@john

A) If you're worried about police escalation, open-carrying makes that problem *worse* not better. What are you going to do, shoot at the police?
B) Then bring symbolic arms instead of real ones.

As far as I'm concerned, open-carrying is, in and of itself, an attempt to terrorize tho public (and that goes for armed police too).

And fwiw, I'm a CCL holder.

@LouisIngenthron
A)
I think history shows the reverse. Cops regularly beat the living crap out of protesters, particularly if they don't like what's being said but sometimes seemingly just for kicks. That's much less common when people clearly demonstrate the potential for the situation to get out of hand.

As for shooting them, I think that's generally ill-advised, but certainly an understandable reaction to tear gas, night sticks, and the like. Probably better off with RPGs.

@LouisIngenthron

I think the bigger point is - there's lots of approaches to protesting that seem reasonable depending on your assessment of the reality you live in. While I have never, nor plan to, carry in a protest, I can't criticize those who do. And they're certainly not terrorists.

@john If their intent is to strike fear into those they're protesting, then they most certainly are terrorists.

And there are exceedingly few reasons to open-carry other than intimidation.

@LouisIngenthron

If making a feeble attempt at intimidating state actors, including the police, is terrorism, then the word has basically no meaning and shouldn't have a negative connotation.

@john I participated in the BLM protests. We were a massive crowd of people in t-shirts surrounded by cops in full body armor, with long arms, mounted on horseback.

I am extremely certain that open-carrying would have made the situation worse in every way, and likely would have been rejected by the very people I was marching with.

@LouisIngenthron

> rejected by the very people I was marching with

They have every right to protest/demonstrate unarmed. It's possible it might be a more effective strategy depending on circumstance, and that's their call to make and their own safety to consider.

I've been to a protest unarmed surrounded by police (who outnumbered us significantly), though I suspect I was in less danger than what you're describing. Doesn't really change the point.

@LouisIngenthron
B) Different meaning, especially if open carry is illegal but "symbolic arms" wouldn't be.

> open-carrying is, in and of itself, an attempt to terrorize tho public

I'm much less concerned about a non-agitated person with a gun than I am about a hulk of a man who appears roided up. Is he a terrorist, too?

@LouisIngenthron

> And fwiw, I'm a CCL holder.

And I've never owned a gun or been licensed in any way for them. Not sure it's particularly important to the point.