CLASSIC EXAMPLE: Why I Don't Open Carry.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Leanwolf

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
2,115
Location
Idaho
I am well aware this has been discussed several times, both pro and con.

The incident in Orlando, however, punches up the reason why I do not open carry.

The very first person shot by the Muslim terrorist at the night club was the ARMED GUARD.

It is my strong opinion that in most cases, when a criminal is armed and, intent on his mission, if he sees an armed person who might thwart his mission, he'll shoot that person first.

In a very bad situation, I want that small option of SURPRISE, on my side. I do not want the criminal to know I am armed and shoot me first.

Therefore I do not open carry. Works for me. I know others differ and that is their opinion.

L.W.
 
Well said, and I agree 100%. I don't begrudge anyone OC-ing, in fact I'm always kind of reassured to know there are right-thinking armed citizens close by.

But still, as illustrated above, the downsides clearly outweight any perceived benefits, and I think OC-ing is more about self-indulgently showing off toys and yanking chains than it is about any claimed need or practicality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not feel the same way.

I don't think there are any statistics to back up that attackers purposefully fire upon OC'ers as the first targets. Even if so, having a gun is better than no gun, and if the OC'er feels that his method of carry is superior, the better. Since there is no need for concealment, they can often get away with much larger and more effective handguns as well.

And besides, using this as an opportunity to put down OC is NOT what we need right now. As gun owners and shooters, we all need to stick together, not fight about what carry method we prefer.
 
I think OC-ing is more about self-indulgently showing off toys and yanking chains than it is about any claimed need or practicality.

Fairly shallow assessment, based upon an invented stereotype that fits your agenda of concealed carry being "best."

I OC regularly because I live in a state where OC was the only way to carry legally when I started carrying. It's also more convenient as I spend most of my time outdoors in the desert, and it is more comfortable.

Has absolutely nothing to do with "showing off toys" or "yanking chains."

You really need to get your head around the idea that in some places OC really is a better way to carry.
 
It is my strong opinion that in most cases, when a criminal is armed and, intent on his mission, if he sees an armed person who might thwart his mission, he'll shoot that person first.

I don't commonly OC, but it is my strong opinion that in most cases, when a criminal is armed and, intent on his mission, if he sees an armed person who might thwart his mission, he'll move along and find a different victim.

Like you I have no stats, only opinions....

I feel I should point out the obvious, a terrorist attack isn't "most cases" therefore it shouldn't be used as an example of how things normally go.
 
COOLDILL - "... And besides, using this as an opportunity to put down OC is NOT what we need right now."

You quite obviously did not read my post carefully enough to comprehend what I said. I did not put down anyone who open carries. I know a number of people who o.c. here in Idaho and that is just fine with me.

I do not o.c. for the very reason I stated. It is a personal choice based on my belief of what would happen to me if a shooter were intent on murder of one or many, and if I were in his vision.

As for statistics re my belief, there probably are not enough to quantify anything. I have a background in law enforcement. I base my belief on what I know about real criminals. Real criminals do not think the way you think.

Just for a mind exercise, place yourself in the role of a murderous shooter. You go to some place where you want to commit your murderous act. There is a man there who is wearing a gun. No one else has one. Whom would you shoot first?

As I said, that is my opinion. What choices other people make doesn't bother me a bit.

L.W.
 
My thoughts exactly. IMHO one shouldn't need a "permit" to discretely bear arms under a coat/shirt or in a pocket etc. Before the advent of "progressives" intent on dismantling the
Constitution there never were concealed carry permits but pocket pistols were universally popular- the criminal charge of carrying a concealed weapon required criminal intent and/or a dishonorable manner of concealment i.e. in a boot or in ones sleeves etc.
 
We're good on CC here in FL. No complaints, but can't carry in bars/nightclubs (can in restaurants that serve alcohol to a limit) so an academic discussion for us this weekend.

What bothers me is a guy on a watch list (previous or current) passed a NICS test, had a CC permit and legally purchased firearms in my state, then drove to within a few blocks of where my children sleep and slaughtered 49 people in the name of ISIS in a "gun-free safe zone." If I were not so angry I would call this an evolving irony. I have a feeling it's going to become a lot more than it seems.

I know more than a few of us who sat on the porch with some serious hardware through the night and Sunday. Nobody was worrying about CC when it was right down the street! ;)
 
.....I feel I should point out the obvious, a terrorist attack isn't "most cases" therefore it shouldn't be used as an example of how things normally go.

There's nothing "normal" about ANY situation requiring us to draw and fire a weapon, yet we still carry them specifically for that NON-normal, low-probability event (from gas station robbery to terrorist attack).
If you even have to pull and fire a weapon, then it's very likely it's because a badguy in your immediate vicinity has one too. In this situation, giving away ( perpetually advertising) vital intel, like the fact that you're armed, is about the worst op-sec violation imaginable. Also, a criminal gunman isn't likely to just run into a building and start shooting, he'll likely recon the situation, if only briefly.
So if he sees a guy OC-ing, who you think is gonna be his first target?
 
Was the security guard uniformed? Did he have a hat or shirt that said "security" like they do at every other club? I'm more of the opinion that given the absolute rarity of this type of occurrence and the prevalence of normal robbery type offenses that your'e better off open carrying as a deterrence.
 
Leanwolf said:
The very first person shot by the Muslim terrorist at the night club was the ARMED GUARD.
So, does this reasoning extend to uniformed police? Should patrol officers be in plainclothes without visible badges and guns so they won't be the first one's shot?


Just curious for your reasoning.
 
Was the security guard uniformed? Did he have a hat or shirt that said "security" like they do at every other club? I'm more of the opinion that given the absolute rarity of this type of occurrence and the prevalence of normal robbery type offenses that your'e better off open carrying as a deterrence.
yugorpk

That is just what I was going to post. If he was uniformed or had security on his clothing it made him the obvious first target. God rest his soul.
 
Well we don't know if he scouted the place out or not....yet. We may never know. But suppose he had. Is this a gun free zone? The armed security guard, or any security guard is usually the first person you meet when approaching a club, or when you step inside. So someone intent on shooting up a place will probably start with the first person they come in contact with i.e. Security. So it makes sense he was targeted first.

Also, I'm not sure how clubs are in Florida, but here, they are poorly lit. So if it wasn't a GF zone, shooter had no way of knowing who he was shooting. And if it wasn't a GF zone, the patrons had no way of knowing who was shooting had any of them even been armed.

The shooter had plenty going for him that night.
 
It's my opinion that most open carriers are not noticed by most people. With the stress going on in this guys head, he shot the uniform not the gun. Think about it, unless he was a highly trained shooter, he probably had tunnel vision he was so keyed up.
I don't care if someone caries either way, open or concealed.
 
The armed guard was targeted because he was an armed guard. I have no doubt the shooter had a plan and he knew he'd have to kill the armed guard to get inside.

I'd be willing to bet that even if a club goer had been armed, the shooter never would have noticed. To kill so many in such s short time, he would have been shooting at anything that moved. He never would have had time to asses target priority.

I've never seen a single bit of relevant data reflecting any truth to this type of assertion and it is completely based on supposition. Of corse my assertion is as well.

While I agree whole heartedly with the OP that concealed carry is a better idea than open carry in an urban setting or any crowded place, I believe so because I think it helps avoid a headache for the person carrying, and because it's no ones business if any of us are carrying or not. I frequently open carry, but on the trail and in the woods.

I don't think this one incident can serve as any kind of evidence or as legitimate proof that open carrying puts you at s tactical disadvantage. Perhaps as part of a larger data set.....

The entire incident makes me sad.
 
Akita says, "What bothers me is a guy on a watch list . . . ."

A watch list you probably don't know you are on or why you are on it, can't challenge, and therefore can't get off of?
 
BigBore44, yes, it was a "gun-free zone. At least, it was until the first armed guard entered. (I suppose it's a good thing that only one "bad guy" dared to break the law there that night. :rolleyes: )

Florida law prohibits possession of a firearm (among other weapons) in a place that operates to derive the majority of its income from the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, meaning all bars and nightclubs that so serve.
 
I think if everyone who carries did so openly it would send a strong message to the public that there are far more guns being carried legally than they ever imagined and that they don't present any threat at all to law abiding citizens. The public needs to see that the average person just like them is going about their business politely, responsibly, and armed.
 
Akita says, "What bothers me is a guy on a watch list . . . ."

A watch list you probably don't know you are on or why you are on it, can't challenge, and therefore can't get off of?
Not arguing the civil liberty aspect, just the gaping hole in security.
 
I think if everyone who carries did so openly it would send a strong message to the public that there are far more guns being carried legally than they ever imagined and that they don't present any threat at all to law abiding citizens. The public needs to see that the average person just like them is going about their business politely, responsibly, and armed.
+1

While I personally don't OC, those that do are setting good examples (as long as they act responsibly and obey applicable laws)... and they aren't afraid to, either.
 
I do not feel the same way.

I don't think there are any statistics to back up that attackers purposefully fire upon OC'ers as the first targets. Even if so, having a gun is better than no gun, and if the OC'er feels that his method of carry is superior, the better. Since there is no need for concealment, they can often get away with much larger and more effective handguns as well.

And besides, using this as an opportunity to put down OC is NOT what we need right now. As gun owners and shooters, we all need to stick together, not fight about what carry method we prefer.
"Sticking Together as gun owners" does not include supporting recklessness, passive aggressiveness and attention whoring.
 
Not chest-pounding or anything, but since this scumbag shot 100 people,
WHY didn't 10,20,or more of them rush this guy and at least attempt to stop him?
Not that I'm some big hero or "operator" type, but if you're gonna be slaughtered anyway, why wouldn't you at least TRY to fight back even if unarmed?
 
Is the OP seriously arguing that visibly armed guards are not a deterrent against violent attack? :scrutiny:

He may have been attacked first, but he was also in the best position to do something about the terrorist, since there were no other guns. Had the guard had sufficient warning or a chance to respond, there would have likely been no massacre. Similar incidents have ended favorably (and decisively so) all over the world, every day, when banks, government meetings, peacekeepers, military bases, and any other important location is successfully defended by armed stewards.

It actually works really well most of the time, and we've known this for some 10,000 years...

Now, if the OP's point is that an attacker would have been at a severe disadvantage not knowing who to shoot first, yes with a caveat; the same is true when you have two armed guards, only they are each far more effective in defense having their guns more accessible. In fact, the reason he was able to engage a single target then have free reign over the location is the same reason he chose the location in the first place; everyone else there was known to be disarmed (he apparently staked out the club at length prior to the attack, probably to discern how well defended it was likely to be, hence why this location and not a BYOB nightclub on the bad side of town). A single armed responder is not much deterrent, even concealed, since a rifle is so much more effective than a handgun. Add even a single additional defender, and numerous simulations have shown that an attacker has a vastly more difficult series of odds (likewise, a single additional attacker makes for a nearly unstoppable force, which is why military/police squads are so indomitable). The situations where a terrorist(s) was put down almost immediately, so decisively as to be almost comical (e.g. Garland terrorists) is almost always when two friendly guns are present.

In short, the real tragedy is that the guard out front had no backup, whether officially serving as a guard alongside him, or carrying concealed, or carrying openly. This scum would have been engaged and ended almost immediately in any scenario resembling these. We need to look out for each other (and not in some superior-minded "sheep dog" conceit, but so we can all be more effective in defending ourselves and in turn those around us)

TCB
 
4thPointOfContavt - "So, does this reasoning extend to uniformed police? Should patrol officers be in plainclothes without visible badges and guns so they won't be the first one's shot?
"

Unfortunately, fairly recently incidents of uniformed police officers being deliberately singled out by a criminal intent on murder and being shot without warning, have increased. One specifically comes to mind. A couple years ago, in Seattle (I believe?), four uniformed police officers were in a restaurant having lunch when a man with a gun entered, walked to their table and killed all four of them.

Other incidents have been reported of similar unformed officer murders, but not four officers at one time.

Some patrol officers do wear street clothes but they always have their badges on under a jacket, plus they always have their gear belts on so they are pretty easy to recognize. Frankly, a street wise criminal can spot most cops no matter how they're dressed ... other than the really good undercover cops. Those guys are amazing how they can work on the street without being "made."

As I said before, if a person wants to carry openly, fine with me. His or her choice. I carry concealed because as I also stated, I want that slight advantage of a short moment or two of surprise in a very bad situation.

Just my opinion.

L.W.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top