Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That would be neat. Waiting for it.
Glenn
Glenn
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A man open carrying is murdered with his own gun.
- Thread starter FoghornLeghorn
- Start date
Open carry just seems like a bad idea on so many levels.
In this case it resulted in the death of two people the gun owner and another victim. What if the gun owner hadn't been shot or killed but the second victim still had been? That sounds like the making of a great civil case against the gun owner by the victim's family.
In this case it resulted in the death of two people the gun owner and another victim. What if the gun owner hadn't been shot or killed but the second victim still had been? That sounds like the making of a great civil case against the gun owner by the victim's family.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I wonder why they were tussling in the first place. Was it a robbery he intervened in?
I can tell you one thing, I am very wary of getting in any sort of physical confrontation whatsoever when carrying. Concealed or open. There are many cases where I would get involved in defending someone if not armed, where I would stand aside until someone seemed to be in imminent life threatening circumstances at which point I would shoot the attacker. I'm not mixing it up on the floor with a couple other people and a gun sliding around on the tile if I can help it. fdat.
I can tell you one thing, I am very wary of getting in any sort of physical confrontation whatsoever when carrying. Concealed or open. There are many cases where I would get involved in defending someone if not armed, where I would stand aside until someone seemed to be in imminent life threatening circumstances at which point I would shoot the attacker. I'm not mixing it up on the floor with a couple other people and a gun sliding around on the tile if I can help it. fdat.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm always worried by the OC tussle paradigm. This is because I was mightly impressed in a couple of knife classes. Yes, the OC tussle might start when someone who is a doofus announces that I want your gun - and you can use your retention skills (which you should have). But, my fear is of the deliberate predator who might start the grab not with a grab but a few nasty slashes or stabs. If they can get close enough to tussle (yes, you have spider sense), they are close enough to deploy a knife. Fighting for your gun through the shock of a knife attack would be nasty.
Glenn, you have a point, and if you get stuck before recognizing the threat you may well be done.
Even if you recognize the threat in time, good odds you will get cut in a knife fight.
This is where having trained to the point of reflexive movement off the X is a useful thing. This is also where knowing what body parts will take the least serious damage (for instance, back of the forearms as opposed to the insides of the forearms, where effective suicide cuts get made) would come in handy.
In such a case, deal with the immediate threat first (avoid mortal cuts, deflect and attack the attacker) and then worry about draw or retention.
Even if you recognize the threat in time, good odds you will get cut in a knife fight.
This is where having trained to the point of reflexive movement off the X is a useful thing. This is also where knowing what body parts will take the least serious damage (for instance, back of the forearms as opposed to the insides of the forearms, where effective suicide cuts get made) would come in handy.
In such a case, deal with the immediate threat first (avoid mortal cuts, deflect and attack the attacker) and then worry about draw or retention.
dakota.potts
New member
I am a member of an open carry organization in Florida called Florida Open Carry. They've helped write several pieces of legislation regarding firearms and are currently working to restore open carry rights in Florida.
I was worried about a lot of this too, however, when doing research we are able to find (relatively) very few incidents of someone being killed because they had a gun. They tend to make big waves in the firearms community ("I told you open carry was dangerous!") but statistically are rather insignificant.
It is my opinion that far more crimes are stopped than created because of open carry.
But you take the good with the bad in any activity. Some things are truly hard to prepare for. Concealed carry probably won't help if 35 people with M60's bust into a bar and demand your possessions (obvious straw man for effect).
Truly sad. I don't know what you do for a situation like this.
I was worried about a lot of this too, however, when doing research we are able to find (relatively) very few incidents of someone being killed because they had a gun. They tend to make big waves in the firearms community ("I told you open carry was dangerous!") but statistically are rather insignificant.
It is my opinion that far more crimes are stopped than created because of open carry.
But you take the good with the bad in any activity. Some things are truly hard to prepare for. Concealed carry probably won't help if 35 people with M60's bust into a bar and demand your possessions (obvious straw man for effect).
Truly sad. I don't know what you do for a situation like this.
That statement is a bit disingenuous. How are crimes "created" by open carry?It is my opinion that far more crimes are stopped than created because of open carry.
dakota.potts
New member
Sorry, I suppose I mean crimes of opportunity. Gun grabs or being killed first because you have a gun. It happens, but (in my opinion), at a much lower rate than the crimes that are stopped because of a firearm openly carried.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
M. - how many OC folks have taken knife classes?
We really don't know if there is a deterrent effect of OC. The test would be to look at crime rates in locales where OC would be noticed and look for a discontinuity that leads to a drop in crime. Time series analysis - like Lott did. But even Lott's data has critiques.
All we have are anecdotes currently. Nor have folks done intensive interviews with felons to discern whether they change strategies. That's been done in the past.
It's clear to all, that I have no need to announce my carry status. As far as deterrence - the literature suggests that gate and attitude are major deterrents to property crimes where you are challenged.
We really don't know if there is a deterrent effect of OC. The test would be to look at crime rates in locales where OC would be noticed and look for a discontinuity that leads to a drop in crime. Time series analysis - like Lott did. But even Lott's data has critiques.
All we have are anecdotes currently. Nor have folks done intensive interviews with felons to discern whether they change strategies. That's been done in the past.
It's clear to all, that I have no need to announce my carry status. As far as deterrence - the literature suggests that gate and attitude are major deterrents to property crimes where you are challenged.
Gun grabs or being killed first because you have a gun. It happens, but (in my opinion), at a much lower rate than the crimes that are stopped because of a firearm openly carried.
If the would-be criminal changed his mind and left because of the OC gun, how would you know?
Its far easier to prove that OC'd weapons are a catalyst to a crime, in this case two murders, while its nearly impossible to prove the OC prevented a crime.
dakota.potts
New member
Right, I accept that there are no statistics about OC being a deterrent, just as there are no true statistics about how many times a gun is pulled to stop a crime. We can guesstimate but it's very hard to tell. People who carry guns at all (especially open) are so statistically insignificant, not to mention the chance that a crime might happen also being small statistically, that I feel like it would be very very hard to even extrapolate the information.
That is why it's an opinion. If I had something to back it up or refute it I would love to post it but for now it's just the best I can do. If you choose not to think the same way, I can absolutely not hold it against you for lack of figures to support or refute it.
That is why it's an opinion. If I had something to back it up or refute it I would love to post it but for now it's just the best I can do. If you choose not to think the same way, I can absolutely not hold it against you for lack of figures to support or refute it.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Like I said - this was debated during the concealed carry arguments.
You would look at the crime rate and then for a sharp break in the crime rates in locales where a thief might worry about concealed carry.
You would also interview career criminals to ask what deters them. This has been done before.
If a criminal says that they would not start as crime where there is an open carry person - that might be informative but an answer driven by demand characteristics. The first method of looking for a crime rate discontinuity after the introduction of OC legislation would be better.
But you are correct in that simple opinion won't cut it as evidence.
You would look at the crime rate and then for a sharp break in the crime rates in locales where a thief might worry about concealed carry.
You would also interview career criminals to ask what deters them. This has been done before.
If a criminal says that they would not start as crime where there is an open carry person - that might be informative but an answer driven by demand characteristics. The first method of looking for a crime rate discontinuity after the introduction of OC legislation would be better.
But you are correct in that simple opinion won't cut it as evidence.
dakota.potts
New member
Glenn, I suppose I should say that I as a person lack the resources of being able to determine such evidence. I misread your original post and am not sure if you were saying that such a study has been done? If so, I would really like to read it. I think to be truly effective we'd also need to establish an acceptable ratio. If we could say that it has stopped X amount of armed robberies, how many armed robberies stopped is worth a person being killed and having their gun taken to make the deterrent factor outweigh the cons of putting yourself out in the open? Is it just one? 3? 100? 10,000? I'm confident in saying that 1 million armed robberies stopped per person killed would be worth it, but not so confident in a 1 to 1 ratio, so I think that's a determination we'd have to make, perhaps on an individual basis. That also calls into question whether or not extrapolated answers (The crime dropped this much here so we can say OC stopped somewhere between X and Y amount of crime with an error tolerance of Z) can even be used to make such a determination.
Probably more pedagogical than the question needs to be at its root, but that's just something I tend to do. I definitely don't want to put my point of view on somebody else without any kind of evidence, but with none (that I'm aware of) that I can accept as going either way, it will be my opinion that OC stops more crime than it encourages. In my opinion, it's simple human nature. If we accept that 80% of criminals pick easy targets that are less likely to resist, and that maybe 15% will actively challenge somebody that they feel is threatening them or will challenge them regardless of the level of threat presented, it seems to me that more would be deterred than encouraged to attack. These are also gut feeling figures but most criminals I know of are not true, evil psychopaths, so this is a determination I have made for myself. It may be a sort of logical fallacy. I'm not entirely sure.
Probably more pedagogical than the question needs to be at its root, but that's just something I tend to do. I definitely don't want to put my point of view on somebody else without any kind of evidence, but with none (that I'm aware of) that I can accept as going either way, it will be my opinion that OC stops more crime than it encourages. In my opinion, it's simple human nature. If we accept that 80% of criminals pick easy targets that are less likely to resist, and that maybe 15% will actively challenge somebody that they feel is threatening them or will challenge them regardless of the level of threat presented, it seems to me that more would be deterred than encouraged to attack. These are also gut feeling figures but most criminals I know of are not true, evil psychopaths, so this is a determination I have made for myself. It may be a sort of logical fallacy. I'm not entirely sure.
The underlying assumption is that criminals think and act like us. There are many who simply do not care and will not be deterred. There are some who simply want a free gun, and if getting it comes with the bragging rights of having disarmed someone for it, all the better.If we accept that 80% of criminals pick easy targets that are less likely to resist, and that maybe 15% will actively challenge somebody that they feel is threatening them or will challenge them regardless of the level of threat presented, it seems to me that more would be deterred than encouraged to attack.
A gun is a very, very valuable piece of loot. Much more so than an iPod or a wallet with $38 and an expired Sam's Club card. Some folks are willing to take the risk to get one, especially if their victim isn't displaying good situational awareness or a confident mindset.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The two classic authors on the effects of guns on crime are Lott and Kleck. Both have books. Both are controversial if you then look at the professional level criminology literature.
As far as what is worth it - there are statistical methods to determine such. However, risk ratios come up against the 'save one life' mantra.
The methods to determine significant discontinuities indicating the effect of a law, for example are discussed in Lott's work.
If the criminologists are interested they will do this on open carry laws.
Now, one problem is that statistics deal with aggregate events. It does YOU no good if OC is a deterrent to most 7-11 hold ups but a small but significant sample of bad people decide to target OC folks.
As Tom pointed out and I've heard discussed in class - you do have a set of folks might like the challenge. I've seen this before when a big guy says NO ONE will start with me because I'm so big. It was pointed out that some little criminals regard that as a challenge and they walk up to big guy and gut him. Surprise!
Another fun conjecture. If someone holds up the 7-11 - the other patrons look at you and say: You have a gun - Do something! You must be a police man or woman. There goes your avoidance.
The Maginot Line was OC for the French. The bad guys figured out how to deal with it.
As far as what is worth it - there are statistical methods to determine such. However, risk ratios come up against the 'save one life' mantra.
The methods to determine significant discontinuities indicating the effect of a law, for example are discussed in Lott's work.
If the criminologists are interested they will do this on open carry laws.
Now, one problem is that statistics deal with aggregate events. It does YOU no good if OC is a deterrent to most 7-11 hold ups but a small but significant sample of bad people decide to target OC folks.
As Tom pointed out and I've heard discussed in class - you do have a set of folks might like the challenge. I've seen this before when a big guy says NO ONE will start with me because I'm so big. It was pointed out that some little criminals regard that as a challenge and they walk up to big guy and gut him. Surprise!
Another fun conjecture. If someone holds up the 7-11 - the other patrons look at you and say: You have a gun - Do something! You must be a police man or woman. There goes your avoidance.
The Maginot Line was OC for the French. The bad guys figured out how to deal with it.