Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[Revoltella]

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

Another unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some evidence.

That's a straw man argument. How can you know the unknowable? How do you measure things that didn't occur?

 

[Revoltella]

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

Do you have evidence of that?

 

[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.

That's a straw man argument. How can you know the unknowable? How do you measure things that didn't occur?

Nonsense.

IdahoCarry claimed something to be true. If one claims something to be true, he has he burden of proving it. He can't then claim that he doesn't need to prove it because there's no way to do so.

If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

Do you have evidence of that?

Well I don't like to speak for Spats, but I might have put it a little differently, but to the same general effect, as follows:

IdahoCarry, you claim that:

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

I can just as validly point out that your open carry gives the criminal useful information to decide who to shoot first.

 

[Spats McGee]

In retrospect, I think the most accurate statement of my position is that OC provides BG with information that he might not otherwise have and in so doing, might simply allow him to formulate a more effective plan. That might or might not include shooting the OC'er immediately. For example, a BG might steal the OC'ers gun, then shoot the OC'er when pursued.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In retrospect, I think the most accurate statement of my position is that OC provides BG with information that he might not otherwise have and in so doing, might simply allow him to formulate a more effective plan. That might or might not include shooting the OC'er immediately. For example, a BG might steal the OC'ers gun, then shoot the OC'er when pursued.

I think that's a useful perspective.

One of John Lott's hypotheses in More Guns - Less Crime was that prevailing concealed carry meant that anyone might have a gun; and therefore a criminal couldn't know whether a particular potential victim was or was not armed. Lott suggested that lack of knowledge was likely to have a "chilling effect" on criminal behavior.

 

[zukiphile]

If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.

But can you prove he has no business saying it with a peer reviewed study?

That's a joke.

So, the objection isn't that he failed to produce evidence, but that he asserted something that isn't especially susceptible to a solid conclusion based on data.


IdahoCarry, I don't agree with all of your conclusions about OC, but those responding to you here are doing you a service by pointing out where you've over-reached. Whether and how one carries involves many variables and prudential considerations, so categorical assertions will build unnecessary weakness into your arguments.

It does strike me as consistent with reason and experience that ordinary OC, not rationally construed as a threat by any normal person, should serve to educate and acclimate populations to an idea everyone on this thread already knows - mere possession of an arm is not a threat to the safety of another.

It may also be possible that routine OC in a population might serve as a reminder to a person contemplating a violent criminal act that the response to his act might not leave him in a better position. I did not believe that is particularly susceptible to statistical proof, but that does not make it an unreasonable position (though I find Lott's reasoning on CC more persuasive on the issue of criminal deterrence where CC is common).

I believe that many people who have carried in populated urban and suburban areas, at least in my part of the country, do not welcome any of the added attention that would accompany OC.

If the basis for OC is prudential, educational and social, it may be a considerable distraction to otherwise sound and persuasive arguments to introduce categorical or statistical claims.

 

[Vireye]

I have Open Carried, but there are very specific circumstances under which I'll do so.

I live in PA, which is an Open Carry state. I live in a fairly rural area. And I will *always* carry where it is legal to do so.

99% of the time I'm in public view, I carry concealed. I don't want the added attention, and I don't want to deal with ANY level of uncomfort of the general populace. I.e. the staring and questioning while I'm trying to get my groceries.

If I'm on my property or walking the dog, and I don't feel like concealing due to weather or some other reason, I won't. I've walked my dog along the trail here plenty of times with my sidearm and not gotten a second glance.

***

I used to live in CT. Also an open carry state. Totally different vibe. Because of the incidents there, people are WAY more sensitive to firearms. If I open carry in PA, I get maybe one or two people who look actually *alarmed* as opposed to what almost looks like a "Huh. I wonder why he's doing that?" look on. In CT, I open carried once, with a friend, to prove a point. He has incredibly gung-ho about open carry, pro-2A, to hell with everyone who doesn't like it, etc etc.

I suppose this can't be "proven", but you could *fee* the tension. I counted at least a dozen people in the little convenience store who actively stared at me, some with obvious distaste, and a handful left the store outright as soon as I walked in. The fact that someone didn't call the police was shocking.

(Note: when I OC'ed in CT, I always carried a memorandum from the State Troopers stating that it was legal to do so. Too many people unfamiliar with their own state laws....)

 

[IdahoCarry]

I can just as validly point out that your open carry gives the criminal useful information to decide who to shoot first.

Can you prove that they will shoot you first?

 

[Dashunde]

This is getting silly.
While there are dumb criminals everywhere, its common sense to figure you standing there with an exposed gun (and no badge) will be the first to take a bullet.

Furthermore, you may get conked over the head with the nearest wine bottle by a criminal who had no intention of commiting a crime until he laid eyes on your gun.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Nonsense.

IdahoCarry claimed something to be true. If one claims something to be true, he has he burden of proving it. He can't then claim that he doesn't need to prove it because there's no way to do so.

If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.

I can prove it for the lack of evidence showing otherwise counselor and the overwhelming evidence that CCers are the ones primarily reported as shooters outside of home and business defense. There are a dozen search engines that will substantiate my claim and none proving proving that it is "nonsense".

I rest my case.

 

[Dashunde]

the overwhelming evidence that CCers are the ones primarily reported as shooters outside of home and business defense

Thats simply because there are many thousands of us carrying concealed compared to a scant few who OC.

 

[IdahoCarry]

This is getting silly.
While there are dumb criminals everywhere, its common sense to figure you standing there with an exposed gun (and no badge) will be the first to take a bullet.

Wrong. Show us the body. There is no evidence that an OCer has taken a bullet first.

And you can't use as evidence the dumbo who lacked situational awareness and allowed a teen to get behind him, steal his gun and then chased him knowing that the stolen gun had bullet in the chamber. If you try using that then you are using the same tactics as the left when they tried to apply the Sandy Hook shooting to the availability of guns.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Frank and Tom have said everything I was going to say, so I will sit back and eat popcorn before the lock.

 

[44 AMP]

The fact seems to be (and I don't have a study to refer to) that perception creates its own reality.

There are a number of widely recognized "facts" we use to shape our opinions, about everything, really. In general conversation, citing studies and references isn't often done. However, on a board like this, when you make a claim of something as fact, you best have the "ammo" to back it up, and is best when you provide it with your claim of fact, and your reasoning why it is "proof".

Things can be real and true, without studies saying they are. And a study saying something is real and true is not a guarantee of it being real and true, only that a study said it was. Some will accept any study as the bedrock of the earth. Others are more skeptical.

Growing up in the (then, mostly) sane part of New York state, I saw a lot of open carry. Between late October and early December. Quite common, in those far off days, to see one, or even a group of people in a diner, an hour or so before dawn, wearing holstered sidearms, having coffee, or breakfast. Nobody so much as batted an eye. Permits were a requirement to own, and there was no permitted concealed carry.

Can't speak for all, but none of the people I knew or met in those days openly worried about being a target because they were carrying a pistol on their belt. Also it generally wasn't a personal defense thing, a lot of those holstered pistols were longer barreled magnums.

We make a lot of common sense assumptions, things like criminals don't obey the law, open display of valuable items makes you a potential target for theft, people being surveyed respond accurately and honestly, etc...

Lots of things. Some of them are true. Some are true in some degree. Where we differ, mostly, is in what degree is applicable, or so I believe.

Conceal carry is a deterrent. Its not a panacea. Open carry is also. And for the basic reason even bad guys don't want to be shot if they can avoid it.

I think that is common sense. Open, because its there, and shows it. Concealed, because potential attackers cannot tell who is armed, and who is not.

But, while the horns of eland might dissuade the individual hyena, they alone do little against the pack, or a single hungry lion.

And as studies show, its tough to prove a negative....

Today, other than hunters and others carrying in the back country, open carry, particularly in urban settings is seen by many as a political statement. And, it is, to one degree, or another. Even if that's not the intent of the person carrying. Perception...

We are gun people. We know not only what guns can do, but what guns ARE. The rest of the country does not know what we do. All they know is what they have been taught by generations of constant brainwashing by our entertainment industry (and in that, I include "news" reporting).

Some people go into a virtual panic if they see you wearing a gun. Interestingly, those same people can see the same guy, with the same gun, but if he's wearing a shiny piece of tin on his shirt, they don't bat an eye. Again, perception.

open carry is, I believe, a right. Its the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". The fact that it is a right does not mean it is always prudent. I feel concealed carry is prudent, excepting those places where law forbids it.

I also believe that while studies can provide useful information for consideration, basing law or policy on them alone is a poor practice.

People lie. People in an anonymous study can lie freely, and some will. Believing what criminals say in a survey (or what teenagers say when surveyed about how often they have sex) to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a leap of faith I just cannot make.

Others, apparently can....

 

[Spats McGee]

I can prove it for the lack of evidence showing otherwise counselor

Claiming a lack of evidence for the opposite view does not prove yours.

And you can't use as evidence the dumbo who lacked situational awareness and allowed a teen to get behind him, steal his gun and then chased him knowing that the stolen gun had bullet in the chamber. If you try using that then you are using the same tactics as the left when they tried to apply the Sandy Hook shooting to the availability of guns.

Seems like fair game to me. Just because you don't like the fact that an OC'er did, in fact, have his gun taken from him doesn't make it not true.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I can prove it for the lack of evidence showing otherwise counselor and the overwhelming evidence that CCers are the ones primarily reported as shooters outside of home and business defense. There are a dozen search engines that will substantiate my claim and none proving proving that it is "nonsense".

I rest my case.

If you're resting your case, you've lost. You have provided little, virtually no, data backing up your claims.

Your last post is literally "prove me wrong but you can't use a case that proves me wrong". Silliness.

You've made concrete statements claiming certain statistics and facts but provided NO evidence to back up those statements.

When asked to provide evidence, you present more statements of fact without evidence backing either them or your previous statements.

 

[Dashunde]

Wrong. Show us the body. There is no evidence that an OCer has taken a bullet first.

Your becoming entrenched and not reviewing the info provided here already.

Read this article.
Not only was the OC'er killed by his own gun - the sole objective in this theft/murder - but that same gun was used 7 hours later to kill a second person.
The attacker didnt have a gun when he snatched the OC'ers pistol.

 

[glh17]

I seriously doubt anyone has good statistical evidence as to who a bad guy would shoot first. How would you ever know the number of crimes deterred by open carry compared to conceal carry?

Nevertheless, common sense tells me that a bad guy would rather chose an unarmed person over an armed one, other things constant. The bad guy would still have to be careful in the case of the unarmed because of the possibility of conceal carry. But, common sense also tells me that if the bad guy goes into a room of unarmed as well as armed people, the obviously armed would warrant first attention.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Can you prove that they will shoot you first?

I didn't state for a fact that he would. I only said that open carry gives the criminal more information to consider in the process of making such decision. You, yourself, have said that open carry conveys information.