Just one mans thoughts on the "concealed" idea...

HKFan9 said:
Honestly in my opinion open carry just has no positive points. Like most have said and you can use the OP for an example they usually do it for political reasons, while probably sitting home instead of voting for the people who are going to run this country.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you look up the word deterrence. 60% of felons admit that they would not attack a target that was KNOWN to be armed. A criminal has three goals to accomplish:

1. To obtain whatever they can easily convert to cash, or to obtain cash, in the easiest manner possible.

2. To not get caught/arrested while fulfilling goal #1.

3. To not get shot while fulfilling goal #1.

Attacking a person who is visibly armed does nothing to accomplish any of the three above goals.

Additionally, there are much easier ways for a criminal to obtain a gun than to attempt to take one from a person who is visibly carrying the gun. They can:
1. Steal an unattended gun, often from a police car.
2. Buy a gun on the street off using money they have obtained from accomplishing goal #1 above.
3. Coerce a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/friend into buying a gun for them.

There is no reason to believe that a criminal would attack a visibly armed target when they would simply have to go down the street one block, or wait two minutes for the guy carrying the gun to leave in order to find a target that was not visibly armed. In case you haven't noticed, only a fraction of 1% of the population open carries - why would a criminal bother with the Joe Schmoe carrying a gun when there are 99.5% of the Joe Schmoes available not carrying a gun?

Tom Servo said:
We don't know that. It makes perfect sense that civilian carry would reduce violent crime, but we have no statistical proof. We can infer it from the numbers in some places, but there's no direct black-and-white correlation.

Especially when debating with the other side, we must be very careful to stick with provable, verifiable claims.
Click to expand...

http://www.gunfacts.info/

If the Washington DC and Chicago statistics aren't enough, than I don't know what is to prove that increased gun control = increased violent crime. It's really pretty easy to see the correlation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

Is there anything else in D.C. that could account for the immediate rise in the murder rate ever since the gun ban was enacted? Or the immediate and significant drop in the violent crime rate the very same year the gun ban was struck down?
 
If the Washington DC and Chicago statistics aren't enough, than I don't know what is to prove that increased gun control = increased violent crime. It's really pretty easy to see the correlation.
Click to expand...
As I said, it's easy to infer a correlation. Heck, it's downright common sense. But it will get you eaten alive in an academic debate.

For example, violent crime stats dropped dramatically in Florida in the year following their adoption of a shall-issue licensing system. If I were arguing for the adoption of a similar system in Illinois, for example, and I claimed that shall-issue=less crime, I'd get called on it.

Could I prove that the drop wasn't related to better-targeted policing initiatives? Social programs? Stricter minimum sentences?

Is there anything else in D.C. that could account for the immediate rise in the murder rate ever since the gun ban was enacted?
Click to expand...
Crack cocaine, more organized street gangs, a rising population of affluent potential victims, and fewer cops would spring to mind as possible counterarguments.

Or the immediate and significant drop in the violent crime rate the very same year the gun ban was struck down?
Click to expand...
Can you get me a source for that? The District's murder rate peaked in 2003, and it's been steadily declining, but not by much. Furthermore, it is still virtually impossible for anyone but the most determined and well-funded to get a handgun in DC. The "ban" was struck down as unconstitutional, but the regulations enacted in its wake are quite an impediment to normal folks getting guns.

Don't get me wrong; I look at the data, and I see the pattern. More guns do equal less crime. However, proving that increased firearms ownership is entirely (or even mostly) responsible for declines in crime to a hostile audience is nearly impossible.
 
"...and fewer cops would spring to mind as possible counterarguments."

Actually, according to the exposes in the Washington Post, they hired more cops to deal with the crack epidemic and did NOT screen them very well at all. They hired a bunch of crooks and thugs and then had to prosecute a bunch of them later on. And they did NOT train them very well either (like it would have made a difference anyway.) At one point 75% of the police in D.C. had NOT qualified with their Glocks. They had dozens of accidental shootings - of themselves and others.

John
 
OC and CC

I live in Virginia and OC most of the time. OCing is a great deterrent for crime. I've witnessed this first-hand. While sitting at a fast food place eating my lunch, I saw a pair of characters coming through the door putting on masks (a felony in VA) and saw clearly the outline of a pistol tucked in the waistband of one of them. While I was processing the scene and thinking about my next move, they processed the scene, too. One yelled in the ear of the other "COP!" and pointed at my SERPA-holstered Kimber on my left side. They looked like cartoon characters trying to climb over one another to get out the door first. I should have run to the door to try getting their vehicle tag number, but I didn't.

OC has some advantages in crime deterrence. As mentioned in an earlier post, most criminals are cowards. They want an easy target. Only the most hard-core, well-trained criminal will choose a gunfight over an "easy score" somewhere else. Judging from the reactions of some "citizens" to people OCing, I personally know of at least 100 crimes that have probably been prevented by OCers. CCing doesn't prevent crime.

CCing DOES provide a tactical advantage. No disputing that. Its good to BE armed when and/or if the SHTF. I've also been in a few situations where I was glad I was CCing. Its not a good idea to have a bunch of pre-teenaged Boy Scouts distracted by your sidearm when you're trying to convey the finer points of wilderness survival. Its also against the law to OC in a school zone in Virginia. It is legal to CC (with CHP) while picking your child up from school as long as you don't exit the vehicle. Its also frowned upon to OC in a shopping mall. It tends to upset Sheeple.
 
Glad that played out in your favor but it could of just as easily went the other way...

While you were "thinking of your next move" he could have easily spotted your gun and shot you/at you, again like most people have said, making you stand out/ a target.:eek:


Plus the people that OC for political reasons your not helping yourselves or any of us really, just giving the anti's more fuel for the fire really.
 
First for some background. ( I'm mid 40's ) I purchased my first 2 guns Jan 2010 and a third in March.

I think that, there are places in modern society where OC isn't socially acceptable. A suburban / city mall, resturant, store , bank and such as there is little need in normal daily life for a gun in the city.
I'd tend to agree that there are places where OC is "less" acceptable. Open carry in a bank is more likely to cause nervousness, although I've seen many people do it without issue.

I choose to conceal in such places, since I'm really not into causing a scene.

That said, I have to disagree that there's little need fin normal daily life for a gun in the city. People are murdered regularly who felt no need for a firearm.

Two days ago, a man in Chandler, Arizona was forced to kill two gang-bangers in self defense while attending a private party. The gang members showed up uninvited, and attempted to force their will upon the man's wife, and then him when he came to her aid. After being punched to the floor, and then threatened with a gun, he drew and killed two attackers.

If I could know ahead when and where I'd need a gun, I'd avoid the place and time like the plague. Since I can't know such things, I choose to carry at all times.

Believing we can't be harmed in a civilized society is a mistake, IMO.

Daryl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
After talking with a number of Open Carry advocates, I've come to the conclusion that for some, carrying a weapon is not about self defense at all, it's about politics. They carry their weapons as a publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

Naw, I think in the 25+ years I've been carrying, I've moved a little beyond that.

Open carry started for me because it was the only option at the time, and I hunted almost constantly in my teen years. A handgun became as natural for me to carry as a wallet and buck 110 folder.

When CCW became the latest thing, and Arizona became shall-issue, I went ahead and got my Az permit (early 1995), but I'd already been carrying for over 10 years.

I don't need an excuse to open carry. It's more comfortable and convenient for me, and allows me more options in what I carry and how I dress.

In all these years, I can only remember twice being asked about it. Once was by a slimeball lawyer "friend" of my dad's. He asked, "What's the gun for? Afraid of something?" I simply replied "Nope."

The other was in a grocery store, and a fella was curious about what I was carrying. Said he wanted to get one like mine, and asked exactly what it was, and how I liked it.

I have never been harrassed about it, 'cept by keyboard commandos.

Daryl
 
That said, I have to disagree that there's little need fin normal daily life for a gun in the city. People are murdered regularly who felt no need for a firearm.
Click to expand...

I've been quoted slightly out of context to elicit this response. My no need in daily life was in reference to the fact city dwellers don't need a gun in the same way farmers need a gun to protect cattle and hunt down lunch.


As for the comment made by MSC 45ACP
Its also frowned upon to OC in a shopping mall. It tends to upset Sheeple.
Click to expand...

I've seen this kind of behavior on other boards ( all topics ) where the poster runs out of factual, logical points ( ammunition ) then attacks the person / people rather than attacking the topic. What MSC 45ACP is really saying is that people should never take offense to _his_ beliefs and anyone that does is wrong even if 99% of the population doesn't open carry. ( I can't recall ever seeing anyone besides a uniformed cop OC )

MSC 45ACP also fails to make the distinction between someone frowning on OC and someone else being anti gun. This follows the same pattern as other extremists who take any minor questioning of their beliefs as a full on fontal attack. About this time most in your face posters respond with something intellectual like " I'm gonna beat your ass", please prove me wrong.

I personally know of at least 100 crimes that have probably been prevented by OCers.
Click to expand...
To be personally involved in 100 potential crimes is a pretty high number.

In all, I'm thinking the in your face OC people get away with saying OC keeps them safe is because ,for the most, part crime rates are low enough to allow one to cycle through life with minimal troubles unless you go looking for them ( the bar scene , seedy neighborhoods at 2AM , cheating with someone's wife. . ..
 
MSC 45ACP also fails to make the distinction between someone frowning on OC and someone else being anti gun.
Click to expand...
Because there's a mentality among some that amounts to a rhetorical line-in-the-sand. If I raise an objection, no matter how well-founded, I must be in bed with the Brady Campaign. It's indicative of the death of temperance I've seen among the gun culture these last couple of years.

This is not the way to make friends, nor is it the mentality we should have when addressing someone we're trying to convince.

I personally know of at least 100 crimes that have probably been prevented by OCers.
Click to expand...
Back to proof and credibility. "Probably" is another way to lose an argument, particularly when attached to a bold claim. If an assertion can't be backed up with hard numbers (or at least solid anecdotal evidence), then it should not be made.
 
HK:
"While thinking about it" actually took less than a second. I'm "the new guy here" so I must be new to carrying and OC, right? I'm actually retired from LE / anti-terrorism with a fair amount of trigger time on and off the range. I wasn't in Condition "white" when the clowns came through the door. I saw them with masks and actually had my hand on my pistol about the time he said something to his buddy. Neither of them had drawn a weapon yet. I sincerely doubt they would have had the "drop" on me.

Nice to see words taken out of context: I know over 100 OCers. OCing is rather popular in Virginia and we have "get-togethers" quite often. If, for example, you know 100 OCers. Each of those people has been someplace while OCing when they saw characters of less than stellar reputation.

If those "interesting characters" were in posession of weapons (or maybe just thinking gang mentality and beating someone up) and thinking about doing "evil deeds" when they happened to notice the OCers, then change their minds about doing bad things, I consider that little thing as potentially preventing a crime. If 100 OCers see five situations like this over a given period of time, then POTENTIALLY, 500 such "incidents" may have been prevented. I am not definitively saying that 500 crimes have been prevented. That would be hard to quantify, but a reasonable person would conclude that a crime MAY have been prevented.

Obviously, this kind of rational, reasonable thought isn't allowed here. Perhaps most here prefer to wander around with their head in the clouds (Condition white) and don't even notice their surroundings most of the day.

How many of you "size up" the people when you enter a new place? Do you look for exits and entrances? Do you look for cover/concealment when deciding where you are going to sit? Do you even know the difference between 'cover and concealment'? How often do you think about these things in a given day?

Thanks for the warm welcome!
 
"Perhaps most here prefer to wander around with their head in the clouds"

Welcome to the forum. Perhaps you don't know "most here" well enough yet.
 
When i see plain clothes carrying owb I'm watching him , and the other people in establishment. Seems everyone is paying him the never mine, he's a off duty cop back turned and the whole nine yards. While i ponder friendly or kook. :confused:
 
qwik said:
While i ponder friendly or kook.
Click to expand...

Why? Do you ponder that about every person you see? Is it the gun? What is it about the gun that causes you to ponder? A gun is nothing evil. It only has evil associated with it because of the propaganda that the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups have crammed down our throats. The gun should be no different than wearing a cell phone, wrist watch or hat. You know the majority of people don't wear hats...

Twin brothers are standing in line at Wal Mart. One is open carrying a gun on his belt and one is not. Do you watch the brother with the gun on his belt more carefully than the other because you are pondering friendly or kook? Why does the mere presence of an inanimate object make the difference?
 
Just to clarify: If you are carrying your pistol concealed, i.e., with the clear intent to conceal it from view in accordance with your license, then you are required to keep it hidden. If you accidentally or carelessly allow it to become exposed for others to see, you run the risk of a charge of "brandishing," even though Michigan allows open carry.

In order to fall under the auspices open carry, you must be carrying in such a way that demonstrates a clear intent of having your gun out for all the world to see.
Click to expand...

.... and the definition of "clear intent" or "brandishing", for the purpose of who gets arrested (as opposed to who gets charged (prosecutor) or convicted (jury)) is whatever the police officer on the spot says it is: for all intents and purposes, the cop on the spot can make your life hell for excercising your second amendment rights. Michigan has a bad law: it is written with too much leeway for the LEO, with a opportunity to make a criminal out of anybody the officer does not take a shine to.
 
I do not think I agree with the premise that if the BG can see that you're armed that he will attack you first, or attack you just for your gun. There may be some hard cases walking around like that but your average scumbag is looking for a free ride and working for his money scares them. People have active imaginations and tend to fill in the holes of the unknowns. You guys that say they will attack you are doing the same thing!

I see it all the time with my dog. A giant gentle breed. Mastiffs are not known to be vicious or aggressive and yet when I tell people he's ok, they still shy away. Why? Because "what if" he got mad...then he could go Cujo, better not take the chance!

So that guy is OC a gun over there...Attack him first? (what if?!!)...yeah lets go look for an old lady with a bad back...

You guys are as scared as the BG's. What if, what if, what if...I surmise that for 99.9% of the criminals, an openly carried gun is a big fat Stop Sign.
Wear it open, stay alert.
 
Excellant thread and posts. OC does offend a large % of folks, and suprise is a huge advantage in any confrontation. I prefer to look like Elmer Fudd an put any possible attackers in a relaxed and confident mode. It's sort of like setting a trap for someone brazen enough to attack. Best ,Lyle
 
Here in Georgia it's a "Firearms License". The manner of carry is up to the permit holder.


Most people aren't plain used to guns. In our society, guns are not often a necessity. We have good police forces to defend ourselves and the world's best military to fight off threats. Civilian guns are really there for four reasons:

#1. Sport
#2. Hunt
#3. Compete
#3. Kill
_________
Click to expand...
It is true that it seems most people are uncomfortable around firearms. However, I would add that what you've stated in your post for reasons seem more like perceptions. Widely held perceptions don't always match reality though.
1) It may be a widely held perception that practically speaking there is not a need for most to carry firearms for self defense. However, just because we have what seems like good police forces in many areas doesn't mean that is the case everywhere. In the US thousands of violent crimes happen every single day with victims who were unarmed. So it seems apparent that for many there is much more need to carry for self defense then may be generally perceived.
2) Just because many hold the perception we will always have the most powerful military, does not actually mean we always will.
3) Although many do not hold as a matter of principle that a government monopoly on firearms or deadly force is a bad thing, doesn't make it a good thing.
 
I recall from my MN Permit to Carry class that MN does not require a permit holder to carry concealed, but I should always strive to conceal it... Not because a bad guy will see it, but because (sans a state-issued uniform) people are programed to fear the "man with a gun" and will call 911 and I will end up 5.5 lbs of finger pressure away from getting shot by a jumpy cop. (This is almost word for word what I was taught.)

Our modern socialist society (roads, power generation, soon to be healthcare, water distribution, etc) has "granted" fwiw, a monopoly of power to those in uniforms. Most on this forum would agree police don't stop crime, only document it after the fact, but Joe public believes if it doesn't have uniform it is automatically a criminal, so until this ends I will try to avoid getting shot by a jumpy cop.

I agree thinking needs to change. But that is a big subject.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top