So who open carries?

[mrray13]

WHY? How is the latter a threat to you?

exactly, and that's why, more often times then not, that would be the choice as a victim. no threat.

Now if the perp is just out looking for an easy victim in a parking lot, I agree that he will likely avoid the man with a gun on his belt (the exception would occur if there are several perps who strongly desire to get the gun and are willing to try to get the man from behind, or if one is armed to shoot first).

yep..and to your second point, i'll agree. multiple perps changes the situation, but then again, OC can prove to be a deterrent. they know he's armed, and they know they will either have to take him out first or one of them will probably get hurt. which one get's that job? i remember a movie with kenny rogers in it where all he as is a derringer, and a BG goes "all he has is two shots and there's more of us". kenny's character responds something like,"yeah, but which two want to die?"

But the scenario we've been discussing is the crime in progress, where the person carrying openly represents a clear and present danger unless he is taken out.

but the BG has to see the OC. you are assuming he will the instant the person walks in and thus the OC person has no time. i'll argue that the BG will not look at one's waist first, but rather swing in their direction to bark orders. and if the BG is bent on harm, i'll argue it won't matter, if he's completely surprised, you are shot walking in in any case.

most BGs are not trained individuals. they will not look at your waist, and in this situation, you just surprised them. they are more then likely looking at your grill, not your gut. and a person OCing will have a moment to blade away and make their strength even less likely to be seen.

 

[OldMarksman]

exactly, and that's why, more often times then not, that would be the choice as a victim. no threat.

That's where we are not understanding each other. I'm assuming that the perp with the gun wants to get the money and get away fast, has no real desire to shoot anyone unless he has to, and will do anything to avoid being shot or captured.

From that, I deduce he will not deliberately shoot a bystander who appears unarmed. Why would he do so????

From that, I also deduce that he may well shoot a policeman who walks in, a citizen carrying openly, or a person carrying concealed who tries to draw, purely to avoid being shot or captured. In the case I mentioned that Ayoob described, the perp shot an off-duty policeman who was forced to draw (and who would otherwise not have done so) when someone pointed out that he was a policeman.

Now even if the first assumption is wrong--assuming that the perp has no compunction about bloodshed--who in his right mind would choose to take out the unarmed person first, when doing so could possibly give the person carrying openly time to do him in?

but the BG has to see the OC. you are assuming he will the instant the person walks in and thus the OC person has no time.

Do you really think that a man with a gun in a holster, whose adrenalin is at a normal level and who is surprised to have walked into a most dangerous situation, stands a chance against a desperate man with a gun in his hand who is alert and will do anything for self preservation?

Seventy-plus years ago, Ed McGivern debunked the old myth that a fast man with a gun could start reaching for his gun after another man had already reached for his and still beat the other to the draw. How do you think he would have fared had the other man already had his gun in his hand and his finger on the trigger?

Have you been able in training scenarios to draw and shoot someone with a gun in his hand who already has the drop on you?

 

[mrray13]

That's where we are not understanding each other

that's because we are on different pages...we have two different situations going on...

if you are set on mugging someone and two people are walking down the street, one is openly armed, the other isn't, who are you going after?

that one, which lead to this responses...

Quote:
WHY? How is the latter a threat to you?

exactly, and that's why, more often times then not, that would be the choice as a victim. no threat.

and the one in which you surprise a robbery in progress...

Do you really think that a man with a gun in a holster, whose adrenalin is at a normal level and who is surprised to have walked into a most dangerous situation, stands a chance against a desperate man with a gun in his hand who is alert and will do anything for self preservation?

do you think that BG is so alert as to immediately look at that plainclothes wearing citizens hip and see if he's carrying? i don't believe so.

again, if that BG is just after money, he spins and barks orders, if you listen, you can blade and await your chance, or at least have that split second of draw/move while he's not fully aware of your situation. and yes, if you draw/move and the BG is standing still, chances are, he'll miss. he will be aiming where you was, not where you are going. and this is based upon draw/move training against a stationary BG.of course this all assumes our BG isn't really there to hurt anyone, just for money and our GG has enough training to know not to stand still and draw.

if that BG is completely surprised and cares less about human life, you are probably shot the moment you surprise him regardless of choice of carry.

Have you been able in training scenarios to draw and shoot someone with a gun in his hand who already has the drop on you?

by moving while drawing, yes. standing still, no. and sometimes the BG will indeed still get a hit on a person who moves/draws, but in training scenarios the BG is always going to shoot, and they know you might be moving. in real life, the BG might not be so commited to killing adn he/she will definitely not know you are moving.



again..all my humble, honest, lowly opinion. except the the move/draw statements. that training is catching on, and is showing itself to work consistantly..in person on person training anyway.

 

[Al Norris]

How about a real life, as in I lived through it, situation? One in which Open Carry did make a difference?

My story of Open Carry may be found here: Part I and Part II.

People see what they want to see. They also miss what is in plain sight. I suspect I know the reasons, but that's just supposition on my part. The fact remains that most people who don't carry, don't notice the sidearm right off the bat. Add to this, that many people who carry concealed, don't notice my sidearm either.

 

[JohnKSa]

How about a real life, as in I lived through it, situation? One in which Open Carry did make a difference?

There's no denying the deterrent power of large numbers of folks openly armed.

what i disagree with is your arguement, and OldMarksman's, that a BG will IMMEDIATEILY notice a plainclothes wearing citizen OCing when they walk in on him commiting a crime. they just don't look at the waist first. too many things going on, and if your lucky, your not shot just walking in.

I didn't say that he would immediately NOTICE it, I said you would have to RESPOND immediately. Otherwise you do risk it being noticed at which point you will be shot, forced into a quick draw or disarmed.

that goes both ways. you'll argue to take out the openly armed person, i'll argue to take out the weak, or appearing unarmed, person.

You're arguing both sides against the middle here. On the one hand you keep saying that criminals don't want to hurt anyone and on the other hand you keep saying that they'll take a person out whether they're a threat or not.

If they don't want to hurt anyone, as you say, then it stands to reason that they won't automatically incapacitate/neutralize a person unless they feel it's necessary. Being openly armed would obviously make it necessary while appearing non-threatening would make it pointless for a criminal to expend the extra effort to incapacitate/neutralize them.

if that BG is just after money, he spins and barks orders, if you listen, you can blade and await your chance

In other words, you can CONCEAL your weapon from him until there is an advantageous time to respond. So, I guess we agree that there is, indeed, value in having a concealed weapon in certain circumstances...

i apologize if i'm a bit sarcastic, but that question rubs me very wrong.

The question was tied to the fact that you made it sound like you'd never heard of the scenario I described which, while perhaps not ubiquitous, is not at all obscure.

Your righteous indignation on behalf of all LE/LEOs is completely unwarranted. It's quite clear from the context that the point of the question wasn't to impugn LE or the people who work in LE, but rather to wonder at what kind of LEO had no knowledge of the "herd them into the back room" scenario. I suppose that you can take PERSONAL offense if you want, but even that would be contrived now that you admit you have heard of it happening.

 

[mrray13]

You're arguing both sides against the middle here

and you're not???? comeon man, you've agreed to both sides of the arguement, yet you want to validate yourself by saying i'm waffling.

I didn't say that he would immediately NOTICE it, I said you would have to RESPOND immediately.

but you won't. and you later spin that too...and that is not what you first stated. and even if you do, you have a slight advantage. the BG isn't looking for that.

In other words, you can CONCEAL your weapon from him until there is an advantageous time to respond

yep..my bad. you got me there. way to twist it to fit. but you are correct, it is concealing.

On the one hand you keep saying that criminals don't want to hurt anyone and on the other hand you keep saying that they'll take a person out whether they're a threat or not.

and in the same breathe! but the way you state it is NOT what i'm saying, what i'm saying is the majority of BGs aren't out to just cause bodily harm, they would rather flee then flight. there are those that will, but they are the exception rather then the rule. and again, teh one's with absolutely no worries about human life will most likely shot you uponing surprising them. neither method of carry will be of help.


so yeah, i guess you are right again, i am saying both things. but then again, maybe i'm right, and both kinds do exist.i mean, the majority i face are running away if they can. i've only had to get hands on twice, the rest comply willingly when caught. and yeah, i know the uniform helps, but the point is still the same. flee if they can, fight only if they have too and the ones with no respect for life will harm regardless.

Your righteous indignation on behalf of all LE/LEOs is completely unwarranted

really? sorry, didn't mean to be rightous. but then again, what kind of LE are you in? i'm assuming armchair?



until you can come off YOUR highhorse, i'm done discussing this with you. Oldmarksman and others, i'll still acknowledge. i'm sure you'll spin this too, and that's fine John. no biggie. you have a good day.

 

[OldMarksman]

I've said all that I can, though perhaps not as effectively as John, with whose every word on this I agree completely.

 

[onthejon55]

OhioAAA! Having a firearm in a financial lending institution is eillegal unless you are employed there as a armed gard, or you are a LEO. It's a fed. law no matter what state or territory you are standing in. Your banker can't even have a working gun in a shadow box on his wall. OC or CC it doesn't matter in the bank.

Ive seen more than one instance of a CCL holder killing or restraining someone who attempts to rob a bank yet they never face charges...

 

[Al Norris]

There's no denying the deterrent power of large numbers of folks openly armed.

So let's start with that assumption.

The question I pose, is how do we get from here to there? A subsidiary question would be: Is such a deterrent to be preferred?

To answer the first question is rather simple. We start by carrying openly, in those States that allow such (arguably, Heller supports this, albeit in dicta). Just as people became used to not seeing guns, people can and will become used to seeing them again.

The answer to the subsidiary question is a little more nuanced. Certainly, a drop in crime is a good thing. I would also think that such a reduction, caused by the actions of the people themselves, would be a better response than adding a plethora of more laws that only appear to make unlawful behavior, um, more unlawful. Almost always to the detriment of the peoples freedoms, however.

What little has been put forth in this thread, is that an individual, openly armed, may not be the best way for self defense. What has been ignored is precisely the concept shown in my linked commentary.

Is this something only rural States can achieve? Shall we be honest and say we simply don't know? Open carry has been out of favor, in many communities, for upwards of 100 years.

 

[JohnKSa]

So let's start with that assumption.

I think we can go farther and call it a theorem. I really don't think that there's any question about whether it's true or not.

I'll answer your subsdiary question first. YES, having a significant percentage of the population openly carrying is definitely to be desired, and yes, the deterrent value of such a situation is to be desired. As I mentioned, and as your example demonstrates, openly displayed weapons contribute to civilization/civilized behavior. It is a good thing when the bad guys fear the good guys as opposed to just fearing being punished by the courts.

Some folks aren't going to be "civilized" by laws and courts, they need the very present threat of imminent serious injury or death in order to behave.

The answer to your first question is answered in part by your example.

The way you get people to do anything is to demonstrate that it's beneficial or enjoyable for them to do it. Most people are not going to find open carry enjoyable so the way is to help them realize it's beneficial. UNFORTUNATELY, it's only really obviously beneficial in pretty undesirable situations and the benefits are (as we've seen) debateable unless you can get others to join in.

So, put a number of reasonably independent thinkers in an undesirable, dangerous situation where open carry is legal. Then provide them with an example to demonstrate the benefit of open carry and hope they make the connection that it's even more beneficial if a united front is presented.

There are some problems with implementation, here are some of the ones I see:

1. Many such unsafe, undesirable situations occur where open carry is not legal or where firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

2. Many people in such areas tend to look to the government for help as opposed to looking for a way to solve the problems themselves.

3. Government/LE has a tendency to see such behavior as threatening and can work to undermine or prevent such "movements".

4. It takes someone who is willing to stand up and be the example. Unfortunately, until folks join in, that someone is, to some extent, more vulnerable than before because he's no longer got "flock protection". The fish that strays out of the school becomes a target for predators, and this situation is no different.

 

[OldMarksman]

We start by carrying openly, in those States that allow such (arguably, Heller supports this, albeit in dicta). Just as people became used to not seeing guns, people can and will become used to seeing them again.

Have you considered the likelihood of an undesirable reaction?

I got my CCW endorsement last year, and told two neighbors.

I don't know if word of that had anything to do with it (we have some people on the street who are very active in city government), but almost immediately thereafter the city council, without prior public discussion or announcement, overwhelmingly passed an ordnance prohibiting both concealed and open carry.

No effect, however--the state limits county and municipal powers to the question of open carry and to limitations on discharging firearms. Open carry is already prohibited by our county. Stupid!

But--that illustrates how virulent the anti-gun sentiment is in some areas, particularly among elitists.

I think legalization and responsible open carry could make a difference in small towns where people know and respect each other. But in an impersonal highly populated area where the majority are highly self centered and egotistical, I think the effect of having people carry openly may well be to get both open and concealed carry outlawed.

Now, if every person carrying openly had the stage presence and demeanor of Tom Selleck or Robert Taylor, that would be less likely--perhaps. But most people do not. Every frown, every darting glance for the purpose of "situational awareness" on the part of a man carrying on his belt will most certainly be seen by at least some as potentially threatening and dangerous. The concern raised by that will not help at all.

We still have editorials and letters to the editors excoriating candidates who supported the CCW bill years ago, and there hasn't been one instance to substantiate the fears expressed by the antis then.

I don't know just what it is that makes people think that "exercising a right" by carrying openly in such environments will help guarantee it's preservation. That exercise doesn't work like sit-ups. Rather, I think it may and likely will work to endanger the right.

Now, that's most probably not true in Rupert, Idaho, and it may well not be true in small towns in Colorado or the nicer parts of Pennsylvania and even upstate NY (don't hold your breath), but it sure wold be true where I live, in a populous county in the middle of the country, and I'm sure we're not alone.

Our CCW law was very narrowly passed by the legislature over the governor's veto. Some time before that, a different CCW provision (and the antis won't admit the differences, which were put in to respond to public concerns) was very narrowly defeated at the ballot box. The no vote in the populated areas was overwhelming.

The majority in those areas will never "get used to seeing guns again." Actually, their great grandparents never saw them carried openly.

 

[lowbud]

I open carry here in TN. But it's not quite that open casue it's uasally covered by a shirt. Us ummm bigger guys have a problem hiding a weapon or at least I do. If I waer one on my side it cuts into me.. In the back pocket it yanks my pants down, inside the waistband, yeah right.. lol i aint buyin no bigger pants!! so I just wear it on the belt if I'm carryin a larger gun. If I happen to grab the P3AT.. it does in the front pocket.

Cheers!

 

[Enoy21]

Around here I'm sure I could pull it off and most people would think I am law enforcement based on clothing to match it.

Although I grew up here and most here know who I am in some way shape or form.... and most know I am not law enforcement.

I don't know that I would feel comfortable Open Carrying in any situation that is not out in the woods or away from most civies.

I can see both arguments that the one OC'ing is the first target .... Also , that an attacker may try and take the gun from the holster from behind ( if I'm using one that does not have a strap )

I'm a pretty small guy and a 6'3" 250 lb attacker would have a decent shot at getting it from me if I was caught unaware.

 

[Elvishead]

Without going into a head-spins reading all this,but just enough.

I openly have my hand in my pocket, holding (finger off trigger) my CCW S&W J-Frame 638 (Shrouded hammer) Airweight ready to draw.

I love it, because it's ready to go, and nobody else, except for me notices.

BOOM, your died!
And I can do that faster than you have read this.

I don't know if it's illegal to hold your gun in your hands in your pocket, but I've walked passed security guards, holding my pistol CCW.

Note, I live in Vegas, and these are done at the casino's.

TBS, I would never OC in Las Vegas.

 

[ChCx91]

The only time I OC is at work, hunting, fishing or at the range; of course when I do OC I make sure I have my badge and department ID on my person.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I don't know if it's illegal to hold your gun in your hands in your pocket, but I've walked passed security guards, holding my pistol CCW.

Note, I live in Vegas, and these are done at the casino's.

Wow, it's legal to carry in the casinos?

 

[Elvishead]

Stevie-Ray:

Wow, it's legal to carry in the casinos?

In most of NV you can CCW, but they can kick you out for trespassing if they want, if they found you out to be carrying.

Even if they have a sign saying no guns (Not including schools, court houses.....), they can't put you in jail, but they can ban you for life worse case scenario.

Or if your drinking and CCWs, it's the same as a DUI as far as legal levels, and you can lose your CCW permit, but I won't have one drink with my gun in the pocket.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

they can't put you in jail, but they can ban you for life worse case scenario.

Or if your drinking and CCWs, it's the same as a DUI as far as legal levels, and you can lose your CCW permit, but I won't have one drink with my gun in the pocket.

Well, that settles it then. I spend too much time at the casinos there swillin their free beer and putting the machines on autopilot. I'll continue to leave my guns in Michigan. Just wondering, as Michigan laws prohibit carry in casinos.