Touchy subject

[Hawkflyer]

Xenia-

While accuracy, speed, cover, movement and power have a great deal to do with successful gun fighting, the importance of these elements are rarely fully equal. The most important is accuracy. A bullet placed on target is worth hundreds that miss. A large powerful bullet placed on target is of greater value than a smaller one in the same place. Getting the firearm into action quickly is important, but not at the total disregard of accuracy. I could go on but you get the idea.

OC is not perfect for all situations. But then neither is CC. A person must assess a lot of factors before deciding, and this assessment is done before and during any excursion. It is not unlike a lot of other factors involved in carrying a firearm. There is much to learn, and prepare for BEFORE a person assumes the responsibility of carrying ANY deadly weapon.

You have to assess your particular situation, get trained (you have started this process but it never really ends), pick a reasonable firearm for your purposes, determine a reasonable carry mode for your situation, equip your self for your needs, and in short do what is right for you. I would agree that CC is appropriate in certain circumstances. But OC is better at times as well.

If you are afraid that if someone sees your weapon and that disadvantages you in some way, by all means CC. But if you are not able to control a cover garment while drawing, this inhibits your draw, and throws the balance of elements required for self defense we are trying to achieve in favor of your opponent. If you do not have time to seek cover, or there is none, or you ability to move is limited, then the advantage you gained by concealment will actually shift, not to neutral, but to a negative.

No one is saying that OC is perfect in all situations and so everyone should carry that way. What a number of us here ARE saying is that it is not anymore negative than CC, and there is no reason for people to be critical of those that decide for their own purposes to OC rather than CC. What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry, and how closed minded CC only people are to this concept.

Why would any reasonable person simply ignore 50% of the available options for solving the personal defense question, when there is no actual evidence that other options are not at least as reasonable a choice. By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying. These days a fanny pack is a dead give away, so is a jacket during a 95 degree 80% humidity day here in Virginia.

Regards

 

[Wildalaska]

And I don't think many other Law Enforcement professionals would find your characterization of their motives for OC accurate or pertinent either

We arent talking law enforcement we are talking civilians.

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.

OK lets (and it is on topic)...heck I have already gone over this 20x over the years, might as well do it again.

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.

BS...and you know it....so try this one....you are out a 5 am on a deserted street and you see a dreadlocked Rasta walking towards you and he has...hmm a double shoulder rig with twin chorme Desert Eagles...do you go just a teeny weeny itsy bit condition yellow?

If you are honest?

Now think of soccer mommy buying infant formula in the local Food Lion when in walks rambo?

Unnatural fear of the inanimate object? or natural concern for her safety from a baltantly armed unkown person?

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.

I mean if the shoe fits wear it, but I dont recall referring to you.

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!

Im not uncomfortable with open carry at all..I just find the motives of many open carriers suspect...

exercise my rights as I see fit, so long as I do not infringe the rights of others.

Thats right! I have a gun and everyone elses feelings be damned! Even if it is totally inappropriate, MY ego needs triumph

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.

Nice...

O and how to they KNOW you are a lawful citizen. In their view, you might be a nut case. Ah what the heck, they need help anyway.

Unlike the guys carrying guns in public

hey this isnt the wILD wEST, ITS 2007!


WildSHOULDERHOLSTERaLASKA

 

[JohnKSa]

I was amazed to find that even PRINTING a weapon is an offense. In TEXAS of all places.

Incorrect.

"(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun."

The fact is that CC is NOT a crime deterrent...

Incorrect. Studies have shown that when a CCW bill passes in a state, violent crime decreases. NOT because criminals see people walking around with guns but because they DON'T KNOW WHO is walking around with guns.

In fact, even those who choose not to carry reap the benefits precisely because of the inability of criminals to discern who's armed and who's not.

In fact there is a distinct possibility that CC promotes crime by providing a feeling of security to the criminal.

Demonstrably false.

What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry...

Yes--while asserting that it does nothing to prevent crime and may actually promote crime...remarkably open-minded of you!

By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying.

Incorrect from a legal perspective--at least in my state. And also incorrect in general if your examples of "someone being able to tell you're carrying" are fanny packs and a cover garment. There are some people who operate at this level of awareness, but the idea that the average person out there is going to see a fanny pack or a cover garment and call 911 to report an armed person is not based in reality.

It might cause an observant crook to respond as if he thought the person were armed. According to you, that's always a good thing.

So, cover and surprise are best for me.

I can, just off the top of my head, think of two situations where the fact that a gun was concealed made the difference between life and death.

Concealed weapons offer the defender the option of choosing if/when/where to respond. Sometimes that is very important. OC doesn't allow that option and may, in fact, result in the pre-emptive action by the criminal to prevent any option of response.

 

[thepreacher]

First of all, I am a citizen not a civilian.



Also, tactical is defined as 'related to combat'. Therefore, in a 'combat' situation, many factors are involved, thus many things can be an advantage in some situations that are a disadvantage in others. There is no clear 'tactical' advantage, as every situation is unique.

And lastly, look up crime rates for the 'Wild Wild West' and you will see that it was actually one of the safest times in our countries history. Why? I'm not certain, but it could be due to the fact that almost every man was 'packing openly'.

But it is 2007 and mostly, from my personal experience with OC, most people never notice.

Jim Bowie moved to Texas from Louisiana. Louisiana is where the knife originated.

 

[Wildalaska]

And lastly, look up crime rates for the 'Wild Wild West' and you will see that it was actually one of the safest times in our countries history. Why? I'm not certain, but it could be due to the fact that almost every man was 'packing openly'.

OK convert me, give me the stats.

WildimwillingtolistenAlaska

 

[WhiteFeather93]

I kinda feel like this is turning sour...

Wildalaska I respect your experience and thoughts, but because I started this thread I kinda do feel like many of these ego comments and the guest comment was directed at me. I apologize if I gave off an air that I was an ego crazed lunitic. I just wanted a nice civil discussion on the topic of OC and CC and some cons and pros to doing both.
I do CC and I also OC. I have had great results due to both. The best thing about OC IMHO was when I had two gentlemen approach me. One off duty Police Officer and another Gentlemen. They asked me how well I knew the carry laws and I told them what I did know and gave them references and both men were astonished. They were not aware of PA's carry laws in reguards to OC and CC and were quite pleased to hear about them. It is situations like that make OC'ing very positive to me. The entire argument about ego does apply to this post because I do feel that there are people who carry period with ego in my mind. I know people personally who carry for such reasons and all the reasoning I can try doesn't matter.
This thread is about CC as much as it is about OC. And when I said there are people who CC for their ego I was not just making that up. There are many people who feel that if they CC no one know they have a sidearm and a robber will burst into the store and they will be caught off guard and that person will have saved the day.
Personally I don't want to be in that situation. I don't want to ever have to pull my sidearm.
Every type of carry has a place and a time. And each has merits both good and bad.

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 have the utmost respect for that statement and you. I don't think it is anyones job who does not feel comfortable, save the LEO's to ensure demestic tranquility. With that being said I do not share that comfort level. I feel it is my place to do what I can to help my fellow man. I do carry a tire iron to help somebody with a flat tire. I do help the Mrs. at the store with three kids load her grouceries. I try and help where I can because that is my nature. It has nothing to do with ego it has to do with compassion. Everybody will complain that things are not picturesc in this Country but nobody cares to do anything about it.
I have no proof that clearly states that OC will deter crime. If you OC or CC you are carrying a tool that may someday save your life or the lives of those around you. And that is what is most important.

Thank you everyone for your imput there has been a lot said and a lot learned. Please do not feel that you have to carry in any manor in which you do not feel comfortable. I feel comfortable when I OC and feel fine when I CC. I enjoy my freedom and safety that I have. And I sincerely hope that you do too.

 

[Wildalaska]

I just wanted a nice civil discussion on the topic of OC and CC and some cons and pros to doing both.

For OC (in most circumstances)

Pros...none.
Cons...tactically suspect, can be psycologically suspect, upsets other folks.

WildymmvAlaska

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Reopened

OK folks, I got a request to reopen this thread, so I reviewed it in more detail (I admit that due to a lack of time, I sometimes speed read these threads. Simply can't get to 'em all in detail.), and I have to agree that closing this was a bit premature.

With apologies to Whitefeather, et. al., I'm reopening it, but please, keep it civil and impersonal (when referring to egos .)

 

[CyberSEAL]

Tough argument. I prefer concealed carry over open. I like to have the element of surprise in my favor, plus you never know who might be casing you without your knowledge.

 

[Hawkflyer]

Someone asked for information on crime rates from the old west verses today showing that things are more dangerous today. While there is little question that it was actually safer in the old west per capita, people are often mislead by the western TV shows of the 50's and 60's. Let me be among the first to begin to post links to supporting information in this thread (I am hoping to set a trend here). There are a lot of sources for these statistics, but I offer the following because it is also an entertaining read -

Old West Crime

The nice short answers from WildAlaska while easy to read, are really more indicative of personal bias against OC, and are unsupported statistically. There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed. If you know of one please provide a link, many of us are very interested in that issue.

In contrast, NRA has may authoritative studies showing that the mere presence of a firearm has stopped MILLIONS of crimes each year. The presence of the weapons, not the method of carry, is the determining factor in all of those cases. Yet clearly these arms were ALL visible to the Bad guys at the moment the crime was stopped. The element of surprise created by producing the weapon from a concealment, while certainly present in about 20% of those cases, was NOT attributed as the determining factor in stopping the crime.

Criminologist James Wright of the University of Massachusetts conducted a study of 1,800 convicted felons. His study revealed the following: 57 percent of the felons interviewed said they were frightened by an armed citizen; 53 percent said they would not commit a crime if they believed a citizen was armed; and 60 percent indicated they were more concerned about being shot by an armed citizen than by the police. The bottom line is, bad guys are afraid of guns in the hands of a citizen.

Nobody is suggesting that everyone should be forced to OC. But it does seem that some are suggesting that everyone should be forced to CC. It has been stated with some enthusiasm that ALL OCers are ego driven people who do not care about anything but their own egos. The racially charged characterizations used as examples actually say a lot to me about the views on this issue. While everyone is entitled to their own views, I do not share them in this case or the methods for profiling people on the street depicted in the example. But to be fair Northern Virginia has a very high level of ethnic mixing, so a variety of people are commonly seen armed, and we are more used to that. But to each his own.

The fact is, ALL people have rights. Among those rights, is the right to freely exercise their rights as they choose. So long as the exercise of the rights of one person do not infringe the rights of another, there is nothing wrong with that.

I have a friend that was injured in VietNam, leaving his face terribly disfigured. When he is out in public people are often repulsed by his appearance. People point at him, children have run away as he approached, and he has actually been asked to move to less public parts of restaurants to avoid disturbing others around him.

WildAlaskas examples taken to there logical extremes would have my friend forced to cover his face in public, or not go out at all, because his insistence on moving freely in society is, alarming to others. Should he be banned from restaurants, and public streets, because his presence and appearance disturbs and frightens others?

This guy has rights. While the people around him have the right not to look at him, they do not have the RIGHT not to see him in public, and they do NOT have the right not be frightened by their own prejudices. The same holds true for my sidearm, or a sidearm carried by someone who may be frightened of by mere sight. I have the right to carry it as I choose within the laws of my state. People who do not like to see it do not have to look, and they do not have the right to impose their fears on me, outside of the requirements of the law.

That is not ego, that is America. I am very concerned about the idea that an individual exercising there rights in a lawful way, would be called an egotist for doing so. That is not how things work in the United States I am sworn to protect and defend. People have rights, and they have the freedom to use those rights. Since we have already agreed that people sometimes do carry for ego purposes, irrespective of the carry method, ego has nothing to do with it. Being a free person in a free society has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Now I won't deny that things are likely very different in the far north west. But one thing that I have NOT seen in this discussion, is that in Virginia there are cases where OC is not just a preference but in fact it is required by law for any person carrying.

One specific example is carry into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages. Also if a person does not have a CHP, OC is legally required for carry. Many people here can legally carry a firearm at 18, but they are not allowed to obtain a CHP until they are 21. Many of those people are in the service. I think if we can trust them to defend our country with an M16 we can trust them to carry a sidearm and exercise the freedoms they are fighting and dyeing to defend.

In the case of carry into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages on the premisses, people do have the option of disarming and leaving the weapon in the car, where it could be stolen. Most of us who carry for self defense purposes do not disarm, but instead simply switch to OC, for the duration of our visit. The Lubbys restaurant incident and others, taught us why disarmament is a bad idea. When the law requires OC, alarmed citizens do not have a bone to pick with me, their argument should be with the legislature that forces the weapons to be carried openly.

No one is suggesting that OC is for everyone at all times. All we are suggesting is that it should not be excluded as a carry option for those that require or prefer it, and it should not be used to denigrate or demonize the people who choose that method of carry. I carry CC and OC as I believe the circumstance warrants, and I believe others should do so as well. There was a time that I was an ardent CCer, so I am quite familiar with the arguments against OC, but experience and research have proven to me that many of these arguments are simply not supported by the facts.

Regards

 

[JohnKSa]

There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed. If you know of one please provide a link, many of us are very interested in that issue.

I don't think you've looked very hard. Here's the result of a few minutes work with an internet search engine.

http://www.packing.org/community/general/thread/?thread=16369

The link to the article no longer works but the text of the article is still there.

A man open carrying a handgun had is stolen from him
Man robbed in the Centreville area

About 4:10 a.m. Sunday, July 30, officers were called to the area of Newton Patent Drive and Newton Tavern Drive. A 21-year-old Centreville-area man was robbed while walking on Newton Patent Drive. Two suspects approached the victim from behind, and placed a metal object up to the victim’s head. The suspects took the victim’s hand gun which he was openly carrying. The suspect’s then fled the area. The victim was not injured.

The suspects were described as black males wearing dark clothing.

Anyone with information about this incident or these suspects is asked to call Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS (8477) or the police non-emergency number at 703-691-2131.​

Here's another link to the same article:

http://heritagecrossing.info/crime.htm

It's not surprising that we don't see a ton of these reports.

1. Open carry is not widely legal in the more populated areas of the U.S.
2. Even where it is legal it's not commonly done.

Your stats are interesting but should be turned around for a complete picture...

According to the stats you quoted, 43% of felons are NOT frightened by armed citizens and 47% WOULD commit a crime even if they knew the victim was armed. Given that guns are a very valuable black market commodity, I think it's not much of a stretch that the felons who would (per your statistics) commit a crime even on an armed victim would see a person openly carrying as a potential source of a free firearm. Especially since the article above proves that at least two felons made the same (not so difficult) leap of logic...

All we are suggesting is that it should not be excluded as a carry option...

Would you mind explaining who "we" is?

 

[Xenia]

Xenia-

While accuracy, speed, cover, movement and power have a great deal to do with successful gun fighting, the importance of these elements are rarely fully equal. The most important is accuracy. A bullet placed on target is worth hundreds that miss. A large powerful bullet placed on target is of greater value than a smaller one in the same place. Getting the firearm into action quickly is important, but not at the total disregard of accuracy. I could go on but you get the idea.

OC is not perfect for all situations. But then neither is CC. A person must assess a lot of factors before deciding, and this assessment is done before and during any excursion. It is not unlike a lot of other factors involved in carrying a firearm. There is much to learn, and prepare for BEFORE a person assumes the responsibility of carrying ANY deadly weapon.

You have to assess your particular situation, get trained (you have started this process but it never really ends), pick a reasonable firearm for your purposes, determine a reasonable carry mode for your situation, equip your self for your needs, and in short do what is right for you. I would agree that CC is appropriate in certain circumstances. But OC is better at times as well.

If you are afraid that if someone sees your weapon and that disadvantages you in some way, by all means CC. But if you are not able to control a cover garment while drawing, this inhibits your draw, and throws the balance of elements required for self defense we are trying to achieve in favor of your opponent. If you do not have time to seek cover, or there is none, or you ability to move is limited, then the advantage you gained by concealment will actually shift, not to neutral, but to a negative.

No one is saying that OC is perfect in all situations and so everyone should carry that way. What a number of us here ARE saying is that it is not anymore negative than CC, and there is no reason for people to be critical of those that decide for their own purposes to OC rather than CC. What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry, and how closed minded CC only people are to this concept.

Why would any reasonable person simply ignore 50% of the available options for solving the personal defense question, when there is no actual evidence that other options are not at least as reasonable a choice. By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying. These days a fanny pack is a dead give away, so is a jacket during a 95 degree 80% humidity day here in Virginia.

Regards

I certainly understand. I can't open carry... it is not legal here. But I don't have a problem with those who can.

I don't know what I would do if I lived in a state that allowed open carry. I know I am not very good at quick drawing no matter what.

I disagree with open carry being about ego or other alterior motives. I guess there could be someone who carries for those kind of reasons.... there are all types of people... but I wouldn't make that assumption myself.

 

[USNavy_233]

Unless I'm in my house or on my own property, I don't OC, even though it is legal in my state. The reasoning for me is simple. MAYBE seeing my gun will convince an attacker/robber to go else where but, I don't know that for sure. MAYBE the attacker/robber will specifically target me because of my gun but, I don't know that for sure.

What I DO know for sure is:
If the attacker/robber decides to find another victim for whatever reason, the odds are greatly in his/her favor of being successful because their next victim will likely be a sheep.

If the attacker/robber decides to attack/rob me, the odds are greatly in favor of there being one less attacker/robber on the street tomorrow to victimize more citizens.

For this rationale alone, I don't OC. And just to make sure my point here isn't misunderstood. Yes, I am saying that I would rather have an attacker/robber target me than target another defenseless civilian. At least I know that I have properly prepared myself, mentally and physical, to survive such an encounter. I can’t make that same claim for anyone else’s son, father, husband, daughter, mother or wife out there.

 

[thepreacher]

Thanks to Hawkflyer for 'Wild Wild West' stats.

Thank you John for the one case of a guy getting attacked and his gun taken away. I see it could happen, I'm just curious about the details. There are factors that could turn this story in a different direction though. It is possible this fellow was targeted specifically for his weapon.

I do not know this area where it happened. Perhaps someone here does. Also, I wonder why he was there and who he is and what he was doing.

I could go walk around New Orleans at 4AM and ask a few of the upstanding individuals there what they think about all of this.

You think I should take my piece or not take it. How about method of carry? I do not think any of that will really matter in that area if I do not pay attention.

I normally try to avoid places and situations where I could get robbed, raped and killed. I think we all do that to some extent. Both carry methods have the same disadvantage of being 'mugged' if we do not stay aware of our surroundings.

 

[Hawkflyer]

According to the stats you quoted, 43% of felons are NOT frightened by armed citizens and 47% WOULD commit a crime even if they knew the victim was armed. Given that guns are a very valuable black market commodity, I think it's not much of a stretch that the felons who would (per your statistics) commit a crime even on an armed victim would see a person openly carrying as a potential source of a free firearm. Especially since the article above proves that at least two felons made the same (not so difficult) leap of logic...

First let me point out these are not MY statistics, they are statistics that resulted from the research of a well known researcher. I merely cited them. A rather fine distinction, but I am certain it would be important to the researcher. They also happen to the the same statistics that are regularly used in support of CC, and firearms ownership in general.

It is not truly statistically valid to turn them "inside out" as you have for a lot of reasons. In order to use them inside out you must presume answers to questions that were never asked in the study. The result of which is that the 47% DID NOT say they WOULD commit a crime, they said that they were not particularly afraid of an armed citizen. The 60% who said they were more afraid of being shot by a citizen, does not leave 40% who were not afraid of being shot by a citizen, it leaves 40% who were probably more concerned about being shot by a LEO. But in any case a significant portion did say they would NOT attack an armed citizen.

From my point of view, I do NOT want to shoot anyone. If I can prevent the situation from ever arising 53% percent of the time, then I have moved over half way to that goal, with no change in my life style. A significant portion of the remaining 47% of the time, I can mitigate by avoiding certain areas, maintaining situational awareness and other control measures.

I also read the police report that was cited with high interest, and I thank you for citing it. I could not find any others. I would point out that the original premise of my challenge was to find an incident where someone was "taken out" first because they displayed a weapon in OC mode. That was the discussion leading up to the question I posed. But I will concede that someone did find a report where OC MAY have had some role in a crime, if you will concede that from the facts provided in the report, it is not clear that the individual was targeted specifically because his gun was visible. I also have some questions concerning this persons situational awareness, and being out in that area at that time of night. Centerville is 6 miles from my house so I do know that area well. But to be fair you did find a single case.

Much has been made about the tactical advantage of CC. I concede that point but only insofar as actually surprising someone for the purpose of startling them and possibly having to shoot them is concerned. All of this happens AFTER an incident has begun.

But the total focus on tactical advantage ignores strategic issues completely. As a self defense strategy, I would prefer to avoid the use of the firearm in the first place. But if that cannot be done, there is a significant tactical advantage in not having to deal with draw from cover, speed of action (draw), having one hand free during the first part of the draw, and a number of other subtile issues that have been glossed over in the discussion to reach the conclusion that only OC has tactical advantages.

It is interesting to note that at least in Virginia, there is no element in the required training for a CHP to demonstrate draw from cover. In contrast, many of these same classes do require draw and fire from a holster. It would seem that if OC were a problem, the legislature would have put some requirement for this in the law. Moreover, I have not found anyone who was ever told during their class that OC was a problem and should be avoided. I do not wish to imply that many instructors would not council against OC, they do. But they always start that council with the words "In my opinion..."

As we see here opinions on OC and CC can and do vary. I do not expect to convince people who believe that only CC serves their needs, to abandon it in favor of OC. What I would hope we can accomplish together, through this discussion, is to clear the air and agree that just because someone chooses to OC, that fact alone does not make that person an evil egotist bent on terrifying the public.

I firmly believe that both forms of carry have a place in self defense, and that the choice should be left to the individual. I CC and OC as I see the need, and I am not driven by ego in either case. IMHO, to demonize people for their choice only splits the self defense community into two factions, and weakens us as a group, in defending our right to self defense. What prompted me to enter this discussion, were the blanket statements I saw to the effect that OC has no purpose at all, and should not be done or condoned. While it may not have a purpose for a particular person, it has purpose for a lot of others, and there is no rational reason to condemn the method or the person who employs the method in such general terms.

Regards

 

[JohnKSa]

...if you will concede that from the facts provided in the report, it is not clear that the individual was targeted specifically because his gun was visible.

would point out that the original premise of my challenge was to find an incident where someone was "taken out" first because they displayed a weapon in OC mode.

You said "There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed."

I spent a few minutes searching the web and found a case. Now it seems that you're implying that since the victim wasn't killed and because we can't prove what the criminals were thinking that it doesn't count.

The victim was carrying openly and was approached from behind by two persons who took ONLY his gun. Sure we could come up with a lot of reasons why they mugged him other than the obvious--but why? And the fact that he got lucky and was not injured or killed has no bearing on the relevance of the situation.

At the VERY LEAST, this is a case of a person carrying openly who was targeted for a crime. The openly carried gun didn't deter the crime and was, in fact, almost certainly the MOTIVE for it since it was the only thing taken.

It is not truly statistically valid to turn them "inside out" as you have for a lot of reasons.

I note that you chose to use the statistic I DIDN'T turn inside out as the rationale for not doing so. In fact, the reason you state is the reason I didn't use that particular statistic.

The other two are much clearer and that's why I used them.

Simply reading the statistics you cited makes it clear that while a signficant portion of felons said they were frightened by an armed citizen, over 40% responded differently. And while a significant portion indicated that they would not commit a crime if they believed a citizen was armed, almost half (47%) of the felons interviewed made no such statement.

Furthermore while it may be rare for criminals to "target a person simply for being armed", there are numerous accounts of gun store robberies which indicate that criminals are CERTAINLY willing to go up against armed citizens to steal guns.

So, who's more of a deterrrent, a guy walking down the street alone with a gun on his hip or several armed citizens behind the counter of a gun store? Because we all know for a fact that the latter is insufficient deterrent to prevent criminals from attempting robberies.

I firmly believe that both forms of carry have a place in self defense, and that the choice should be left to the individual.

I'm not talking about banning OC. I'm not even saying that it has no place as a useful self-defense tool. I'm simply responding to the incorrect/unsupportable/illogical assertions made about OC and CC.

 

[WhiteFeather93]

Capt Charlie no need for Apologies I probably would have closed it down at the point too. It wasn't until afterwards that we got some data and now even that has become somewhat of an arguement.

The only thing I'm gonna say to all of the statistics in question is that it was opinion based. There is a big difference between actual data and a questionare. These felons where questioned on how they would act. Data like that is no data at all. No offense meant but I could sit here and say that I would rob someone with a gun but when it actually came time to perform said act I'm sure I would find an excuse not to.

JohnSka I thank you for your imput although I am curious as to your opinion on the matter. Do you have personal thoughts on it?

I have sifted and looked at almost every website I can think of. And to date I have no actual data on OC detering crime or for that matter CC deterring crime. There are things one can note but no actual data.
Philadelphia is currently trying to sue the state for more gun control. Their argument is that the state is ruled by "Rural Legislator". And of all cities they are arguing that New York has less homicides than Philly because of the ability to write their own ticket as far as gun control is involved. I found no data the proves such a theroy.

Now I am not going to argue that OC has a tactical advantage. Or that it deters crime because I have nothing to back it up. Some may say its common sense and some may site other reasons but I myself have no ammo for the argument. OC has a time and place. You have to be extra carful and more aware than when you CC and so it requires more of you.

But I will advocate that OC has an edgucational benifit not generally shared with CC. You can share information with people when you CC but no one notices and so questions go un-asked. I have had personal experience with questions while OC'ing. And with any question asked I give answers and references. There are folders now that you can print out like this one,
http://paopencarry.org/PennsylvaniaGunRights.pdf
that help you explain and share information on gun laws and rights. Now you might feel that I am making gun owners look bad by toting it around on my hip for all to see. But if I am sharing knowledge I fail to see how that has any negitive effect. The truth regardless if you carry or not, is that we are in a constant struggle for our rights. And for me the 2nd amendment is a great cornerstone but I think reguardless of where you live every person who takes a breath should have the God given right to defend himself. Sometimes that does require stepping on toes. Sometimes that requires hassle and time and maybe you do not feel like sacrificing these things. That is fine and I do not expect everyone to throw down what they are doing and jump into this. But I do ask that you do not hinder my freedom because you feel it is inappropriate.

 

[dakota223]

concealed carry im taking the course for it this weekend ohio has a open carry policy but you forget one thing you carry a gun in the open and the law gets called its then inducing panic wich is a felony in ohio

 

[WhiteFeather93]

I am unsure as to the legallity of that but here is what I found concerning Ohio's law and statues.

Article I, Section 1.04

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

2917.31 Inducing panic.

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

(B) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to any person conducting an authorized fire or emergency drill.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inducing panic.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) of this section, inducing panic is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Now some may argue that number (5)

Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Could be interprated that way however you would not be "creating a condition" the people who made a big deal out of what you were doing would be "creating the condition".

Opencarry.org is full of information in your state and many others so I would reference them for more information. But in ending all I have to say is that your state is on the border of not allowing OC and if you want that right you and others will have to make a stand fight for that right. Or you will loose it and CC will be your only option... For a while anyway.