery-what-robbery/
Another well documented fact is that 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Just sayin...
I could likely write a book on all of these subjects and more. I could also write pages of supporting documents, but that is what a public debate forum is for. So Bob, will you accept my challenge to a public debate on the subject of open carry vs. conceal carry? Or will you continue to hide behind your keyboard and spew your fairy-tale, mythological, emotional “journalism”?
As another friend of mine noted; “So only a special delta force seal team operator with thousands of hours of training should open carry, there's no real evidence of open carriers deterring crime, and because police are targets of violent crime open carry is bad?”
According to Bob Owens? Yes…