Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[LockedBreech]

In my third year of law school now, I appreciate more than I ever did before the importance of sound citations and proof, and understand more than I ever did that a large amount of the "evidence" presented on the internet is just more opinion stated in a slightly different formulation.

IdahoCarry, I have read through this thread start to finish, and I'm afraid you have been strongly routed here, and the most unfortunate thing is, as Brian pointed out a handful of posts ago, we aren't your real opponents. We all support gun ownership, we all believe in the positive influence of guns. I also don't think the OC movement has bad intentions, but the road to hell is paved with the best of 'em, as the negative consequences of heavy OC protesting in California and Starbucks frequently cited in this thread exhibit.

If you can't persuade your allies, there's no way you'll persuade your enemies. Facts are needed, specific ones and not vague generalities. Sourced, specific, and on-point.

 

[zukiphile]

In my third year of law school now, I appreciate more than I ever did before the importance of sound citations and proof...

Appreciate also that citation and presentation of evidence have a place; you would not want them in your opening argument.

Where the issue is what form of carry is most prudent or which sort is better overall for a specific political environment, I doubt that clear citation in proper form bear on the issue much.

My first post to OpenCarry.org, was back in 2006 (Open Carry in Rupert, ID.)

Allan, that short bio in your first post is interesting. Of course, it wasn't just about arms, but about how functional neighbors can work together to form an organic social unit that can cohere and protect itself. That function is found elusive by many groups.

I find the strident partisanship on both sides of the OC v. CC issue somewhat puzzling. In a sense, it just reflects a normal impulse to choose sides and fight the fight. As a matter of pressing the argument for the right itself, this narcissism of minor differences, the sense that the real opponent is the one who disagrees on an ancillary point, lacks perspective.

As 44AMP noted,

Things can be real and true, without studies saying they are.

***

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.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Appreciate also that citation and presentation of evidence have a place; you would not want them in your opening argument.

You might not want them in your verbal opening statement in a court room but there's positively no reason they wouldn't be included in a written "comprehensive response to critics" on a forum with software that is designed with an easy method to link to your evidence without cluttering the actual text.

That point also does not address the continued refusal to provide that evidence in subsequent posts.

I find the strident partisanship on both sides of the OC v. CC issue somewhat puzzling. In a sense, it just reflects a normal impulse to choose sides and fight the fight. As a matter of pressing the argument for the right itself, this narcissism of minor differences, the sense that the real opponent is the one who disagrees on an ancillary point, lacks perspective.

I see none of this "strident partisanship" in this thread. There is, in fact, very little opposition to OC at all.

I and most (if not all) others who have posted are asking for evidence of claims to fact to be supplied. I have NO objection to the legality nor particular practice of open carry as a defensive strategy. Whether I would choose to do it myself is an entirely separate argument.

I do have very strong objections to the use of OC as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

However, none of that is the point of any of my objections in this thread. My objections are based on claims like "EVERY study shows..." because the claim is neither proven nor provable, one can not disprove the existence of a negative study.

In other words, the claim itself is logical fallacy. The underlying point that "every study" is supposed to prove, "that criminals will avoid armed persons" is also a logical fallacy with no additional support. It is a "Hasty Generalization" or Composition Fallacy. Because some criminals will avoid armed people it does not follow that "criminals" (all inclusive) will avoid armed people.

I reiterate:
I have NO objection to the legality nor particular practice of open carry as a defensive strategy. Whether I would choose to do it myself is an entirely separate argument.

I do have very strong objections to the use of OC as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

I also have a problem with someone who is in a position to be and acts as (official or no) a spokesperson for our cause using arguments, methods and fallacies that will have them torn apart by the opposition and make us all look foolish by association.

 

[IdahoCarry]

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?

Every sign that we've found so far has been reported and removed. As for the Greenway, we had a rape and a murder on that path in the last 2 years and carrying there is encouraged.

If this sign is still up, it is because no one has reported it to us yet.

 

[IdahoCarry]

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.

Obviously you don't thoroughly read all of the posts here and read the links.
If you had you would have found one incident of one individual who was wearing an unsecured gun openly in gas station convenience store and he allowed someone easy access to his gun while the OCer had his arm extended. This same link has been posted several times on this thread and you obviously now think that there was more than one story. And the OCer would not have been shot and killed if he didn't chase the kid who stole his gun. As for other people being shot. I will do you a favor and pull all of articles of CCers who have had their guns stolen when the perp got the drop on them and used that gun to kill oher. The fact is, in many robberies of persons, the BG frisks the CCer, finds the gun and steals it. Would you care to guess how many times that has happened as opposed to this one incident in 2011.

 

[IdahoCarry]

I also don't think the OC movement has bad intentions, but the road to hell is paved with the best of 'em, as the negative consequences of heavy OC protesting in California and Starbucks frequently cited in this thread exhibit.

I would like your interpretation of the fact that, now, with Oklahoma on board, we are up to 45 states that allow Open Carry and within the next 2 or 3 years as their gun groups become stronger, we will have OC there. Your bias also evident. I don't condone wild and crazy militarized dress being used in protests, but obviously the pro-gun movement in California has been on the slippery road to eventual non-existence while many are elated that some in law enforcement "allow" you to concealed carry. California's recent oppression of gun rights encouraged an equal response by pro-gunners and they got it.

 

[Closing The Gap]

Here is a second incident where an open carrier was targeted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY&noredirect=1

And for the record I am pro open carry. I just dislike the approach taken that it never happens.

And a third. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/unarmed-man-attempts-to-rob-emu-student-carrying-holstered-gun/

And another. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2006/073106robnewtonpatton.htm

 

[zukiphile]

My observations below are only my own; I do not make them on behalf of anyone else.

You might not want them in your verbal opening statement in a court room but there's positively no reason they wouldn't be included in a written "comprehensive response to critics" on a forum with software that is designed with an easy method to link to your evidence without cluttering the actual text.

That point also does not address the continued refusal to provide that evidence in subsequent posts.

That goes to whether this fellow titled his polemic foolishly. Asserting that one will make a comprehensive response in an on-line post suggests a problem other that insufficient statistical support.

I see none of this "strident partisanship" in this thread.

I disagree. Note Al's reference to the OP's response as well as your own response to the idea of OC as an educational tool.

I do have very strong objections to the use of OC as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

I understand that you and several others have objections that you feel very strongly. It shows in the writing in this thread.

However, none of that is the point of any of my objections in this thread. My objections are based on claims like "EVERY study shows..." because the claim is neither proven nor provable, one can not disprove the existence of a negative study.

In other words, the claim itself is logical fallacy. The underlying point that "every study" is supposed to prove, "that criminals will avoid armed persons" is also a logical fallacy with no additional support. It is a "Hasty Generalization" or Composition Fallacy. Because some criminals will avoid armed people it does not follow that "criminals" (all inclusive) will avoid armed people.

I agree. As I noted in post 67 above, that kind of over-reach weakens an argument that could be quite persuasive in more modest form.

I also have a problem with someone who is in a position to be and acts as (official or no) a spokesperson for our cause using arguments, methods and fallacies that will have them torn apart by the opposition and make us all look foolish by association.

It would be best if advocates were numerous and excellent. Does the way this thread unfolded assist in the mentoring and assistance of that kind of public advocacy?

I dislike a facet of a part of the 2d Am. advocacy culture I sometime see illustrated here and potentially reflected in your language above. I also saw it earlier in this thread.

TFL exists to advance responsible firearms ownership. "Responsible" includes the very real responsibility to police our own and protect and enhance the public perception of gun owners.

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy. Second, advocating for protection of a right doesn't make a fellow yours or mine.

If you think that observation unfairly describes your position, I have little investment in it and welcome correction. I do note that self-appointed custodians of one or another right can appear clubby and uninviting.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Here is a second incident where an open carrier was targeted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY&noredirect=1

And for the record I am pro open carry. I just dislike the approach taken that it never happens.

And a third. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/u...holstered-gun/

This first incident was addressed at least twice in this thread. The OCer was OCing "regularly" in an area in NE Milwaukee where police had been warning citizens about the increase of crime in that community. The OCer lacked "Wisdom and Prudence". Lions don't invade a hyena's den and OCers should not challenge the dominion of the BGs because it is a challenge to their authority.

It is the areas outside of the BG's dominion, you should open carry because just like the hyenas, they leave their den to find prey as do the BGs. That is where OC is needed. And as for the student OCing; he obviously knew enough to retain his gun. There are thousands of car jackings that occur every year. Do you leave your car at home to avoid them. There has been one gun stolen from a person who was unwisely open carrying in a BG's area and as a result of that, the opposition uses that one red herring incident to argue that all OCing is bad. Think about it - thousands of carjackings annually but you still drive. Two unwise OCer guns stolen in recorded history - OC bad!

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I disagree. Note Al's reference to the OP's response as well as your own response to the idea of OC as an educational tool.

I don't see disagreement as "strident partisanship". My objections are to claims with no evidence and logical fallacies. I could argue as to why I don't think OC is this or that thing but I have not. I argue that the claims are unproven and generally unprovable.

I don't think that simple statements that I oppose certain generic actions qualify as partisanship. Partisanship would be the refusal to work with someone of a different viewpoint simply because of that viewpoint. Quite to the contrary, I'd like to help IdahoCarry make the most cogent argument possible, whether or not I agree, because he is part of the 2A community.

Does the way this thread unfolded assist in the mentoring and assistance of that kind of public advocacy?

I believe that it unfolded in a way that would be expected when someone does not produce evidence of factual claims while they continue to argue that the claims are factual. I would expect the objections to be many and vociferous.

If someone making a claim does not wish to be greeted with increasingly impatient responses, the appropriate redress would be to supply the requested documentation.

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy. Second, advocating for protection of a right doesn't make a fellow yours or mine.

If you think that observation unfairly describes your position, I have little investment in it and welcome correction. I do note that self-appointed custodians of one or another right can appear clubby and uninviting.

I make no effort to police the actions of others in the 2A community except as they occur directly on The Firing Line and effect it's stated mission.

Even here, it is very much like peeing in the wind. I can only hope that someone will come around to a more reasoned approach for the "real world".

Much like my position in OC, my objection the political actions of others in our community is based on what I consider a wise approach, not one of a desire to encroach on their freedoms or prevent them from having their say.

I very often wish that a great many folks would "say it differently", be it word or action, but I understand that such is the price of freedom.

 

[Closing The Gap]

Actually I posted another. However as I stated I am PRO open carry I do it myself. What I am against is the specious argument that being targeted for open carrying never happens.

In my opinion if I can find three incidents where it has happened and been reported there should be many more that weren't newsworthy. Not to mention those where the person carrying stopped the individual and nothing came of it after that.

Again I'm on the side of OC. Just not on the side of rhetoric and emotional argument.

 

[IdahoCarry]

Closing the Gap,
Here is a second incident where an open carrier was targeted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY&noredirect=1

And for the record I am pro open carry. I just dislike the approach taken that it never happens.

And a third. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/u...holstered-gun/

And another. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/...wtonpatton.htm

I appreciate your posting the 3rd event, and that too proves the point of failure to practice Wisdom and Prudence. This guy was Open Carrying in a bad area at 4:30 in the morning. Who in their right mind would be walking in the jungle at 4:30am on a Sunday morning? By the way, I did acknowledge that it did happen in my original post.

 

[zukiphile]

Two unwise OCer guns stolen in recorded history - OC bad!

Tony, I don't think that accurately portrays the helpful (to you) point made, which is that a categorical assertion is going to be easily refuted by anyone with an internet connection.

I have an idea which you are free to disregard. Rather than focusing on ways to refute the limiting statements with which you are faced, would it work better to ask for more persuasive revisions of the meritorious parts of your claims?

My guess would be that there would be many here willing to help as editors who could improve your message.

Let me also urge you not to view challenge and argument as a hindrance to be resented, but an opportunity to be enjoyed.

 

[Tom Servo]

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy.

But it is. If enough folks go off the reservation, it creates problems for all of us. As I posted earlier,

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.

If a guy goes on one of the major media outlets and presents our point poorly, or if he gets roasted by an opponent who's more savvy, it hurts all of us.

Lions don't invade a hyena's den and OCers should not challenge the dominion of the BGs because it is a challenge to their authority.

This contradicts your earlier assertion that OC acts as a deterrent to crime.

Zuki, as far as "partisanship," let's review the Facebook post Al quoted from Idaho:

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.

Who's driving the wedge here? It's not us. Idaho has voiced his intent to perform activism, therefore representing us. We have a very real interest in ensuring that he doesn't do it wrong.

 

[Closing The Gap]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
Two unwise OCer guns stolen in recorded history - OC bad!

You acknowledged it yes. But you are unwilling to accept that it is an issue that should be addressed by more than snarky remarks and straw man arguments(below).

There are thousands of car jackings that occur every year. Do you leave your car at home to avoid them. There has been one gun stolen from a person who was unwisely open carrying in a BG's area and as a result of that, the opposition uses that one red herring incident to argue that all OCing is bad. Think about it - thousands of carjackings annually but you still drive.

Again, I'm on your side. For now...

 

[IdahoCarry]

Tony, I don't think that accurately portrays the helpful (to you) point made, which is that a categorical assertion is going to be easily refuted by anyone with an internet connection.

I have an idea which you are free to disregard. Rather than focusing on ways to refute the limiting statements with which you are faced, would it work better to ask for more persuasive revisions of the meritorious parts of your claims?

My guess would be that there would be many here willing to help as editors who could improve your message.

Let me also urge you not to view challenge and argument as a hindrance to be resented, but an opportunity to be enjoyed.

There is a method to my madness. First of all, most anti-Ocers use these few incidents to forward their argument against OC. Look at the number of times they have posted them on this thread. I acknowledged one in my original post and I should have mentioned the other where the teen came up from behind and stole an unsecured gun from a fellow not maintaining situational awareness who then chased the kid and was killed. I had it in my original draft but because addressing the many stupid mistakes made by the OCer, it slowed down the flow of the article and my wife agreed.

One of the purposes in posting this was to get the responses that I did. I needed the weak points identified and challenged. Through this torrent of responses I have gleaned a lot of good information and will, after my events end tonight, spend the weekend adjusting my original post to make it stronger and address more fully the request for more data to support my claims.

I put this out to my state a few weeks ago and apparently it was totally accepted because I received no challenge. That is why I ventured into the national forums and this has worked well. There are some here that are truly open to OC but too many who are totally opposed to it being used as a political statement. To them I can only say, thank God they weren't in Boston in the 1760s.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

To them I can only say, thank God they weren't in Boston in the 1760s.

This isn't Boston in the 1760s.

Notice the wording of my post:

...as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

...address more fully the request for more data to support my claims.

Please note that links to studies that were not directly intended to address OC do not qualify as data or evidence. If there is some salient point buried within a study intended to address another topic, the proper citation would be something along the lines of "John Smith, in his study titled Panda Bears and Firearms points out in paragraph 3 of page 6 that "Panda Bears....".

Simply naming an unrelated or slightly correlated study is not sufficient.

 

[zukiphile]

I very often wish that a great many folks would "say it differently", be it word or action, but I understand that such is the price of freedom.

Fair enough. We've all been there.

Zuki, as far as "partisanship," let's review the Facebook post Al quoted from Idaho:

Tom, I agree. That is why I made reference to it in my post.

Who's driving the wedge here? It's not us. Idaho has voiced his intent to perform activism, therefore representing us.

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group. If you adopt that error, you do so voluntarily. If you appoint yourself the custodian of advocacy because someone else's actions might affect you, then you overstep in a manner different but not less odious than IdahoCarry does.

Where you do that, you are a participant in the wedge driving, a dance that generally takes two.

If a guy goes on one of the major media outlets and presents our point poorly, or if he gets roasted by an opponent who's more savvy, it hurts all of us.

Potentially, yes. This doesn't make him one of your "own".

Employing the language of a constituency or interest group apart from the general population does not mesh well with civil rights advocacy.


____________________
Do note that the lion/hyena business isn't mine.

 

[IdahoCarry]

If there is some salient point buried within a study intended to address another topic, the proper citation would be something along the lines of "John Smith, in his study titled Panda Bears and Firearms points out in paragraph 3 of page 6 that "Panda Bears....".

I look forward to fulfilling your expectations.

 

[IdahoCarry]

This isn't Boston in the 1760s.

Notice the wording of my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
...as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

Please explain your meaning of "political activism" and "show of force" and "reasonably foreseeable conditions".
We are facing powerful forces who would, if they could, take all of our guns. Obama restated last night after the shooting of the school teacher that he is not giving up on his gun control measures.