open carry
- Thread starter REELZARUBA
- Start date
My "beef" is that everybody's attention is on me and my gun, in direct conflict with going about my business unnoticed while blending in. I only want me to know I'm armed--it's a secret.
I think surprise is a tactical advantage. Open carry may deter 9 out of 10 Bubbas, but surrendering your tactical advantage to the 10th one could cost you your life.
Of course, making a statement about the 2A and being noticed is what it's about for some (not all), and I support their right to open carry all they wish. As mentioned, it's strategy and tactics for me--not politics.
No. I LIKE everybodys' eyes on you, and I especially like to observe who's observing you.
Sturmgewehre
New member
Statistics exist regardless of the percentage. How many people who are openly armed are victims of crime? It doesn't matter if they represent 90% of the population or 1%, there are statistics.
It was a comment made by the poster I was commenting on, not concealed carry in general. I think that distinction is clear if you read the exchange.
Concealed carry is just as viable as open carry and it should be left to the discretion of the person, not the government.
In "some" situations. You can't measure the number of crimes you deter. But you can talk to inmates and ask them if armed citizens deter crime and in every instance I've read the overwhelming majority of criminals say that armed citizens do in fact do deter them.
So you're saying a hidden weapon is more of a deterrent than an openly displayed weapon? I think that is ridiculous.
That's works great on a national average, and I agree with it. But unfortunately if you're a 140lbs nerd walking down the street at 1am you look like an easy mark regardless of the national average regarding CCW. If you have a weapon openly displayed, you look far less appealing to a mugger. That's a fact.
Anecdotal. Are you saying a person carrying concealed has never been jumped from behind? That's absolutely ridiculous, if that's what you think.
I don't recall saying it was the best carry option. Please quote me if I said that. I only believe it should be legal in all 50 states - and should be left up to the discretion of the firearm owner.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I actually feel pretty much the same way about both. I do not agree with the practice, I would never do it myself, and I think it causes more problems than it solves...but I still support a person's right to do both.
I didn't say that no statistics existed, I thought I was very clear. What I said was: "Until a significant percentage of the population of a particular state (by that I mean maybe 1% or so) is actually OC'ing, there won't be a way to say anything based on statistics. "
Ok, since that's apparently not clear, here's an example. Tell me the statistics on people struck by lightning while eating drinking a diet soft drink vs drinking non-diet soft drinks.
Obviously there are so few people are struck by lightning that when you combine the additional requirement that they also be drinking a soft drink at the time it's unlikely that you're going to get any data points at all.
And even if you DO get a data point or two, there's still not sufficient data to tell you anything about which is more likely to occur. Until you get a significant number of people in the studied category you can't say much about how likely they are to be in another category as well.
I agree 100%. That's why I posted this: "I believe OC should be legal..."
You didn't read the examples provided in the link or you would realize how irrelevant this remark is. If you carry openly and are involved in an armed encounter, you have only the following options. Run/attempt to run, draw immediately or allow yourself to be disarmed/neutralized. It's inconceivable that an armed criminal would perpetrate a crime with an openly armed person present and simply allow that person to stand there unmolested. If, on the other hand, you are carrying concealed, you do not automatically present an immediate threat which means that you have a chance to remain part of the crowd (or at least not be thought of as an obvious threat) until there is an opportune moment to respond.
The examples I listed in the link gave some examples of situations where lives were saved as a result of a concealed gun being used successfully at the most opportune moment where an openly carried gun would have forced an encounter immediately with results that would have been questionable, at best.
I didn't say that. What I said was that concealed carry has shown to have a beneficial effect on violent crime because criminals know that some of the population is armed but they don't know which ones. That is a deterrent that works whether there is an armed person present or not.
A criminal can immediately tell if there is someone OC'ing. They can then simply avoid committing the crime while there is an armed person around.
Think about it this way. Police have always OCed. In spite of that, crime goes down when concealed carry laws are passed. If a few people OC'ing (police, for example) is such a deterrent to crime then why is it that CC laws further reduce crime? Because criminals don't commit crimes while there's a cop around. They just wait until the cop leaves and go ahead with their original plans. You say deterrent, I say postponement. On the other hand if you KNOW that several hundred thousand citizens in your state are armed but you can't pick them out by looking, THAT'S a deterrent. Now you can't tell who's a victim and who's armed.
Yes, OC can be a deterrent in the immediate vicinity of an OC'er although the counterexample I posted proves that this doesn't always work--and it can even make one a target. CC provides a level of deterrence everywhere, all the time.
First of all, I'm not attempting to say that ALL OC'ers are targets, I'm only showing that it CAN happen. Therefore it is NOT anecdotal, it is proof. It is proof that it CAN happen because it is proof that it HAS happened.
Second, I'm not saying a CC person has never been jumped from behind. What I AM saying is that a person who is successfully concealing a handgun has never INVITED attack by being armed while at least one OC person has.
I don't recall saying you said it was. I made the comment to explain my views on OC, not as a response to anything you posted.
Sturmgewehre
New member
Then I think we agree.
TexasSeaRay
New member
Just curious.
For those that so authoritatively state that "element of surprise" is a big advantage (and in a DEFENSIVE situation at that. . .), I'm just wondering what your actual experience or qualifications are to make that huge assumption?
All the tactics taught to me by the government emphasized that the element of surprise was essential in OFFENSIVE operations. And in over twenty years of carrying a weapon professionally, I saw and experienced that to be true.
I'll buy that for SEALs. But I never really experienced that in LE. Some cops would back you up, but just as many were cowards and bullies. I never ran into neither a coward or bully in our military outfit.
Personally? I'm all for open carry and I'm all for having the choice. If open carry concerns you, then don't open carry.
How simple is that?
But please do not try to tell me that the way you prefer to view your Constitutional right is superior to the way I choose to view my same right.
How would you feel if I lobbied for Open Carry only--with no conceal carry?
We should have the choice.
Jeff
I think that stating it as "the element of surprise" is misleading.
I don't see CC as offering "the element of surprise" so much as it is a way to not expose all your capabilities to every passer by.
It's not that you're planning to "surprise" your attacker, it's that you want an option or capability left open to you that he doesn't know about as opposed to laying all your cards on the table.
As a police officer, that option might be a concealed backup gun or a bullet proof vest (although vests aren't much of a secret these days.) In a military situation, it would be technology, capabilities or weapons that have been kept secret from the enemy.
In nearly any armed confrontation it is universally considered beneficial to be stronger and more capable than the enemy realizes you are. The other option would be to appear so strong and capable that the enemy didn't dare attack. I would think several armed persons could manage the latter but a single OC'er doesn't seem to generate that level of respect. If it did we wouldn't see police officers shot and the example I posted earlier of a man who had his openly carried handgun taken from him wouldn't have happened.
Earlier on the thread I posted a link to a post with several real world examples of how being armed with a concealed handgun saved lives. The first one was a shooting range/gun store holdup in which the employees were taken hostage. The criminal came out of the range portion of the business with a loaded long gun, "ready to do business". There was no time for the employees to respond, but fortunately one was armed with a concealed handgun.
The criminal took the employees out into the alley behind the store and indicated he was going to kill them. The armed employee bided his time, and when the opportunity presented itself, he pulled his handgun and was able to disable the criminal by shooting him several times in the chest. No one else injured.
Had he been openly armed he would have had to shoot it out with the criminal immediately when the confrontation began, or he would have been disarmed. I suppose it COULD have worked out as well as it did, but it seems very unlikely since the criminal was at his highest readiness level at that point and the employee would have been taken by surprise. Because the gun was concealed he didn't have to act immediately and was able to pick the moment that offered the best odds for victory.
I don't see CC as offering "the element of surprise" so much as it is a way to not expose all your capabilities to every passer by.
It's not that you're planning to "surprise" your attacker, it's that you want an option or capability left open to you that he doesn't know about as opposed to laying all your cards on the table.
As a police officer, that option might be a concealed backup gun or a bullet proof vest (although vests aren't much of a secret these days.) In a military situation, it would be technology, capabilities or weapons that have been kept secret from the enemy.
In nearly any armed confrontation it is universally considered beneficial to be stronger and more capable than the enemy realizes you are. The other option would be to appear so strong and capable that the enemy didn't dare attack. I would think several armed persons could manage the latter but a single OC'er doesn't seem to generate that level of respect. If it did we wouldn't see police officers shot and the example I posted earlier of a man who had his openly carried handgun taken from him wouldn't have happened.
Earlier on the thread I posted a link to a post with several real world examples of how being armed with a concealed handgun saved lives. The first one was a shooting range/gun store holdup in which the employees were taken hostage. The criminal came out of the range portion of the business with a loaded long gun, "ready to do business". There was no time for the employees to respond, but fortunately one was armed with a concealed handgun.
The criminal took the employees out into the alley behind the store and indicated he was going to kill them. The armed employee bided his time, and when the opportunity presented itself, he pulled his handgun and was able to disable the criminal by shooting him several times in the chest. No one else injured.
Had he been openly armed he would have had to shoot it out with the criminal immediately when the confrontation began, or he would have been disarmed. I suppose it COULD have worked out as well as it did, but it seems very unlikely since the criminal was at his highest readiness level at that point and the employee would have been taken by surprise. Because the gun was concealed he didn't have to act immediately and was able to pick the moment that offered the best odds for victory.
Well, I'm not as philosophical as you are. I just don't want anyone to know I'm armed, and don't want attention called to me. Don't have a quarrel with those who open carry--just not for me unless I'm camping or in a rural environment. Even there, I tend to cover things up.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
He had the OPTION to draw and engage when HE wanted.
Apparently he was surprised and couldn't have drawn immediately, in which case he could have died on the spot when Bubba spotted his gun, or, in any event, would not have had the opportunity thereafter.
Unless you count down on your knees begging for your life, only Bubba would have had a sayso over life and death after that.
I think that's the overwhelming view, including mine.
The disagreement is whether it's a tactically sound pratice.
And, with some, it's a matter of "excercising my right" type of thing.
Some may even argue that it's a deterrent. I believe that, too. I believe that open carry deters the biggest % those who would victimize you, but could get you killed where some others are concerned.
Since I already know I have the right to carry, I excercise it by being as low profile as possible. Open carry is very high profile. There isn't any in between.
I can't think of a way for me to be more low profile than to have everyone's eyes on someone elses gun, while not even relizing I'm there, and no clue at all that I'm armed.
On the other hand, I remember sitting in one restaurant while a gentleman at the next table stood up and took off his jacket and hung it on his chair. His weapon was plainly visible (and on the outside isle). I don't think anyone else noticed. The black weapon, ISP, with black shirt made it inconspicuous though plainly visible. Didn't see a badge.
izzkidioto
New member
I agree with all of Nnooby45's statements, with the addition of some "making a statement that we can and should open carry."
I think that if you can and desire to OC, so be it. The same goes for CC...It is not anyone's right to tell you how to carry, and what thought you have put in to the pros and cons of each, having formed your own opinion around, are just as valid as the next person's. Remember, all of these are opinions and should be treated that way, with respect and an open mind.
I think that if you can and desire to OC, so be it. The same goes for CC...It is not anyone's right to tell you how to carry, and what thought you have put in to the pros and cons of each, having formed your own opinion around, are just as valid as the next person's. Remember, all of these are opinions and should be treated that way, with respect and an open mind.
I like where this post has gone since my post on the first page. It seems most people agree fundamental right, not preferred mode of carry.
I dislike this notion of the cross hair on your back while open carrying. I think the chances of being attacked go DOWN when you OC and the chances of being attacked for your gun go up slightly. It is probably a more than fair trade off. Yes it has happened to citizens exercising their rights to OC, I'm sure it has happened to LEO's and people who ccw as well. It is just a risk of carrying a gun and retention should always be considered. Oooh and if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation, you will be shot immediately
I'll take my chances, like I said fair trade.
Rant over. I occasionally OC because I don't have my CCW yet, but even then I will CCW as primary carry mode and sometimes OC because I just love the convince of my paddle holster
I dislike this notion of the cross hair on your back while open carrying. I think the chances of being attacked go DOWN when you OC and the chances of being attacked for your gun go up slightly. It is probably a more than fair trade off. Yes it has happened to citizens exercising their rights to OC, I'm sure it has happened to LEO's and people who ccw as well. It is just a risk of carrying a gun and retention should always be considered. Oooh and if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation, you will be shot immediately
I'll take my chances, like I said fair trade.Rant over. I occasionally OC because I don't have my CCW yet, but even then I will CCW as primary carry mode and sometimes OC because I just love the convince of my paddle holster
ChicagoTex
Moderator
Contrary to popular belief, most criminals don't wind up criminals because they think it's an exciting career opportunity - it's more commonly done out of desperation (very often a chemical withdrawl induced desperation no less). I'm not saying some people wouldn't be deterred, but I think the percentage would be less than you'd think.
izzkidioto
New member
I agree with ChicagoTex. Many of our arguments make sense and are assuming the perps, who are desparate, are thinking in their right mind. This is not the case. Just as we use any means necessary to achieve our goal of living, so do they. Desperate times call for desperate measures no matter how you slice it or for whom.
Ya know I did about 8 years as a homeless person and everyone I dealt with was living on the shady side of the law. Many came from crapy homes so that living on the streets was the better alternative. There were several who were vets, who for what ever reason just didn’t make the transition back into society. There were a few who were just mean, plan and simple. Met this one guy who had recently been released from prison and his specialty was just to pick someone out on the street and walk up to them and tell them to give him some money. He was a very intimidating figure and he always chose people who were obviously not going to argue the point with him. I knew a lot who would just game you out of your money. Then there were those who would do the snatch and grab, like break car windows where there was anything of value in plan sight, grab it and run. There were the few who would do the gun bit usually without ever actually drawing the weapon, just lift their shirt tail to show the weapon because obviously an open drawn weapon attracts a lot of attention. The average criminal in this country does what he does because that’s what he knows how to do and I have never meet one who is going to choose the person with the weapon strapped to their side for a victim. Most criminals are not criminals from desperation, their criminals for lack of options. There’s no desperation in their acts, they’re well thought out acts or at least pretty well thought out and they usually have the experience of previous attempts to know what to expect from their victim so they have a reasonable expectation of keeping control of the situation. I knew this one guy they called 211 Joey because armed robbery was his thing. Joey wasn’t desperate, he did what he did because it worked and I suspect it was an ego thing as well.
Thing is I also knew a lot of people who didn’t resort to criminal activities in order to take care of them selves. Also knew a lot of people who trafficked in controlled substances to make their money and even these managed to do this with out robbing people or in fact with out the need for firearms. For the average criminal who chooses to rob or burglarize it is a choice plan and simple and in making that choice they have also chosen where you fit into the grand scheme of things and of what value your life is.
In all those years, often sharing the same camp or boxcar with many of these people, I don’t think I ever met a single one who would knowingly choose the armed person for his victim, ever. Just because these people don’t have a lot of choices doesn’t mean they’re stupid or crazy.