Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[Evan Thomas]

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

So, 60% reported that they had never been deterred by such a belief. Hmm.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Response to request for studies proving armed citizens reduce violent crime

Lott and Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
Bartley and Cohen, Economic Enquiry, 1998
Lott, Journal of Legal Studies, 1998
Bartley, Economic Letters, 1999
Benson and Mast, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Moody, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Marvel, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Lott and Whitley, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Lott and Whitley, Journal of Law and Economics, 2003
Helland and Tabarrok, Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004
Wilson, National Academies Press, 2005
Lott and Whitley, Economic Enquiry, 2007
Moody and Marvel, Econ Watch, 2008

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

EVERY study shows that criminals will avoid armed persons.

Where is the support for this particular statement?

Actually, the statement as made is unprovable. It's impossible to prove that there's NOT a study that shows something, only that there IS a study that shows something.

Second, any study that "shows that criminals will avoid armed persons" is going to be a matter of degrees. There's no possible way to prove that ALL or NO criminals (or anyone else) will or will not do anything. Therefore, it's a matter of degrees. How many (what percentage) are likely to do something? There are no absolutes.

Studies which rely on convicted felons telling the truth. Frankly, my assumption would be the opposite of whatever they claimed was more likely to be true.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Whether armed citizens reduce crime is not the question. The title of your thread is " Open Carry vs Concealed Carry," and you've been asked for evidence supporting your contention that open carry is superior.

It's also customary here to provide links to any studies you cite, as well as summaries of their findings. You're the one making the assertion, so it's on you to do the legwork, not on the rest of us to dig up your references.

 

[IdahoCarry]

If you won't open carry in dangerous places then what is it good for?

Seriously? Have you ever walked through the hood? I was a private investigator and process server in Washington DC and walked through groups of bad guys on their turf almost daily where I was warned my them, "You'd better be walking sideways here". You don't challenge the BG's place of dominion. They take it as an insult to their dominance. You might make it for a block or two, but those 10 and 11 year old punks looking or creds would kill you and then take your gun. All Open Carriers should use "Wisdom & Prudence" before deciding whether to OC or CC.

There are very few places safe from criminal attacks, that is why we all carry. There were 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho in 2012, but of those 17,523 Idaho victims, I doubt that any of them were OCers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.) ...

I'm familiar with the Wright/Rossi study, and, even, based on your summary it does not support your categorical, unqualified statement in post 1:

ALL OF THE STUDIES show that criminals avoid armed people...

At best, the Wright/Rossi show a deterrent effect when there's a possibility that a victim might be armed. Thus prevalent concealed carry can also have a deterrent effect. Indeed that was John Lott's premise in More Guns - Less Crime.

Lott and Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
Bartley and Cohen, Economic Enquiry, 1998
Lott, Journal of Legal Studies, 1998
Bartley, Economic Letters, 1999
Benson and Mast, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Moody, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Marvel, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Lott and Whitley, Journal of Law and Economics, 2001
Lott and Whitley, Journal of Law and Economics, 2003
Helland and Tabarrok, Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004
Wilson, National Academies Press, 2005
Lott and Whitley, Economic Enquiry, 2007
Moody and Marvel, Econ Watch, 2008

Phooey!

As Vanya pointed out:

...It's also customary here to provide links to any studies you cite, as well as summaries of their findings. You're the one making the assertion, so it's on you to do the legwork, not on the rest of us to dig up your references.

You made a number of unsupported statements of fact. It's your job now to support those claims. That is not properly done by tossing out a bunch ot journal titles and authors' name. Good God, you can't even be bothered to specify the title of the paper and the exact issue of the journal it appeared in.

When citing authorities to support a claim it is proper to:

1. Cite the author, title, publisher and date (or, when a journal article, the issue and volume in which the article was published); and
   
   
2. Describe the research and findings; and
   
   
3. Demonstrate exactly how it supports your claims.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You might make it for a block or two, but those 10 and 11 year old punks looking or creds would kill you and then take your gun. All Open Carriers should use "Wisdom & Prudence" before deciding whether to OC or CC.

Then if you open carry only in safe places, what is it good for?

BTW, I grew up in NYC.

Now if you want to do a study - here's what Lott did.

You look at crime rates in an area. You covary out the drop in crime rates that we are seeing across the country (even in NO gun places). Then you if after a law is introduced there is a discontinuity (meaning sharp drop) after the law is introduced.

We have no data yet concerning such an analysis of OC vs. crime rates that I know of.

The quoted studies:

1. Looked at economically motivated criminals. They avoid those who might be armed. If you know the literature they also make the decision based on gait and awareness even in No carry states. The economic motivation is money or jewels, cards, etc.

2. We do not know if an economically motivated criminal will figure out out to take a valuable gun from an OC'er. We have shown cases of OC'ers coming to grief. OH, those are nutsos attackers and thus removed from your consideration. If the gun is seen as a target -as admitted would happen from a squad of inner city 11 years olds - then OC is a liability. So bravely OC in Whole Foods.

3. Not Idaho but in Wyoming, Mr. Drennen was OC'ing and then still attacked. He shot his attacker and guess what OC was used by the prosecution as an indication of premeditation. Oops.

4. Nuts don't care about OC if they are coming for. See the 4 police officers shot at morning coffee.

If carry was legal in NYC - it would be a hoot in the crowded subway. I used to ride it in the evenings. Interesting folk.

 

[dakota.potts]

"There are very few places safe from criminal attacks, that is why we all carry."

That is the essence of why I would carry in "safe" areas. No area is safe from being robbed or shot up by an active shooter or having some drugged up guy strip off his clothes and bite a chunk out of a police officer's stomach (happened here not long ago).

For my personal uses, I believe the chances of other crime happening are higher than my chances of having a gun forcefully taken from me. In certain areas, I believe this analysis to flip upside down in certain areas where I would rather carry a knife and some pepper spray and try not to get myself noticed.

If it's between open carry and not carrying at all, I'll open carry most places. I avoid the places I wouldn't at any possibility anyways.

I believe we should have the right to open carry as I believe it to deter crime and I think it would be a bigger deterrent if more people open carried.

I believe some personal responsibility should be taken in deciding when it's a good idea, recognizing that a right can be a bad idea, and that that decision should take place in the hands of the individual and not the government.

 

[Tom Servo]

I believe we should have the right to open carry as I believe it to deter crime

Except that we've no documented instance of that happening. We do have documented instances of it failing as a deterrent.

What we're down to is this: it's a practice that causes public-relations issues, has no measurable protective effect, and may be unsafe.

 

[dakota.potts]

So, Tom, do you believe it should be illegal or that it's an unwise practice? I think there's a big difference between the two.

EDIT: and that's not a dig at you, I'm just curious what your opinion is here.

 

[Buzzcook]

The Lott Mustard study has been pretty much debunked. Bad science that might have been caught if the work had been peer reviewed.

That the work was never submitted for peer review and instead published as pop science, before anyone got their hands on the study, was the first thing that set off alarm bells for me.

 

[K_Mac]

So, Tom, do you believe it should be illegal or that it's an unwise practice? I think there's a big difference between the two.

Although not directed to me, I think it is a great question. The bigger question, I think, is whether Government has any right to regulate how we bear arms. I believe Tom is right that open carry is "a practice that causes public-relations issues, has no measurable protective effect, and may be unsafe." Is it then a right guaranteed by the 2 Amendment?

 

[Tom Servo]

So, Tom, do you believe it should be illegal or that it's an unwise practice?

I don't want it to be illegal, and I'd fight to keep it legal. At the moment, I simply think it's an unwise practice.

However, if folks keep "pushing the envelope," neither I nor anyone else may have a say in the matter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The bigger question, I think, is whether Government has any right to regulate how we bear arms...

That's a big question that will take time to be more fully answered in the courts. I strongly suspect, however, that based on well settled principles of constitutional jurisprudence, some regulation will be sustained by the courts.

...do you believe it should be illegal...

The reality is the in places where open carry is legal, it will most likely remain so. That is, of course, unless it becomes sufficiently obnoxious to enough people to cause them to elect politicians who will enact laws banning the practice.

And in places where it is illegal, it will most likely remain so. That is unless the thought of the practice were to become sufficiently acceptable to enough people to cause them to elect politicians who would enact laws making it legal; or until a court so acts.

And perhaps we should take some time to reflect on the fact that legal practices found obnoxious by enough people have a way of becoming illegal. And so we have noise abatement laws and laws in some places prohibiting you from parking your RV on your property in a manner visible to a public road.

Public relations and understanding effective ways to influences the attitudes or people are important.

 

[gaseousclay]

I agree with a lot of the points made about OC, that it's a public relations nightmare that makes ALL gun owners look bad. I support OC where legal, but I would never OC to make a point or because I assume the bad guys will leave me alone. I'm all for CCW, well, because I think it gives me a tactical advantage. Until OC activists see that it's causing more harm than good, 2A rights will go nowhere imp

 

[IdahoCarry]

3. Not Idaho but in Wyoming, Mr. Drennen was OC'ing and then still attacked. He shot his attacker and guess what OC was used by the prosecution as an indication of premeditation. Oops.

The prosecution will use anything and everything but bogus charges, as with Zimmerman, don't work. How many CCers shoot people every year? Look not only at the prosecution rate but the civil costs of those shootings. The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer. I don't want to be prosecuted, I don't want to be sued, I don't want to shoot anyone. That is why I OC.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer...

Another unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some evidence.

 

[Dashunde]

Truth be told, yes... OC'ing probably does ward off or dissuade garden variety opportunistic criminals. Those who weigh risk-vs-reward or those who have minimal confidence in their abilities will probably stay away.

Alternatively, OC'ing can/will attract the very worst of the worst - the fearless, the confident, perhaps the smartest most cunning and calculating of them all.

While OC'ing may keep 100 "reasonable" criminals away, its also going to attract one that would view your gun as a prize, not a deterrent... I don’t know about the rest of you, but that is the one I want to pass right on by me and my ccw.
I'll take my chances with the rest...

 

[Colt46]

I live in Santa Clara County(California)

We are a May Issue State. Our Elected Sheriff's have a long history of not issuing permits to people not associated with the legal system. If you are not a judge or work for the DA's Office you are SOL. The current Sheriff even refuses to accept applications in direct violation of law. Even though it's illegal there is no way to penalize, fine or charge her with these violations.

If you want to get a permit you should investigate the 'Sheriff's Advisory Board'. It seems to be a fundraising outfit to purchase goodies for her department that normal funding cannot. Can you say illegal slush fund?
The only people not affiliated with the courts or DA's office that have CCW permits belong to this outfit.
People started Open Carrying to protest this corruption and this 'brandishing' of firearms is what frightened the public into allowing the a-hats in Sacramento into banning even unloaded open carry of handguns.
I've never been a proponent of Open Carry, but I can understand why some people do it.

 

[Spats McGee]

IdahoCarry, as you can see, when it comes to proving factual claims, we have very high standards here at TFL. Opinions of all flavors are welcome, but if you claim something as cold, hard fact, you need to be prepared to back it up.

Deterrent effects: I find claims of deterrent effects somewhat troublesome. When you sit down and think about it, in order to prove a deterrent effect, we'd have to find:

1. Someone who wanted or planned to commit a crime; but
2. Did not do so; and
3. Is willing to discuss their reasons for not having committed the crime.

While there have been some studies of inmates, as noted above, it seems to me that there almost has to be some degree of unmeasurable deterrent effect.

However, even if I assume some degree of unmeasurable deterrent effect, I hardly think that

[OC] is kryptonite to the bad guys.

If it really were "kryptonite" to bad guys,

. . . . Have you ever walked through the hood? I was a private investigator and process server in Washington DC and walked through groups of bad guys on their turf almost daily where I was warned my them, "You'd better be walking sideways here". You don't challenge the BG's place of dominion. They take it as an insult to their dominance. You might make it for a block or two, but those 10 and 11 year old punks looking or creds would kill you and then take your gun. All Open Carriers should use "Wisdom & Prudence" before deciding whether to OC or CC.

It sounds to me like you're not really convinced that OC prevents attacks. It sounds to me more like you're convinced that it sometimes prevents attacks, perhaps from more cautious, or less aggressive, predators among us.

My Open Carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well informed decision; an opportunity not provided by me when I Carry Concealed.

Your open carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well-informed decision as to who he needs to shoot first, too.