Touchy subject

There is no data that suggest that either will give you anything over the other its all assumption
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this appears to be a correct statement. To date, it seems as if there hasn't been any reason or interest in collecting this data. There are plenty of studies on defensive firearm use in the states, however, none of those studies focus on OC vs. CC. In fact, in some general sources I found via Google, it appeared that studies involving defensive handgun use by concealed firearms didn't really begin to develop until the 1970s and 80s.

Those studies do indicate that an average of around 80%* of defensive firearm uses are people with concealed firearms. These studies leave open questions like "What percentage of these inicidents would not have occurred if the victim were openly carrying?" or even a more applicable question which is harder to answer..."How many incidents have never occurred due to the perspective victim openly carrying a firearm?".

So, in the presence of a lack of data, it is correct to assume that everyone's opinion is conjecture based on their own beliefs and preferences.

* Study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz on "Defensive Gun Use"
 
Wildalaska you stated that OC'ing is dumb and makes us look bad. May I ask your reasoning behind that?
Click to expand...

First of all I apologize, I left out the words "Absent extraordinary circumstances"

I know its rude to ask a question with a question but in your part of the world, (which seems wonderful) would you consider wearing a metal umbrella on your head if you were statistically more likely to get struck by lightening?

Or, more appropo, would you carry around a tire iron since in your area it is MORE LIKELY you will see a falt tire than a target.

This thread hasnt popped up in a while (or as usual I ahvent been looking) but my usual answer is that open carry marks one as either a Rambo or a radical besides being tactically suspect.

And folks, we dont carry guns to "educate" the sheeple, this sheep doesnt want to eductated by anyones agenda.

WildsurefiresbuggingmetodayrealbadAlaska
 
Highwayman,
You did not seem that way to me. I did use your words 'cards on the table' but, have heard it described by others the same way. I was simply posting my opinion on some of the 'reasons' against open carry.

To clarify my position:

I am not a ninjitsu or bad-ass, nor do I have the ego for it. I do not try to go out of my way to offend people, it is not a factor in my method of carry, so I hope I haven't done that here. That is not my intention in either instance.

Some people are not sheep, just uninformed and they are asking the questions. I carry a 'pistol', some people choose to make it a 'question generator'. So, these folks seem to want to be informed and usually thank me for my answers to their questions.

I personally have never been neither 'attacked by BGs' nor 'detained by LEOs' because of my method of carry. This makes me feel as though it may not be a 'big deal' to most people here.

I do consider myself to be intelligent, but I probably couldn't belong to MENSA. Basically 'I can read and stuff'. Average Joe Public.

I do not feel that either way is a definite, clear-cut and superior option to the other. Each has it's advantages in one scenario that soon becomes a disadvantages in another one. You choose for yourself which one is comfortable to you and please allow me the same freedom of choice.

ARMED is the option, and on that I think we all agree. :)
 
Whitefeather

If you are comfortable with oc then enjoy it while you can. I moved to the area 23 years ago and since then the population in my township has more than tripled. Berks county is next, it is only a matter of time.

I would not oc in my area given the number of refuges from Philly who now live in the suburbs (former rural). I therefore limit my carry to cc and I am comfortable with that choice. I can't imagine you going to Zerns in that rig. :D
 
Highwayman I think you have hit on a point that does often give a bad opinion of anyone who OC's simple because some have done it for that reason. But then there are those who CC for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Whitefeather, you are absolutely right, and I should have clarified in my post. People that carry with ego in mind are not limited solely to those that open carry. I have a couple of friends who's decisions to carry are based entirely on ego. You can see it in the way they act and how they talk about carrying. (I'm working on one, and he is getting much better about being subtle.). Both of these friends conceal carry.

Again, it's not HOW one carries, but the MINDSET one has while carrying.

ARMED is the option, and on that I think we all agree.
Click to expand...

Amen Preacher. Amen.
 
Oh my....the irony :p :D

Wildalaska said:

I think open carry is dumb and counterproductive to the image of gun owners. So is the term sheeple.
Click to expand...

Wildalaska later said:

And folks, we dont carry guns to "educate" the sheeple, this sheep doesnt want to eductated by anyones agenda.
Click to expand...

BTW, I disagree that our fellow Americans don't want to be educated by anyone's agenda. I, personally, have had the opportunity to have pleasant discussions with multiple fellow Americans on their own rights.

Where you are right is where your statement applies to the hardcore and/or ardent anti-rights activists who cannot be reasoned with.
 
I think things are different in a rural community than in an urban community. People in a rural community generally have some touch with reality vis a vis firearms. However, it's where the two worlds intersect that the problems begin. Urban people get hysterical about firearms (until they get mugged).

In places like Arizona where there is both CCW and OC, I would imagine there's massive amounts of confusion.

I live in Connecticut right now, where there is no OC; but I plan to move to Tucson the next year. I think I'll continue to carry concealed, because I don't want everybody to know I have a gun.
 
would you consider wearing a metal umbrella on your head if you were statistically more likely to get struck by lightening?

Or, more appropo, would you carry around a tire iron since in your area it is MORE LIKELY you will see a falt tire than a target.
Click to expand...

Question B: Yes I do carry a Tire iron around in my jeep incase somebody needs a helping hand. And as it stands now I do not go out looking for targets.

Question A: Yes... Provided you could prove that there are statistics out there that confirm such a hypothisis. And it would edgucate those around me to the dangers of playing out in a thunderstorm.

Unfortunetly I do not see how that relates or answers my question.

Yes I have carried at zerns. And no I would not OC at zerns that is a rather crowded place and as I have stated OC is not for everywhere.

I am not tryingn to persuade anyone who does not wish to OC to try it. And I hope everyone understands that I do not parade around my town like Rambo and what have you. This is not a movie nor is it a joke to me. I had a question that I could not work out within myself. So I turned the members here to help me understand. As I said in the begginning I wanted cons and pros.

For all those that are interested or maybe view OC in a different light because of some of the conversation held here. http://www.opencarry.org is an amazing website to visit. They offer information on all 50 states. You may want to check them out to get a better understanding than what has been provided here.

The bottom line here is that the edgucation of people willing to learn and who a interested should not be put off by rumors, inclinations and confrontation. I for one didn't not go into the idea of OC'ing as being a good thing. But there have been many statements concerning OC and after trying it once or twice and having positive results I will continue to do so. I thank everyone for their opinions and thoughts and for keeping this civil and not a arguement.
 
I have read the entire thread and found it to be very interesting.

When I was growing up, I hung out with a lot of older guys who were very involved with the NRA. In those days the organization was populated by a lot of current and former Border Patrol Agents. Many of these guys had been in more than a few gunfights during their careers. To the man, they all said that the guy who walks away from the fight will always be the guy who maintains his cool, and delivers controlled, aimed fire on his opponent. Now I suppose it is possible that gun-fighting has changed since then, but I don't think so.

I have seen literally hundreds of robbery videos. Not on Utube or my space or cops, but first hand examination of the actual tape from the crime scene. The days of Bonnie and Clyde take over style bank robberies are all but gone. By far and away the way this is done today, is a quiet note to the teller. Only if the robbery goes south does it turn into a hostage situation.

The same holds true for robbery of convenience stores. These are mostly crash and grab, but if a gun is used, it is almost universally visible before the robber enters the store, Equally universal is the focus of the robber on the cashier, and they will almost always wait until there are not any customers around. Usually the customers that are there are allowed to scatter, and run away. This is what the robber expects, and in fact the confusion is usually part of their plan.

With that as a backdrop, there is absolutely no evidence that OC makes anyone more of a target than CC. In the almost impossible event of a takeover, while you are in the store as a customer, you would be far better served by rapid unobstructed access to your weapon, than by having it buried under your cover garment. The police know this simple fact, and that is why they OC instead of CC. Uniformed LEOs are already targets because of their uniform, but they are also a deterrent for the same reason.

The same holds true for someone in OC mode. Robbers do not want trouble. They want the money, and to get away. They will check the store out before they begin, and if they see your gun, they will wait for you to leave. There are a lot of cases when a LEO had left a store only moments before it was robbed. This was not a mistake or luck, it was planed that way by the robber.

In a Lubbys style or VT type mass murder attempt the faster you can get to your weapon the faster you could defend yourself and shut the incident down. OC or CC will play no part in making you a target as everyone in sight is destined to be a target.

The way a person carries a firearm is a personal matter with a lot of variables involved. I agree with the idea that the more people see of lawful citizens carrying, the more it will come back into acceptance. Does it raise some eyebrows? in some cases yes as is evidenced by some of the reactions in this thread. But in many more there is absolutely no attention paid whatsoever ever. Can it instigt a LEO interface? Yes, but if you are lawful, and polite, these pass uneventfully in most cases.

Personally I carry OC or CC indiscriminately. I apply equal situational awareness either way, and that level of awareness is always very high. The idea that someone might attempt to take the weapon is always a possibility, and I watch for that. But I have yet to see any case reported where that has happened either. Is it more common for police to have that issue, but this is almost universally while they are attempting to handcuff a suspect. In other-words they are already in or very near to a scuffle with a suspect when it happens. That is not an armed citizen scenario. If you are scuffling you gave up your advantage long before your gun was seen by your opponent.

To sum up. Criminals are predators. Like all predators they look for weak targets. There is no supporting evidence for the concept that an alert, aware person becomes a target by OCing. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and some research, that supports the concept that a person in OC mode, might deter or delay a criminal until the citizen leaves, or the criminal leaves looking for a softer target, just as is the case with LEOs in OC mode. That research says that over 2.5 million crimes are deterred by the mere presence of a firearm in the possession of a law abiding citizen every year, with no shots fired.

If the weapon is concealed there is NO deterrent value whatsoever, and a criminal is actually encouraged to proceed with the crime. The only true advantage to CC over OC is that it will allow arriving police to avoid the mistake of shooting the wrong armed person, which is a possibility if they arrive on the scene of a crime in progress. But this is also not very common.

As for alarming citizens, the more they see armed citizens, the less alarm it will produce. But OC or CC is a personal choice, driven by the needs of the individual.

Regards
 
I had thought I written my last...

But welcome to the forum!! And bravo on the book there. I appriciate the comment and I hope you enjoy many of the other rousing posts on this forum. I thank you for your insight and the time you spent. And again welcome!:)
 
there is absolutely no evidence that OC makes anyone more of a target than CC.
Click to expand...

And there is absolutely no evidence that it makes one less...

So we are left to opinions, which are based on ones own reality.

WildandminesurelydiffersfromyoursAlaska

PS Attention "guests" who may read this Board...there are a significant number of gun owning folks here and in real life who look askance at willy nilly open carry to satisfy ego needs, no matter how high falutin their personal rationale is.
 
+1 Hawkflyer

alaska -
opinions vary - we could agree to disagree or just shout insults across the way. But insulting I do not think is very productive.
 
This "ego" question has been raised a few times in this thread. The fact is that there are at least as many CC carriers that carry to satisfy their ego as there are OC carriers. I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.

The actual question was, is there any evidence that OC deters crime verses CC. The fact is that CC is NOT a crime deterrent, it is a method of firearms carry designed to take an opponent by surprise. If the criminal does not know you have the weapon how could he possibly be deterred by its presence. There is a lot of data that supports the idea that OC IS a deterrent. Why do you think armed security patrols and LEOs open carry? It is a deterrent, and if an incident occurs they can activate the weapon faster and easier. But neighborhood patrols, and visibility patrols, are all about deterring crime. The deterrent is not the presence of a human, the deterrent is the presence of a human that is KNOWN to be armed.

In fact there is a distinct possibility that CC promotes crime by providing a feeling of security to the criminal. Many people who CC feel invulnerable, and they will go places that they would not ordinarily go because they are armed and feel safer. This places them into situations that they would not encounter if they lived within the self preservation fear zone that results from being totally unarmed.

If one is carrying for self defense, the best defensive tactic would be to avoid ANY situation that would produce an armed conflict in the first instance. Most gunfights begin with at least enough conversation for the participants to get angry at each other. It seems to me that most people would be somewhat more polite talking to an armed man than an apparently unarmed man, and most criminals would avoid the encounter in the first place. So the possibility of having to use a weapon for defense would be reduced if it was out there before the encounter starts.

Most of the objections to OC I have seen here relate to the surprise value and tactical advantage of CC verses OC. You only need that tactical advantage and surprise if your plan for a conflict is based in the intend to use the gun to solve a conflict after it starts. Given the forgoing premise, it might be concluded that the actual purpose of CC verses OC is to provide the opportunity for a surprise attack rather than simply avoid conflict for defensive purposes. So it would follow that CC is really about allowing an opponent to escalate a conflict and providing the opportunity to shoot that opponent by surprise, rather than avoiding the conflict in the first place.

I CC and OC indifferently. Because of this I do not worry about printing, or if people know I am armed. The largest difference between OC and CC is that OC demands a level of situational awareness that most CCers are not trained for and do not have the desire to apply in daily life. It is often said God created all men but Sam Colt made them equal. This is only true if everyone is armed, and everyone else knows it.

Regards
 
Hawkflyer,

First welcome aboard. I agree with your point of view fully. I too beleive that OC is a deterrant to crime. I do not have the privledge in Texas to OC unless on my own property, but I would welcome open carry in Texas with OPEN ARMS.
 
Thank you for your kind words.

I was just in your wonderful state a couple of months ago. I was amazed to find that even PRINTING a weapon is an offense. In TEXAS of all places. What a surprise to discover that the Bowie knife is also illegal in Texas. I thought the Bowie knife was almost an Icon of the state, and it is all but illegal to own.

At least my Virginia CHP was good enough to allow me to carry while I was there. Arkansas was a different matter. I s really amazing how a person has to plan major elements of a cross country drive around all the laws of the several states.

Regards
 
Everyone wants data to show cc has a tactical advantage over oc. imo, it is common sense that cc has tactical advantage. simple, if forced to use lethal force, the element of suprise could be huge. Not in every situation, maybe not in most situations but definetely in some situations, which is enough for me. I don't train for only the situations i can see on a video or see statistics on; I try and train also for the worst case sceneios. A slightly slower draw from concealment but always from with an element of suprise, to me that is an awesome trade off in favor of cc.

No doubt oc has deterrence advantages, but that is not my job or goal. Giving up my 'suprise' by allowing a bg to see i am carrying before I know he is about to harm or kill someone is not worth the deterrent advantages. If by oc, I deter 100 crimes, but lost a huge tactical advantage in 1 crime, I have lost ultimately and it is not worth the 1 I could have won if i had that advantage.

I would invite anyone taking a self defense classes from a highly regarded trainer, to ask their opinion of the tactical advantage or even the common sense between cc and oc. I am sure you would find an overwhelming percentage would facor cc.

I dont want my friends, coworkers, next guy in line at store to know I am carrying.
 
The fact is that there are at least as many CC carriers that carry to satisfy their ego as there are OC carriers.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but this thread is about OC

I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.
Click to expand...

O really...tell that to folks who may be scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed simply to satisfy an adolescent "look at me"....

WildisthatinflammatoryAlaska
 
I would invite anyone taking a self defense classes from a highly regarded trainer, to ask their opinion of the tactical advantage or even the common sense between cc and oc. I am sure you would find an overwhelming percentage would favor (sic) cc.
Click to expand...

Since OC is not allowed here it might not be a big issue but I asked about this in my CCW class, because I was thinking that showing a gun would be a great deterent.

But the point raised seems very valid to me. Showing a gun could raise up the risks in the situation at times. (Some people might react to that as a challenge instead of a deterent.)

Since I am not a sharp shooter or the fastest draw, I would likely loose in a gun fight. So, cover and surprise are best for me. Therefore, it appears that concealed would be better for me.

But I don't have a problem with open carry for others. I think in OC states it should be a choice. If someone wants to conceal they should be allowed to.
 
Wildalaska-

Actually the thread is about "Touchy Subjects". and I am guessing the OP has actually found one.

I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.

O really...tell that to folks who may be scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed simply to satisfy an adolescent "look at me"....
Click to expand...

Yes really. And I don't think many other Law Enforcement professionals would find your characterization of their motives for OC accurate or pertinent either. But since the issue seems to be important to you, with apologies to those who expected this thread to stay on topic, lets discuss it for a moment.

If people are "scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed" by the sight of a gun, then they have an unnatural fear of an inanimate object. That fear has NOTHING to do with the motivations of the person carrying the firearm. So if impact on the public of OC is the issue, the motivation of the carrier is irrelevant. Moreover, your contention that ego is the underlaying purpose of the carrier is an unsupported, gratuitous assumption. It is even more so since you seem dedicated to apply that motive to me, and we have never even met. You could not possibly have any idea what motivates me to carry either OC or CC beyond irrational projection of your own motives onto me. While ego may be the driving force for your carry of a firearm, it has nothing to do with my motives.

I suspect because you are uncomfortable with open carry, you project that view onto others as well, and assume that everyone will be frightened by the sight of a firearm. Those of us who do OC, can assure you that people do not run from us screaming, GUN, GUN, LOOK THERE IS A GUN!

To be sure we do see SOME people who stare, still fewer will actually ask about it, and most OCers take the time to teach about the carry issue, and firearms rights. While it has never happened to me, I understand that very rarely someone will call the police, and in almost all Virginia jurisdictions they will be told that OC is perfectly legal, and that is the end of it. 99.9 percent of the time people do not even notice.

I have a CHP and as I said before I carry OC and CC quite indifferently, depending on MY needs at the time. If you choose to cut your carry options in half that is your choice. I choose to expand my options, and exercise my rights as I see fit, so long as I do not infringe the rights of others. People have a right to choose not to carry a firearm, but when out in public, they do NOT have the right to not see others doing so. If the sight of a gun in possess of a lawful citizen disturbs them then they should divert their view and seek counseling for their affliction.

Regards
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top