Deterring effect from open carrying?

[Deanimator]

Cops are on radio,

Most of us are on cellphone.

You're not saying that police would protect one of their own before protecting a citizen, ARE you...?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Oh, I might as well throw out one more bit of anecdotal evidence that will most likely NEVER come close in representing any kind of encounter you might have.

Did this story make the newspapers? Seems like Joe Citizen in a gunfight with 4 or 5 Gangsta Disciples would have been a pretty big story. I would like to read the newspaper accounts.

Mike

 

[Deanimator]

You don't need skills like that to kill someone with any gun. Usually your posts are spot -on, but it's best to overestimate your adversary.

But the suggestion was NOT that the criminal could kill someONE. It was that he could kill MULTIPLE someones, in fact, no upper limit was cited. The claim was silly in its hyperboly.

Anybody can get lucky. But for a common criminal to get lucky enough to get two or MORE open carriers without himself being shot is attributing the zenith of skill to the scum of the earth while attributing not just no skill to the open carrierS, but gross incompetence. It's risible on its face.

 

[Titan6]

Here are some police officers who disagree with your assessment:

http://www.hubbardtwppd.org/selfdefense/surprise.htm

Wow that website is just chocked full of useful advice.....

If your attacker is a bully from way back, he will have a "stop when victim’s hurt" way of thinking. When he sees that you have been hurt, he will stop hitting you. That’s what he used to do at school and it’s become a habit. Like all of us, he is a creature of habit. He will do what he has always done. But instead of running away, he will stand there with his guard down.

If you appear to be beaten, he will drop his guard and give you a chance to use good timing and the element of surprise to strike back. Only fight back if you believe that he has not finished hitting you. If he has blown off enough steam, he may just walk away.

Yeah ummm ok I think I will stick with what I know to be true instead of what the police want me to do.

 

[Mainsail]

You have to be kidding. About 2 weeks ago, a CCW holder in Florida saw a robber beating a convenience store clerk. He certainly surprised the criminal when he drew his 40 caliber pistol and shot him dead. Surprise certainly played a role in this.

My point is that surprise does have a place in defensive situations.

Of course you’ve overlooked the most obvious fact; he wasn’t in a defensive situation, he was in an offensive one. The CCW guy wasn’t being attacked, he was not defending himself. He took the offensive and went to the aid of another; an effective use of offensive surprise. How did you miss that? Oh right, you were blinded by fantasy.

Any other "rules" you'd like to tell me that apply to lethal force encounters? My own rule is "anything goes when I'm fighting for my life," but it's good to see chivalry lives...

Here are some police officers who disagree with your assessment:

Rule? Where do I make that claim? I don’t want to fight for my life, I don’t want to be attacked and prevail, I don’t want to shoot anyone. Maybe that’s the problem, some in here (think they) do. Some of you armchair Rambos need to think deep and hard about what you’re getting yourself into. As for your link, you are really reaching with that one. Nothing in that article has anything to do with concealed carry, unless you take the example in the “Throw a ball trick” paragraph and toss your pistol in the air. Be sure to yell, “Surprise!” when you do.

Open carry is not for everyone or every situation. Each person needs to weigh the risks and benefits of each and make an educated decision for themselves. Don’t listen to me, don’t listen to any of the anti-OCers, think for yourself. I am defending open carry because I have thought and reasoned that it works best for the type of crime I’m most likely to encounter. Arguing against open carry with nothing more than hyperbole and fantasy crime situations is asinine.

 

[conw]

Rule? Where do I make that claim? I don’t want to fight for my life, I don’t want to be attacked and prevail, I don’t want to shoot anyone. Maybe that’s the problem, some in here (think they) do. Some of you armchair Rambos need to think deep and hard about what you’re getting yourself into.

Your posts have been degenerating into name-calling every time this topic comes up, which suggests that rather than "thinking and reasoning" and arriving at a defensible opinion, you've done exactly the converse thing. I may have invited it by being "snarky," but I was attempting to direct that attitude at what I perceived to be a ludicrous position on your part...

I have made an educated decision for myself, and believe it or not I do listen to both sides. I also refute illogical assumptions or statements that are presented by either side. Re: 'anti-OCers,' I would certainly refute any proposal to "ban open carry" or "don't do it because it scares people"; from the "there's no flaw whatsoever to open carrying" camp, I will and do refute that reported, detailed evidence is required for consideration of any and all eventuality that might, in a given situation, make open carry inadvisable (bearing in mind that one does not plan for or choose one's defensive situation).

I feel you've made a logical concession in saying that open carry is "not for every situation." But generally speaking I think you used hyperbole, and I frankly think that you obfuscate...perhaps unknowingly, in order to defend your own choice. Although you concede exceptions to the usefulness of open carry, you seem to have attempted to shoot down any practical examples where it would be proven dangerous...hmm...

 

[conw]

Of course you’ve overlooked the most obvious fact; he wasn’t in a defensive situation, he was in an offensive one. The CCW guy wasn’t being attacked, he was not defending himself. He took the offensive and went to the aid of another; an effective use of offensive surprise. How did you miss that? Oh right, you were blinded by fantasy.

Wrong, he was defending an innocent life...further, he was arguably endangered.

A SWAT team raiding a compound is offense.

Just about any other non-military (immediate, reactionary) situation is, by definition, defense.

# The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
# A means or method of defending or protecting.

The ‘element of surprise’ is an offensive tactic, not a defensive tactic. If you surprise an attacker with a hidden gun, that’s called “damage control”, not surprise.

So wait, the man in the above case "surprise[d] an attacker with a hidden gun." Yet you call it "surprise" when you said you'd call it "damage control."

It's all starting to look like a facade. *Shrug* I'm not worrying about it, I just dig this kind of point/counter-point.

 

[FoMoGo]

No... he was NOT using it in a defense situation.
He was not in danger till he decided to take the offense and go after a person attacking another.
When he made the decision he went on the OFFENSE and took his pistol in hand.

the act of attacking; attack or assault: weapons of offense.

Jim

 

[conw]

Anybody can get lucky. But for a common criminal to get lucky enough to get two or MORE open carriers without himself being shot is attributing the zenith of skill to the scum of the earth while attributing not just no skill to the open carrierS, but gross incompetence. It's risible on its face.

Maybe I'm not following this thoroughly enough, but I thought the situation wasn't "hypothetically, what if everyone was OCing" (risible itself no? ) but "if I was the only one in the crowd OCing..."

Most of us are on cellphone.

You're not saying that police would protect one of their own before protecting a citizen, ARE you...?

True, but you can't get that cell phone to work by hitting a single button on your collar, say 8 words and have someone on their way and briefed on the situation.

Further, I do believe that an assault, attempted murder, murder, and the like are more severe when committed against a cop. Perhaps most would evade the question presented in this light, but I think it's standard procedure to most vigorously pursue the most egregious offenses committed at a given time.

 

[conw]

FoMoGo, it's semantic and nothing more at this point...in a sense he was taking offensive and defensive action simultaneously, because they're both words that have limited scope and breadth. Both definitions can apply, but I stand by whoever said that it's a fair (if not the best) example of "surprise in a defensive maneuver." Defending in the sense of protecting. He was defending someone or something, right?

 

[FoMoGo]

He had the chance and opportunity to not engage the criminal and go on his way... not saying that he should or shouldnt have... and never have to get involved.
He made the decision to go on the offensive with the criminal.
He did not practice self defense, he did not practice self protection.
What he did was totally offensive.
The end result was the protection of the person being attacked.

Looking at it the way you are, you can say the offense of the football team is being defensive by keeping the ball from the other team.
Is either on correct? Yes, in a round about way.
But make no mistake, the act of going after a person with your gun when the situation did not involve you to start with is an offensive use of your weapon.


Jim

 

[Mainsail]

…you seem to have attempted to shoot down any practical examples where it would be proven dangerous...hmm...

There haven’t been any practical examples. I don’t, and never have, claimed that open carry is the be all end all of self-defense. I’m trying to counter some of the nonsensical arguments against it. My point all along has been that one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. That’s just simple common sense! I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest, the most likely threat in my environment is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, park, or parking lot. I think some people have watched Die Hard a few too many times. That’s Hollywood, not reality.

The problem you’re (all of you that make silly claims like “…first one shot” or “defensive surprise”) are having is that you seem to believe that a violent crime situation begins at the point where you’re staring down the barrel or blade of the bad-guy. That is flawed thinking! READ THE FIVE STAGES OF VIOLENT CRIME. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can.

The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction

I don’t want to fight and prevail in a self-defense situation because guess what, you never really do! It’s always a lose – lose situation for the victim, it’s merely the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the guy a small wad of cash (I forget, was it $20 or something?) and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing from concealment, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you will lose. So the choice seems to be winning (by not being a target) or losing (by being a target). Which method of carry has the best chance of making you a winner?

I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop that, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. If, during the ‘interviewing’ stage, he becomes aware that I’m not an easy target, it is hoped he will abort and seek easier prey.

Now, we all know that a situationally (<--not a real word, I know.) aware person gives off a much different vibe than someone off in la-la land, but even that has its limitations. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. The guy who is visibly armed is by no means the easiest target. But, isn’t that what this particular thread is about, deterrence? A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage, it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Nevertheless, let’s say the bad-guy missed the pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and the like) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer. But what if someone doesn't want to ever be in that situation?


Is any of the above a guarantee of anything? No, of course not! Anything can work in a self defense situation. You can soil your pants and the mugger might break off the attack. You can laugh manically and the mugger may break off the attack. You can do both and prevail because anything is possible, anything can work. I don’t believe it’s prudent to plan for the possibility that “anything” will work out for you. I believe it’s best to avoid the situation in the first place. Concealed carry does not deter as effectively as open carry.

 

[rscalzo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28514007/

Way too many LE are killed with their own handgun. OC may work in some of the rural areas. I have found that the possession of a handgun does not deter or frighten some in the urban areas in the least. They have either been shot, shot someone or possess a firearm. the fact that someone displays one just changes their method of operation.

 

[Titan6]

Way too many LE are killed with their own handgun. OC may work in some of the rural areas. I have found that the possession of a handgun does not deter or frighten some in the urban areas in the least. They have either been shot, shot someone or possess a firearm. the fact that someone displays one just changes their method of operation.

You need to stop paying attention to what the media wants you to think and start paying attention to the facts. While I agree that one is too many in all of 2007 the number of police killed by their own weapon was 2.

At the time they were killed, 35 law enforcement officers were wearing body armor. Eleven officers fired their weapons, and 14 of the slain law enforcement officers attempted to fire their weapons. Four officers had their weapons stolen, and two officers were slain with their own weapons.

http://www.policeone.com/news/16945...minary-statistics-for-officers-killed-in-2007

This is more anti-logic. You have millions of police open carrying guns and two are killed by the bad guys with their own weapons. Therefore we should not open carry because you will be killed with your own weapon.

 

[Mainsail]

Way too many LE are killed with their own handgun. OC may work in some of the rural areas. I have found that the possession of a handgun does not deter or frighten some in the urban areas in the least. They have either been shot, shot someone or possess a firearm. the fact that someone displays one just changes their method of operation.

The situation in the link, the officer being executed for his weapon, is so unbelievably rare that one would find it all but impossible to apply a percentage to it. Put aside that it’s even more rare that a private citizen has that happen, put aside that I don’t wear an easily identifiable uniform, and put aside that I don’t sit in a marked cruiser. So you seem to be saying that you’ve prioritized that particular threat higher than, say, a carjacking or street mugging? So you believe it logical that it’s better for one to fight their way out of a (FAR FAR more common) carjacking or mugging, knowing as I mentioned in my last post that you always lose, just so you don’t risk the teeny tiny possibility that someone will try to steal your firearm? This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Mainsail]

FoMoGo, it's semantic and nothing more at this point...in a sense he was taking offensive and defensive action simultaneously, because they're both words that have limited scope and breadth. Both definitions can apply, but I stand by whoever said that it's a fair (if not the best) example of "surprise in a defensive maneuver." Defending in the sense of protecting. He was defending someone or something, right?

No, it’s not semantics. Whenever one has to change the definition of common words to defend a position in a debate, no honest intellectual discussion remains. Nobody was attacking him. He entered the fray on his own volition. That means he was the attacker, he was on the offensive, and his actions were offensive. He was in the right, but he was the attacker. Are we next going to argue what the meaning of “is” is?

 

[Mainsail]

Open Carry: Two major problems with this:

(1.) It scares a lot of people. Some are liable to contact police, who may then hassle you.

It is illegal for the police to hassle a citizen. I’m not going to get into the whole Terry Stop discussion, but suffice to say this is a silly argument. Biker’s scare a lot of people, and some are liable to call the cops. So what? Have you carried openly? I do, and your statement that it “scares a lot of people” is not my experience (and I live in a much more liberal state than you!)

(2.) If you happen to have the type of handgun criminals favor (basically the same that police carry), they may target you for assault so they can get your gun. (Of the 20 criminals my group interviewed, four had stolen theirs from police.)

Is this study published anywhere? Of the four that stole their guns from the police, how many targeted the police for their guns and how many were targeted by the police and during the struggle managed to disarm the officer(s)? [I’m going to guess 0-4]

 

[TooTaxed]

MAINSAIL, you are wrong on all counts.

(1.) Open carry guns do alarm a lot of people, and the police do not respond cavalierly to a "Man with Gun" report. It is SOP for some police forces to hold the person at gunpoint, spreadeagle and disarm him, then give him a chance to reach for his permit. Somewhere in these recent threads is compaint of just such a police department...I'll look it up and let you know.

(2.) In all four cases the police were targeted for their guns. One or more guys suddenly grab and immobilize the policeman's arms while another guy goes for his gun. (This can happen to open carry people also!)

As to whether the report was published...the mayor who arranged the study essentially buried it when the results did not give him the anti-gun legislation data he wanted...the results were the direct opposite of what he expected. Give me a note and I'll dig up a copy of my own report at the time and send it to you.

The 2,000 convict study I referred to was published...you can locate it either on an INET search, or check the NRA-ILA website articles. It's well worth reading...it was performed by two of the most active anti-gun, anti NRA college professors of the day, leaders of the anti-gun movement. After the study they concluded that restrictive gun laws would probably lead to increased crime rather than less...which lost them their credibility with the anti-gun group. Their study covered choice of guns (including assault rifles), sources obtained, how victims were chosen, attitudes toward gun laws, and lots of other goodies.

 

[rscalzo]

You need to stop paying attention to what the media wants you to think and start paying attention to the facts

They are the facts. Try actually looking at the statistics over the years. Obviously you have never dealt with the inner city garbage out on the street. more than once I have restrained someone from attempting to gain access to my duty handgun.

Walking around with an exposed handgun doesn't frighten the true crap on the street in the least. And to those that thing they don't possess and skills in the use of a firearm, think again. you are just feeding yourself a bunch of BS.

As far as committing a murder to gain possession of a handgun, then the fact that many are taken from the scene of a le homicide debunks that theory. This one only came to light because of the fact the actor admitted his motive. a direct target or removal during a stuggle...no difference. to think that there is is only a feeble attempt to prove what isn't there.

 

[TooTaxed]

Having read this forum thread...and posted some of my own above...I feel I should offer my own thoughts on Open Carry versus Concealed Carry.

I feel that the only appropriate time for open carry is out of doors, in the country, where you expect to have reason to use your gun. I carried when I was searching out new caves to explore...we occasionally found rattlesnakes and rabid foxes and raccoons living in the entrances. Open carry while hunting is also appropriate.

Open carry downtown is not appropriate. It alarms many people, may lead to trouble for you, and could make you a target for folks who want your gun. I can't think of a reason for casual open carry. I think it marks someone as looking for trouble. It certainly does not impress people favorably.

On the other hand, concealed carry is quite appropriate. On two occasions (both in California)...three if you count the time in New York City when I pretended to have one... just being able to show a gun resulted in the Bad Guys backing off and disappearing without a word. Firing your weapon is the last resort.

All of our shooting massacres have been in advertised "gun-free" zones...the crazys want to shoot as many helpless "sheep" as possible before someone armed shows up to stop them. And in several cases...one university and one church thjat I can think of...a concealed carry person happened to be there and cut the killing short. Concealed carry permit holders have been thoroughly investigated by the police and certified to be of good character and temperament...we need more of them, and the jobs of the police would be much easier.

 

[conw]

Mainsail,

To be fair I can accept that as a properly offensive tactic (although the word defensive applies also, in a dictionary sense). That doesn't change the fact that in a defensive situation, surprise can be used to a great advantage!

I think the material you posted is great, but you have to admit that there is also value to discussing a combat situation with the assumption that that mindset will not always prevent, deter, or mitigate the possibility of a violent encounter.

Once in a combat situation, in which it is a given that someone is attempting to do violence to you, surprise is useful and desirable.

(I have a feeling that the reason most people train and focus their discussions on strategy and skillsets rather than mindset is that once you get the mindset part down and think through various new situations as they come up, there are fewer permutations of thought necessary to consider "What would I do in X" or "What is the optimal condition in which to operate" re: mindset than re: skillset or re: strategy. Stay out of bad areas, be polite, de-escalate, verbal judo, toss the bad guy a $20, be on the right side of the law. That's mindset in a nutshell, I've got it. Actually I prefer to remain unnoticed rather than attempt overt deterrence, but that's just me.)

Now for the main factor that makes me uncomfortable about open carry. There are criminals who know about disparity of force, know what a law abiding citizen can and cannot do with a handgun, and have very little common sense but plenty of cunning. What do you do when the guys you slipped the $20 won't leave you alone...and you're open carrying? They interview you, how do you respond? You can't threaten to open fire if they are ostensibly unarmed and being obnoxious but not provoking you with force. That would be a hell of situation to be in...sure, there's OC, taser, or impact weapon, but that sounds like a sticky situation in court:

Man openly carrying handgun sprayed youths with pepper spray, then claims when they attacked in response he was forced to use his handgun.

 

[JBURGII]

I OC 100% of the time I am legally able to. The worst reaction I have had so far was from a CCer who believed I was a threat to the security of his license. As far as making the general public (sheeple) nervous by carrying a large black .45 on my hip.. my constitutional right trumps your nervous condition any day. If one of these nervous nellies calls LE about a MWAG, fine.. I am perfectly legal and realize this can be a possibility.

I have had occasion to speak with my local officers and their dispatcher who are all aware of my 'habit' and have learned that if they get one of these calls to ask for me by name.. I do live in a small town making this kind of convenient. I know this would not always fly in a larger city and I might not carry as often in a more diverse population .. or at least CC if I believe the situation calls for it. But to be rabidly CC or OC ONLY is ridiculous. They both have their place in society and I support carrying in ANY form.
Whew.. sorry, am done now (realizing its 2:30 in the morning..) and wish all of you a safe weekend.

J

 

[NavyLCDR]

I OC 100% of the time I am legally able to. The worst reaction I have had so far was from a CCer who believed I was a threat to the security of his license. As far as making the general public (sheeple) nervous by carrying a large black .45 on my hip.. my constitutional right trumps your nervous condition any day. If one of these nervous nellies calls LE about a MWAG, fine.. I am perfectly legal and realize this can be a possibility.

+1. Me too. That has been my exact experience (the CCer part). I've never had MWAG called in one me.

 

[FoMoGo]

+1. Me too. That has been my exact experience (the CCer part). I've never had MWAG called in one me.

Ditto.
Having talked with my local authorities face to face on this subject, and having them tell me in person, I have no worries on having the police called on me.
If it happens, I am legal AND the police know it.
I am willing to make a stand for my rights.
I refuse to roll over and give up my right.
And yes, open carry is a RIGHT where I live...
A right noted by the Bill of Rights and upheld by state law.
CC is a privilege, according to the law... I think it should be a right also, but that is another fight.
Now, if you have a right... that is acknowledged by your state... is backed up my your local law enforcement officials... That takes a LOT of the argument out of the equation.
If you are genuinely afraid that if someone knows you have a gun... you will be attacked, assaulted, mugged, robbed, and killed.
Then why the hell do you live in such an area?
If they will do all of this for a gun, that they know you could pull and use on them... imagine what they are going to do for your wallet, that they know you are carrying and wont harm them.
You are using you own irrational fear against yourselves.
If you dont want to OC... then DONT.
But dont try and tell those of us who do choose to exercise our Rights... who choose to use an effective deterrent, that we are uninformed and are doing something wrong.
I am willing to bet that most people who OC have put a lot more thought into it than your average person who chooses to CC.
We know what we are doing, and that some dont look nicely upon it.
But we are not about to roll over and hand over our rights.


Jim

 

[Kevin108]

I support OC big time. Normal, law-abiding citizens that are conspicuously armed are good thing everywhere as far as I'm concerned. I don't OC all that often myself because it doesn't really fit my style of dress, but that's not the biggest issue.

What really keeps me from OCing with any regularity is that I live in a urban historic area. I live in a small, quiet apartment building and all my neighbors are my friends. No big deal there. But the building across the street though is a revolving door though. Most of the time things are quiet but there have been minor problems from time to time.

I just don't like advertising to all the neighbors that I have guns in the house. Usually if I'm going to OC, I wear a jacket to get in and out of my vehicle but that's not always possible, so most of the time I conceal. Between not liking to tuck in my shirt and not showing the neighbors what they can steal, I feel like OC just isn't the best option for me right now.