Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is concealed carry in CA. Depends on locale.

I have deleted a personal attack. If the proponents of a position feel that they must resort to such, I will:

1. Close this thread
2. Ban the poster.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but opinions on the best way to carry, from people that live where carry of any kind is a pipe dream isn't really helpful.
Click to expand...

Wrong do you think that its just America that people carry firearms. Its not a pipe dream plenty conceal carry here. And as I said open carry is not allowed simply because it would identify you as a target. That's here in America I would think it would be up to the individual what is best for them for their defence, and not to make a statement.
 
Revoltella said:
I'm sorry, but opinions on the best way to carry, from people that live where carry of any kind is a pipe dream isn't really helpful. ....
Click to expand...
On the other hand, an unsubstantiated opinion from an anonymous denizen of cyberspace whose background, training and experience are unknown is pretty meaningless.

Now if you want to know something about me, see my profile.

Also, I do carry a gun whenever I legally can, such as on my fairly frequent trips to Nevada. Or when I travel to Arizona to, for example, go to class at Gunsite or help Massad Ayoob teach a class.
 
Last edited:
Those are probably the same people that would vote against us and write letters to the editor regardless.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it doesn't help when we give them the impetus and motivation to go home and do so this afternoon.

The problem is this: open carry is hurting us on the public-relations front. Sure, some guys will say, "well, it was the guys who acted like jerks in one situation, but that's not us."

Wrong. It is us. It's all of us. Most of the population isn't all that involved in the gun issue. When they think of the gun people, they think of one monolithic group. They don't see the distinctions we make (sometimes to our detriment) between skeet shooters, hunters, competition shooters, or political advocates. To them, those are all the gun people.

This is why we have to police our own. The guy who shot up the stop sign on Route 4? The gun people. Those guys who shot the sacred white elk? The gun people. David Kokesh? The gun people.

They don't see a distinction between the guy strutting around Starbucks with an AK-47 and the well-mannered guy openly carrying at a political rally.

We'll either get this or we won't. The question is, how much damage will be done to our cause in the meantime?
 
This is an interesting thread to me.

I like OC and would do it if legal. OC tends to be unlicensed and he passage of it in my state is my only chance to carry until I turn 21 and I'm a full citizen :rolleyes:

I like OC because the evidence presented to me has told me that there are shockingly few times a gun has been taken from someone open carrying, and I'm of the opinion that it dissuades crime before it ever starts.

I think those who open carry should get some grappling training, if not outright retention training, and do so with respect. I believe if you honestly think you need to OC an MG42 for self defense, you should do so. But I also believe most of the guys open carrying AK's into Starbucks and Target aren't doing it because they think they need it for self defense. Demonstration has its place, but in public areas and done with respect. Not on private property with hate flags.

It seems throughout history that open carry was preferred by the states and generally accepted, and it's only recently that that role has reversed. At least from my amateur research.
 
I am not opposed to open carry in any way shape or form, but having said that I conceal carry, not because it has any great advantage over open carry or that concealed carry makes the public comfortable I conceal carry because it makes me more comfortable. I also think that on body open carry is more secure than say concealed carry in a purse or man bag. I do think that concealed carry people have had there weapons taken from them also I am just not aware if there a greater or lesser percentage of this occurrence. I am for anyone carrying the way they feel like it.
 
Grappling training is wonderful. Be sure you try it against two or more opponents. See also how it works against knives. Also, see if you can block a BG shooting you with a Lorcin 25 ACP and then taking your gun.

Last - as far as evidence - we have clear evidence that many police have had their gun taken away in struggles. Of course, we all are better than the police in such incidents.

Last we have NO studies that show that OC changes crime rates. The support for CCW had massive criminological studies indicating its utility.

It's all well and nice to OC in a relatively safe gun friendly environment. I suggest for a study, you OC - by yourself - in grappling mode in a high crime area. Esp. if the local populace decides they like your gun.

OC in Starbucks and Whole Foods - why that's a jungle :eek:

Pointed out to me by Tom Servo:

http://wendyista.blogspot.com/2011/05/man-demands-thank-you-gets-bullet-to.html

Defense: I was walking out the store and this nut carrying a gun started harassing me and following. Thus, I was in fear of my life and retrieved my gun and had to shoot him.
 
Last edited:
Glenn, just a question for you.

If you were facing the choice between legally open carrying or not having an option to carry at all, would you choose to open carry or not carry at all?

That's the choice given to me by my state -- unfortunately I can't even open carry a "real" pistol, only an antique firearm like an 1858 Remington cap and ball. At least for another 3 years.

Perhaps this is why I feel the way I do about open carry. It tends to be "constitutional" and unlicensed, as I feel it has to be if concealed carry is not.

I also live in a small suburban town area. I definitely wouldn't do it at the inner city. I might do it at my local mall, but not in a packed environment or downtown in a near big city like Jacksonville.
 
It tends to be "constitutional" and unlicensed, as I feel it has to be if concealed carry is not.
Click to expand...
It isn't "constitutional." The Framers were mute on the issue of manner or circumstances of carry in public. Some of the political chest-beaters love open carry, so they've branded it "constitutional carry." That's a misnomer, however.

We had a thread on the term very recently, and it's worth reading.
 
In many states, the argument is made (typically based on a state constitution) that if one form of carry is regulated, the other must be unlicensed, because the licensing of a right converts it to a privilege. I believe it was Arkansas that recently one the court challenge based on this to legalize unlicensed open carry. That's the basis for my use of the term constitutional.

I did read that thread recently, and it was actually the reason I chose to put the word in quotes, since it's now a phrase that's recognized by many in the firearms community.

However, as that's a topic worthy of entire discussion, we can replace the term "constitutional" with unlicensed in order to stay on topic.
 
dakota.potts said:
I believe it was Arkansas that recently one the court challenge based on this to legalize unlicensed open carry.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was here. We may be gearing up for a challenge, but I don't know of one off the top of my head.
 
Simplistic question, Dakota. The method of carry depends on how it puts me at risk.

If only open carry was available, Yes - I might carry in a low risk of confrontation environment like Whole Foods.

However, I would not open carry in an environment where the gun itself will bring bad people to me. I also try avoid such places.

Despite grappling and situational awareness bravado, if OC folks are seen worthy prey by predators with planning - they will be taken down.

What is the purpose of your carry? To actually reduce risk to yourself or make a statement in the mall?

Why not open carry a large amount of money around your neck and depend on grappling to defend you against unarmed muggers? Assume you have no gun.
 
If only open carry was available, Yes - I might carry in a low risk of confrontation environment like Whole Foods.
Click to expand...
And the problem is, I have a much more acute need to carry in high-risk areas than I do at a pro-gun rally in the suburbs.

There's no way I would want to go a high-risk area with an exposed firearm. As such, if the allowed mode of carry was open vs. concealed, I would throw open carry under the bus in a heartbeat.
 
Outside of limited demonstration purposes on public government property, I'm against open carry for demonstration purposes as well. My question is purely for the purposes of self defense. Not to walk into target with an AK 47 as was done with the recent "come and take it" protests in Texas.

I probably would also not carry in a high risk area. I live maybe 15 minutes from a pretty poor, high crime area right on the edge of historic Saint Augustine. I've lived here 7 years and have only found reason to go to that area maybe 3 or 4 times since I've lived here. I generally avoid it at all costs, especially any time after dusk. There are certain areas where we avoid wearing watches, rings, and other jewelry when we go as a matter of habit. The same precautions would be prudent for an openly carried firearm, I think. There are some places I have been in states like North Carolina where I wouldn't think much at all of a gun openly carried, but in Philadelphia I would think it was a terrible idea. Likewise, in my area, there are places where I would open carry if it were my only option, and places where I would rather make myself scarce and leave as quickly as possible.

Given the option between unlicensed open carry or unlicensed concealed carry, I would choose concealed carry as long as it had a reasonable accidental view cause like Florida has adopted.

However, from a regulatory point of view, if you can only license one, it makes more sense for the state to regulate concealed carry, making it a crime for those who want to keep their gun hidden without a license. Everybody else can wear their gun in the open where they can see it. That's probably what I would do if I were regulating from a state, not an individual point of view.

Am I making sense, or are we talking the same thing in different ways?
 
Perhaps I am misremembering, but I do not think there's ever been a successful challenge based on licensing only one of the two modes of carry. Instead, the challenges have been based on, allowing one or the other and not restricting both. ie, the difference between you have to allow both but only one can be regulated and you have to allow at least one.
 
Given the option between unlicensed open carry or unlicensed concealed carry,
Click to expand...

I think you mean licensed concealed carry. But you have put your finger on the great debate. Is it a statement and is it silly to have states regulate open carry vs. the utility of open carry? It seems that many conclude it is safe in safe places and a danger in dangerous places above and beyond the intrinsic danger of the place. The concealed carry method doesn't add to the danger in this latter scenario.

If it is primarily a statement, then does the statement have positive value for the RKBA or negative in the current debates? Concealed carry is much more important for public safety than open carry given the pragmatics.

If you won't open carry in dangerous places then what is it good for? One admits it is a risk then. Should I be able to legally - sure. I can tote my AR into Neiman - Marcus, also. It's near my house.
 
Response to those demanding evidence that criminals avoid armed citizens

In a survey of criminals(read that as FELONS IN PRISON), Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts conducted a study in 1982 and 1983 paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice. (Professor Rossi was a former President of the American Sociological Association.) The researchers interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons in ten states.

88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”(read this to mean that these felons are not obeying the gun laws and the Legislature cannot figure this out)

Wright and Rossi reported that:
81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.

74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.

57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.

40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.

57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.

34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.

Based on this government-funded research by Wright and Rossi, it would appear to a reasonable and prudent man that armed citizens do have a deterrent effect on crime.
 
Concealed carry is much more important for public safety than open carry given the pragmatics.

If you won't open carry in dangerous places then what is it good for? One admits it is a risk then. Should I be able to legally - sure. I can tote my AR into Neiman - Marcus, also. It's near my house.
Click to expand...

Glenn the above quote pretty clearly defines the argument for me. I do not want you to bring your AR to the mall just to prove a point. I am good with you carrying a concealed weapon there though.

I believe concealed carry and the right to the personal protection it affords is an important Constitutional issue worth fighting for. That is "the bold, beautiful face of the 2 Amendment" IMO. I do not need to prove my patriotism or Constitutional support by openly carrying a gun on my hip or shoulder. I do believe it is an issue worthy of serious discussion. Wrapping our arguments in the flag and using fear and hyperbole to sell them is not the way this fight will be won.
 
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed
Click to expand...

It's hardly news that criminals will try to avoid someone that is armed. Did they need a survey to figure that out. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top