Richmond Man Killed With Own Gun While Open Carrying
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, it really isn't overrated when combined with effective actions. The element of surprise concept is both heralded and maligned depending on who is using it and when. When it is being used for accomplish goals that we perceive as being positive, it is consider to be a shrewd tactic and one that often results in achieving the intended goals with reduced risk. When it is used by our foes, it is considered cowardly and unfair.
I fail to see how the element of surprise is overrated. Surprise prevents you from being immediately prepared.
If you see two or three bad looking people approaching then you can take action to avoid or counter their possible actions. But if suddenly in a parking lot with a crowd one or more is already close and grabs your weapon then you cannot counter it in the same way.
One who OCs is likely to be surprised at any time he is in proximity with other people. I am not sure even the martial arts experts here could retain their weapons if two or more physically strong BGs grabbed you by surprise. But then I never thought I was tough.
Jerry
If you see two or three bad looking people approaching then you can take action to avoid or counter their possible actions. But if suddenly in a parking lot with a crowd one or more is already close and grabs your weapon then you cannot counter it in the same way.
One who OCs is likely to be surprised at any time he is in proximity with other people. I am not sure even the martial arts experts here could retain their weapons if two or more physically strong BGs grabbed you by surprise. But then I never thought I was tough.
Jerry
JerryM said:
Any credible martial arts system is going to stress avoidance as a key element.
OC, at least in my opinion, is not the most prudent way of practicing avoidance.
The average person isn't equipped to go toe to toe with heavy weight street thugs. Especially multiple ones.
Let me use myself as an example. Back in the day I made quite a few 'fighters' hit the puke bucket, just by having them try to go a full 3 min boxing round with me. I didn't lay a glove on them either, other than blocking. All I did was dance around and yell 'Hit me you ____! Hit me!' Granted they were wearing gloves and couldn't gouge my eyes out, or use grappling techniques, nevertheless they weren't in as good a shape as they thought they were. Some of them could hit hard too, ouch.
So as you might surmise, I'm in fairly good shape and reasonably skilled at martial arts.
Now, lets suppose I'm OCing my favorite 1911 while eyeing the dollar menu at McDonalds. Then the man in the following video decides he wants to steal it.
Sucker puncher gets life sentence in Texas
Now what do you suppose I could have done to stop him? Well, short of not being there, nothing.
tl;dr OC is not a prudent way to avoid trouble.
Martial arts arent magic and they dont create super humans... Martial arts create confidence and skills but anyone can be ambushed or overpowered depending on circumstances.
Dont confuse this to mean martial arts arent worth while but they arent a end all be all to anything.
Dont confuse this to mean martial arts arent worth while but they arent a end all be all to anything.
BlackFeather
New member
So, if I have my license to carry a firearm on duty as a security guard, I'm doing something stupid?
Nate45, what is a credible system?
Nate45, what is a credible system?
If you're doing so in a non-retention holster and you don't have any training in physically retaining the firearm, yes.
It isn't rocket surgery: if you carry a gun in the open, you should be prepared and equipped to defend it.
Prepared = with training
Equipped = with appropriate gear
pax
BlackFeather said:
I was referring to civilians, not LEOs, or others required to openly carry. You take a risk when you put on a uniform and a gun, thats part of the job.
However, be aware there's nothing preventing someone from launching a surprise attack on you, or anyone for that matter.
There are many credible self defense systems. At the core of all of them is the idea that avoidance is your first line of defense. Civilians are under no obligation to enter into dangerous situations, or arrest or detain any individual. They also aren't required to OC.
I have no idea what your duties and obligations as a security guard will entail. If you will be required to defend life and property with deadly force, you better know what you are doing. Weapon retention should be apart of that knowledge, as should situational awareness. When you are going home and stop at the quickie mart, an attempt to take your weapon could happen.
Lost Sheep
New member
On decoys
Years ago, I heard about a Texas Ranger who, when working in some situations would open carry a single action 45 Colt, unloaded. His primary piece was concealed in a shoulder holster.
The sight of a Texas Ranger, traditionally armed seemed to help in most situations.
Perhaps a little off-topic or not applicable in all situations, but I was reminded. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Lost Sheep
Years ago, I heard about a Texas Ranger who, when working in some situations would open carry a single action 45 Colt, unloaded. His primary piece was concealed in a shoulder holster.
The sight of a Texas Ranger, traditionally armed seemed to help in most situations.
Perhaps a little off-topic or not applicable in all situations, but I was reminded. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Lost Sheep
BlackFeather
New member
Nate45 said:
It may be splitting hairs to some people, but Martial Arts and Self Defense systems are indeed different. Your other post mentioned Martial Arts, now you say Self Defense. Avoidance is always the key to self defense, but in Martial Arts you train to fight, defensively and offensively.
You're right, Civilians are under no obligation to enter dangerous situations, or detain anyone. As an armed guard one is really no more than a civilian agent of the property owner. So I have no real obligation, in most cases, to arrest anyone or enter a dangerous situation. The reason one carries is for defense, working a high end casino that could be robbed, I may need to use the gun to defend myself, but why enter a fire fight for money? The Casino likely has a lot of insurance, and will likely have them on camera.
So the reason I'd be carrying is for a higher paying job. Open carry for a higher paying job, is that a poor decision?
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I hope my words don't come across as such. I am really just looking for opinions. Aside from the Martial Arts, I know everything there.
No, I didn't get my terminology mixed up. Avoidance includes not getting jumped by surprise, no matter when.
You say offense, offense against whom? How do you fight offensively when you're unconscious or dead?
I'm not against open carry, or trying to talk anyone out of doing it, or taking a job that requires it. I'm just saying it has the potential to make you a target.
You say offense, offense against whom? How do you fight offensively when you're unconscious or dead?
I'm not against open carry, or trying to talk anyone out of doing it, or taking a job that requires it. I'm just saying it has the potential to make you a target.
When you open carry except during hunting, the bad guy or guys have to be right only one time. Nobody is in condition yellow 100% of the time. While it may deter some inexperience criminals it will however inspire some seasoned criminals and situations like this may occur.
We make assumptions that most criminals are very stupid and I bet to differ because the criminal has the upper hand because his intensions are very clear and he has scouted his surrounding and has targeted his prey. By carrying open you have provided the criminal with some options and he has the upper hand again because he has nothing to lose but you do.
Concealment is the way to go because you want to provide the element of surprise should the need arises while maintaining vigilant at all times. Even our well trained and capable Navy Seals go into battle using the element of surprise. They do not advertise themselves to the enemy. Open carry tells the criminal I'm in your way of committing any criminal activity and it makes sense when they want to eliminate the obstacle i.e. you.
We make assumptions that most criminals are very stupid and I bet to differ because the criminal has the upper hand because his intensions are very clear and he has scouted his surrounding and has targeted his prey. By carrying open you have provided the criminal with some options and he has the upper hand again because he has nothing to lose but you do.
Concealment is the way to go because you want to provide the element of surprise should the need arises while maintaining vigilant at all times. Even our well trained and capable Navy Seals go into battle using the element of surprise. They do not advertise themselves to the enemy. Open carry tells the criminal I'm in your way of committing any criminal activity and it makes sense when they want to eliminate the obstacle i.e. you.
Last edited:
Remember?
Police officers really have no choice but to open carry. Anyone remember the 1960s and early 70s? Black Liberation Army? At the time, NYPD carried their wheel guns in open top leather Jay Pee holsters, exposed to the elements. The holster came apart during a gun grab and felons refined and practiced their disarming techniques while in prison. Two sets of NYPD officers murdered were Foster and Laurie, then Jones and Piagentini. There were others.
This is the era that led to retention holsters, enhanced materials, steel reinforcement and handgun retention exercises and training. At the time, I knew several officers who carried their wheel guns with empty shell casings in them and a Browning Hi-Power concealed in a shoulder holster. The Hi-Power was the only high capacity auto available.
If young, uniformed police officers working high crime areas can be successfully disarmed, the open carry CCW will fare no better. Incidentally, one major reason for not carrying cross-draw is that the butt and grip face your adversary during a confrontation.
Police officers really have no choice but to open carry. Anyone remember the 1960s and early 70s? Black Liberation Army? At the time, NYPD carried their wheel guns in open top leather Jay Pee holsters, exposed to the elements. The holster came apart during a gun grab and felons refined and practiced their disarming techniques while in prison. Two sets of NYPD officers murdered were Foster and Laurie, then Jones and Piagentini. There were others.
This is the era that led to retention holsters, enhanced materials, steel reinforcement and handgun retention exercises and training. At the time, I knew several officers who carried their wheel guns with empty shell casings in them and a Browning Hi-Power concealed in a shoulder holster. The Hi-Power was the only high capacity auto available.
If young, uniformed police officers working high crime areas can be successfully disarmed, the open carry CCW will fare no better. Incidentally, one major reason for not carrying cross-draw is that the butt and grip face your adversary during a confrontation.
PADefenseTrainer
New member
I'll have to agree with the general sentiment that, although I support the right to open carry, I don't recommend it.
It also reminds me of the rule "Don't drink while you have a gun on you". Not only is it not safe, if someone in a bar sees your gun, he may try to take it from you (Imagine a firefight in a bar men's room).
Drugs and guns are the only things I know of that have a higher "street value" than "retail value".
Walking around with an exposed firearm may actually attract violence, which is not the goal.
TailGator makes a valid point here "... Mr. Tyler had his sidearm taken and then pursued the person who took it. If that is a correct reading, then Tyler was in those few moments in unarmed man pressing an attack on an armed man. However justifiable that may be, it is a bad tactic. If Tyler had an opportunity to get clear of the situation rather than pursue Smith he should have taken it. "
But I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing (while agreeing it's not smart).
I feel that carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility. And if someone takes possession of my gun - it's STILL my responsibility.
It also reminds me of the rule "Don't drink while you have a gun on you". Not only is it not safe, if someone in a bar sees your gun, he may try to take it from you (Imagine a firefight in a bar men's room).
Drugs and guns are the only things I know of that have a higher "street value" than "retail value".
Walking around with an exposed firearm may actually attract violence, which is not the goal.
TailGator makes a valid point here "... Mr. Tyler had his sidearm taken and then pursued the person who took it. If that is a correct reading, then Tyler was in those few moments in unarmed man pressing an attack on an armed man. However justifiable that may be, it is a bad tactic. If Tyler had an opportunity to get clear of the situation rather than pursue Smith he should have taken it. "
But I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing (while agreeing it's not smart).
I feel that carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility. And if someone takes possession of my gun - it's STILL my responsibility.
excelerater
Moderator
I have a hard time beliving the story.....sounds very fishy
+1 Pax
I believe in the right to open carry. That said, the actual practice is not a great idea without a high level retention holster. You cannot see behind you, even if you are on high alert. Perhaps one day there will be enough carriers that the danger is negated, until then, it's a good idea to be concealed in 90% of cases. You can defend OC in any number of ways, but there is an inherit danger with relatively low numbers of the population carrying firearms. In most instances, statistically, there will be no one to back you up. That's a real problem for me.
I believe in the right to open carry. That said, the actual practice is not a great idea without a high level retention holster. You cannot see behind you, even if you are on high alert. Perhaps one day there will be enough carriers that the danger is negated, until then, it's a good idea to be concealed in 90% of cases. You can defend OC in any number of ways, but there is an inherit danger with relatively low numbers of the population carrying firearms. In most instances, statistically, there will be no one to back you up. That's a real problem for me.
I think if some people were as fine and upstanding as some of the folks on this board seem to think some folks are, and other folks are as rotten and untrustworthy as some folks on this board seem to think they are, that it would be no problem if we could quickly identify which is which. If that day ever happens there would be no need for guns would there ?
Fear seems to blind us all. It is easy to identify those that live in fear.
Fear seems to blind us all. It is easy to identify those that live in fear.