Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[K_Mac]

IdahoCarry you contend that we come off as prejudiced and opposed to open carry. We, the members and staff of TFL, are not IMO. We are a cross section of the gun community. If you can't make a compelling case for open carry to this group, what chance do you have of persuading those who are inclined to think less guns equals less crime?

I respect your passion and would like to support your cause. I've reread your "comprehensive response to critics" several times. It may be a comprehensive manifesto for true believers, but it is not a compelling argument for open carry.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Obviously you skipped from the first page to the last because you missed the 2 posts of evidence on page 2.

Well, that's earned you another "Phooey!".

Vanya, Brian, I, and Glenn, in posts 41 and 44, 43, 46, and 47, respectively, explained why your so called evidence was not. And in post 99, Brian explained again why your so called evidence was not.

And how many would there have been without concealed carry?

Of course no one can know that. And open carry is legal in Idaho.

So there is no way to draw any kind of meaningful inference about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of concealed carry (or open carry) from crime numbers.

What your post does illustrate is your tendency to misunderstand/misuse data.

The point being, there were 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho and I wasn't one of them, nor were any of our OC members.

Phooey! yet again. That was not the point you claimed to be making in post 88. To save everyone the time of looking it up, here it is:

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.

We had 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho last year. Obviously not too "chilling" to the people who committed these crimes in light of us having one of the highest percentages of CC licenses per capita.

It's quite explicit that the point you were trying to make was that the Idaho crime number disproved Lott's hypothesis.

So now that's it's been shown that you didn't successfully make that point you decided to claim that you were making a different point.

...my primary purpose for Open Carrying, and it is working in Idaho.

More Phooey!

Working to do what? How do you know?

...Your staffers have a bias against OC..

Why do you believe that? Just because we're unwilling to uncritically accept your claims about open carry? Why should we? Why should anyone be expected to accept some strangers claims on what amount do faith?

We consistently point out that the anti-gun community accepts specious arguments, half-truths and unsupported claims. But I guess we of the gun community are supposed to accept specious arguments, half-truths and unsupported claims which are pro-gun.

Look, we're gun guys. I know Brian regular, and legally, carries a gun. I believe that Tom and Spats do as well. I also carry a gun whenever I legally can, and have carried openly when I felt it suitable to do so. And while I can't speak for the others, I've trained extensively. I've also helped train a great many others -- including over the years introducing hundreds of novices to the gun community.

The "take-home" message for you, if you're really paying attention, ought to be that if you can't convince us something is terribly lacking in your message and your presentation.

 

[IdahoCarry]

so you decide that anyone who doesn't agree with you is the enemy.

Classic tactic of the OC Movement. We're not new to this.

Where do say that anyone is my enemy?
Show me in print this "Classic Tactic" of the entire OC movement.

 

[Tom Servo]

Show me their research, show me the data.

Sure. Here's the most recent iteration of their playbook.

Your staffers have a bias against OC.

You're painting with a very broad brush, there. I'm not against the practice per se, but I am against tactics that hurt our cause.

Advocates for open carry claim it deters crime. I've seen no evidence for that whatsoever, nor can you provide any. We've warned that it's potentially unsafe, and we've provided examples. You've dismissed those.

This isn't about how the "pro-CC Fudds" are harshing your mellow. This is about how you're falling into rhetorical traps that'll get you roasted in a debate.

If you can't convince us, how are you going to convince folks who are on the fence?

 

[IdahoCarry]

Vanya, Brian, I, and Glenn, in posts 41 and 44, 43, 46, and 47, respectively, explained why your so called evidence was not. And in post 99, Brian explained again why your so called evidence was not.

In re-reading those responses, each one is flawed and/or asserts that my points are wrong, without proving that they are. As I said before, I will substantiate my arguments starting this weekend. And, in my spare time, address the false presumptions each of you have made in the above noted posts.

 

[Theohazard]

I'm not against the practice per se, but I am against tactics that hurt our cause.

Bingo! Most of this thread seems to deal with the tactical (dis)advantages to open carry. But for me, the biggest problem with open carry is that I think it tends to bring negative publicity to our cause.

I think that many OCers - especially the in-your-face kind that carry in urban areas - are giving many anti-gun people even more excuses to push for more firearms restrictions. And for the people who aren't really against guns but don't understand them and are afraid of them, this kind of in-your-face open carry just tends to push them closer to supporting anti-gun efforts.

It is my observation that open carry advocates - as a whole - are drastically hurting our cause. I believe they are helping the people who want to ban our guns and make them illegal to carry - whether open or concealed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Vanya, Brian, I, and Glenn, in posts 41 and 44, 43, 46, and 47, respectively, explained why your so called evidence was not. And in post 99, Brian explained again why your so called evidence was not.

In re-reading those responses, each one is flawed and/or asserts that my points are wrong, without proving that they are...

In exactly what way were they flawed? Here we have another example of you stating a vague conclusion without supporting your conclusion.

As for your points, you haven't begun to support them. You have merely, again, stated conclusions without supporting them.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Sure. Here's the most recent iteration of their playbook.

Are you serious? You are using this book that advocates stronger gun laws?

Here is one of their instructions: "Even with the base, we need to always connect our comments to the NRA’s role in exposing people to needless violence."

Tell me you meant to link to something other than this.

 

[Tom Servo]

Are you serious? You are using this book that advocates stronger gun laws?

Yes, I am. I mentioned anti-gun debate techniques, and you asked me to provide data. It was post #98.

I have debated these guys in public. No matter how prepared you might be, they are intimidating and sneaky opponents. You're putting yourself in a position where you may have to deal with them, and we're trying to show you how utterly unready you are for that.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Are you serious? You are using this book that advocates stronger gun laws?

Here is one of their instructions: "Even with the base, we need to always connect our comments to the NRA’s role in exposing people to needless violence."

Tell me you meant to link to something other than this.

You apparently aren't even keeping up with your own argument, since the reason that Tom posted that link was this exchange:

However, Brian, Frank and I have the experience and data to back up what we're saying. You don't appear to. That's the problem.
They've {the anti-gunners} researched their points and they've got custom-massaged data. Even when they're being less than truthful, they make working the crowd an art. You have to arm yourself with facts, not opinions.

Show me their research, show me the data. I've presented some of mine on page two and I will provide more, but, if you've got the cards, lay them out there.

He told you that the antis would tear you apart in a debate and you said "Show me their data." Viola! There it is.

See, you got the facts that you asked for, we're still waiting for yours, rhetoric notwithstanding.

 

[Dashunde]

Tony, no one is the enemy here...
I've banged heads with Frank, Vanya, Tom, Brian, Spats and Glenn over the years, but never all at once!
We're all in agreement here, which is a rarity, that alone would tell you something if you had been hanging around here very long.
These folks take the comments published here seriously because it represents a sizable online "persona" of gun-loving America.
Your proclamations require far better documentation to be accepted here, its that simple.

Many here view your (unsubstantiated) position as threatening to the overall good of 2A because its just the sort of thing that rallies the troops on the other side. We don’t need to give them any additional encouragement.

It really doesn’t matter if OC works for thwarting would-be crimes or not, the fact is many Americans, including a bunch of us, don’t really want to see OC become a mainstay on our streets no matter how much we all appreciate firearms and 2A.
Its simply an image of one of two environments... the wild west, or some third-world hell hole.

The idea that 2A is worn loud and proud with pistols on the hips of our masses, everyone is polite, the anti's see the light and "naturalize", and eventually the criminals go get jobs and those that don’t will run away scared of our pistols is... a complete pipe dream.

 

[Theohazard]

Excellent post, Dashunde, I couldn't have said it better myself!

We're all in agreement here, which is a rarity, that alone would tell you something if you had been hanging around here very long.

HA! Ain't that the truth!

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What we agree? Where are the data for that?

Sorry -

Glenn

 

[44 AMP]

I'm afraid you can't do that, councilor, no one can.

You sound a little prejudiced even before all of the evidence has been presented. I don't think you qualify for this jury?

Woe is me, I am so misunderstood!

Quote:
I am more than willing to provide the evidence that even a prejudiced juror would have to accept.

I'm afraid you can't do that, councilor, no one can.

No one can provide evidence a prejudiced would have to accept, unless, maybe, you held a gun to their head.

That was my point.

You don't see that, and I don't qualify for the jury?

We all agree, open carry has a place. Trouble is, some folks think it should be everyplace, all the time, and others do not.

We may disagree about tactics and even goals, but not about fundamental principles.

Lighten up, Francis...

 

[IdahoCarry]

You're putting yourself in a position where you may have to deal with them, and we're trying to show you how utterly unready you are for that.

I appreciate the reference, but there is so much data, including the study from Obama's Alma Mater regarding gun control not reducing violence, I never see myself debating them because even Pears Morgan is relentlessly beaten down every time he brings a pro-gun guest on.

My efforts are focused on debating the detractors within. In re-reading my original post, I don't see anything offensive to CCers. I am a CCer and an OCer, and my organization is statewide and most of my members are CCers, and not one of them has argued against this post which is both on our Facebook group and website.

The gun forums are replete with trolls calling OCers names. I don't find any forums where OCers malign CCers. If I did, I would call them on it.

Again, this discourse will ultimately hone my arguments and probably add a few words of "in my opinion" in a few places. But, I am in prison ministry, and I know that the poll I referenced is wrong, and not because the percentages are high. I'm amazed that so many admitted that they feared armed citizens more than the police. Those percentages must be much much higher. The really bad guys are too proud to admit fear to anyone.

 

[Art Eatman]

For all that I'm in favor of the laws not forbidding open carry, there is still the issue of appropriate time and place.

In town, generally, OC is tactically unsound. It violates a precept of Sun Tzu: "When you are strong, make the enemy think you are weak." I see no reason for me to be #1 in some bad guy's capping parade. Let my alertness and body language make me a poor choice for victimhood. After all, that's worked for me since around 1950 or thereabouts.

It's all about psychology. What the neighbors and passersby think I am and how I might act. Subtle and smiling is good. And if I go to hustling on some sweet young thing, odds are that discretion beats macho.

 

[Tom Servo]

I never see myself debating them because even Pears Morgan is relentlessly beaten down every time he brings a pro-gun guest on.

Really? The same guy who led Alex Jones into a rant-fest that fed the repertoire of late-night comedians for days? The same guy who called Larry Pratt a "stupid man" on television and got away with it?

Gun folks might take heart in that Pratt got a few words in edgewise. A general audience sees the man being torn apart, and his points get lost in the noise.

Morgan is a very smart man, and he's very good at what he does.

My efforts are focused on debating the detractors within.

Preaching to the choir is the mistake lots of folks new to advocacy make. It can be fatal. To be effective, we have to be able to convince a larger audience, not just those guys down at the gun-and-tackle shop. The guys at the tackle shop will tell you what you want to hear, which is "hey, right on man! You tell 'em!"

If you expect that from the larger audience of ~150 million voters who aren't nearly as invested in the issue as we are, you're off the mark. They mourn the deaths inflicted in the recent spate of mass shootings, and they ask their politicians to do something. We're in the awkward position of explaining why we oppose that.

They cringe when the guy with the visible gun sits next to their kids at Pizzorama. They don't see that guy as 2nd Amendment Hero; he's just that guy with a gun who makes them nervous.

The problem is, you're not even convincing us, and we're your peers. How are you going to make a dent in the perceptions of that ~150 million?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...including the study from Obama's Alma Mater regarding gun control not reducing violence...

Let's be completely accurate. The study was not "from Harvard."

The study was "from" (i. e., authored by) Don Kates (a constitutional lawyer at the time associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco (with his law degree from Yale)) and Gary Mauser (a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada (with his Ph.D. from U. C. Irvine)). It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Vol. 30, No. 2, 2007).

Here it is for anyone who would like to read it. It's an interesting paper and worth reading. Kates is always solid on RKBA matters.

 

[Al Norris]

First off, I'd like to welcome you, Tony, to TFL. Always glad to have another Spud Head here.

From the Idaho Open Carry facebook page (posted on Oct. 20, 2013 at 9:46am):

To the Rabid Anti-Open Carriers

I have found some rabid anti-OCers in the national gun forums and am busy posting the following in those forums.

Rabid, contemptuous and abusive persons who portray themselves as CCers and jump at every opportunity to malign and denigrate OCers just for the fact that they OC, leads me to believe that they are wolves in sheepdog clothing.

I’m not talking to CCers who oppose OC for tactical or personal reasons; I’m talking to those who fervently assail and use vile names and slurs to attack OCers. . . (see the post to view all of it-Al)

Interesting remarks, Tony. I'm actually glad that TFL staff and members don't do that sort of thing. Aren't you?

My first post to OpenCarry.org, was back in 2006 (Open Carry in Rupert, ID.) and my last post was in 2009 (Anyone watching SB1024?). A total of 55 posts during that time (TFL taking much of my spare time back then). This, just to let you know that I'm in your corner (See? Not all staff are opposed to OC).

Having said that, I also have to agree with those who are questioning you. Your OP is nothing short of an opinion piece, not backed by any facts whatsoever. Dashunde gets it correct for a summation of why we are questioning your screed, and its good to read (again) and I trust you will think about it:

Tony, no one is the enemy here...
I've banged heads with Frank, Vanya, Tom, Brian, Spats and Glenn over the years, but never all at once!
We're all in agreement here, which is a rarity, that alone would tell you something if you had been hanging around here very long.
These folks take the comments published here seriously because it represents a sizable online "persona" of gun-loving America.
Your proclamations require far better documentation to be accepted here, its that simple.

Many here view your (unsubstantiated) position as threatening to the overall good of 2A because its just the sort of thing that rallies the troops on the other side. We don’t need to give them any additional encouragement.

It really doesn’t matter if OC works for thwarting would-be crimes or not, the fact is many Americans, including a bunch of us, don’t really want to see OC become a mainstay on our streets no matter how much we all appreciate firearms and 2A. Its simply an image of one of two environments... the wild west, or some third-world hell hole.

The idea that 2A is worn loud and proud with pistols on the hips of our masses, everyone is polite, the anti's see the light and "naturalize", and eventually the criminals go get jobs and those that don’t will run away scared of our pistols is... a complete pipe dream.

Not to derail the topic, but way back then the following sign(s) was found on all the Greenbelt paths leading into Garden City (2nd paragraph - prohibiting all firearms and weapons). Are they still there?

That was something a bunch of us were trying to get rectified, back in 2001. As late as 2006, they were still posted, but were being ignored by the GCPD. That was good news, even if the Town Council refused to take them down and/or modify them. You might ask around as to who caused the GCPD to ignore the city ordinance.

 

[dakota.potts]

Let me just say, as a supporter of open carry who was on your side in the beginning, you've even lost my support in the argument.

It's full of logical fallacies, which works I suppose if you're going for the vivid emotional rhetoric anti-gunners like, but then the CC crowd has you beat there with all the stories of people who were killed for their guns that were then used to kill another innocent person.

Even as a proponent of OC, I recognize that that happens. I know that there are people who will follows cops into restrooms and stab them to death to get a nice gun.

I believe it is our second amendment right to open carry and I personally believe (call it superstition if not fact) that more crimes are stopped than caused by open carry. That doesn't mean I want to argue it past that it should be an individual determination rather than the state deciding we're not fit to make it.

I find the mods to have been reasonable if not a little unrelenting. If you can't hold up a challenge to people who live and breathe firearms, who carry all the time, and already know the effect of guns on crimes, how can you possibly expect to persuade someone who thinks guns are the devil and goes off twisted statistics that stupid Jim Bob is more liable to shoot himself and his family with his AR Machine Shotgun than save them? Who thinks we will never have a need to resist tyranny or even defend ourselves from foreign invasion and civil unrest? Who thinks the Bill of Rights is outdated and we should abolish it and write something new in its place?