OC has it's faults including being snatched and shot with your own gun

[TexasRifleman]

The article doesn't say that at all.

The article, as is standard for sloppy media these days, says both. Completely contradicting itself.

First it says:

According to court papers, Smith and Hamiel arrived at the BP together on a single scooter and followed Tyler into the store.

Then it says:

Smith took Tyler's gun during a struggle and shot Tyler in the chest after the victim chased Smith inside the store.

Clear as mud, which is why trying to dissect what happened will be difficult until more info is released. We're all just speculating at this point.

 

[Stophel]

Sometimes the bad guy wins. That's the way it goes. Saying this is why you shouldn't open carry is the same as saying don't drive because you might have a wreck.

It seems though that his behavior caused his problem. He chased the guy down? He didn't try to draw his gun? And like Texas Rifleman says, the article is not exactly clear on what actually happened... Who chased whom into the store????

 

[huntsman]

Criminals are creatures of opportunity, leave something out and the honest will leave it alone but the thief will take it. That’s what happened here.

 

[USAF_Vet]

This reads to me as though he was shot when he chased the thug who had already taken his gun. If that is the case, it was incredibly stupid.

I don't OC. If someone else wants to, that's their business, but I prefer to be a grey man:



Exactly. Don't make yourself stand out from the crowd, or you risk becoming a target.

I read it the same way, he chased the thug after having his weapon snatched.

I OC since I haven't gotten my CHL yet. However, I don't often get any sort of reaction when people see it. Honestly, I think a lot of people don't see it at all.

Most of the people who stand out in a crowd do so not because of the gun on their hip. Most do so because of their taste in clothing, or the volume of their voice. A casually, tastefully dress person who doesn't call attention to themselves blend in rather well, Open Carrying a hand gun or not.

But aside from that, I don't really care to give off the impression that I'm perpetually fearful or a wanna-be commando, which I believe is the perception many have of people who carry openly.

I've never experienced that. I've never considered anyone who OC's to be fearful, or some 'wanna-be commando.' And honestly, what some one else perceives is not calculated in my choice to OC.

I have never needed my weapon, and likely never will. I don't go looking for trouble, I don't go to places where trouble will likely find me. I behave as I would if I didn't have a deadly weapon at my immediate disposal.

Most of us will never need to draw a weapon, provided we're not a LEO or military. Most of us don't go looking for trouble, either. But 'I don't go to places where trouble will likely find me' is a little short sighted. Trouble can happen anywhere, so don't let down your gaurd because you think you're safe. Living in condition white, especially while armed, is a mistake. Most of us who carry, open or concealed, behave as they would any other time, armed or not.

It would seem our victim did not have the same mentality.

Yeah, he made several mistakes, which ultimately culminated in his death. His choice to OC, IMHO, was not the mistake. His lack of SA, lack of retention, and gung-ho actions after the snatch were the mistakes.

 

[X-Rap]

I don't like states that forbid OC, not because I am a big fan or promoter of that method but because I feel there is a place for all methods of carry, the info as stated can no way be conclusive and as with many things there is more to it than what shows on the face.

 

[conw]

99+% of cops in the US open carry daily and they are not regularly shot with their own guns so clearly you can't argue any statistical problem with open carry at all.

99% of cops are not shot, period, every day. This is an example of a biased sample fallacy.

Late at night, gang infested area, convenience store....1. Don't be there to start with. 2. If you absolutely have to be there and you normally open carry - might want to consider concealing, I probably would.

This is a very reasonable statement. It is NOT the typical OC doctrine we hear from OC advocates.

My opinion is that while I can control my area to some extent, and while I can ramp my awareness up a bit based on being in a bad area, I want the tactically superior option. Unfortunately this could have happened to this guy in broad daylight, outside of his church at a BBQ, giving his favorite cousin a hug.

I agree with you that in this situation CC would probably be tactically superior. I just don't want to bet that OC is tactically superior in a situation where I feel safer, because - as the saying goes - if I thought i was going to get into a fight I wouldn't have gone there. I carry because I can't know.

 

[TexasRifleman]

99% of cops are not shot, period, every day. This is an example of a biased sample fallacy.

Of course it's silly, that's the whole point. It's as silly as saying that open carry causes bad guys to take guns from people and shoot them with it. Yet, that is put forward as a real danger here all the time.

 

[conw]

Yet, that is put forward as a real danger here all the time.

By that logic we should be discussing the best smoke detectors, safest cars, and healthiest foods rather than criminal assault.

 

[USAF_Vet]

By that logic we should be discussing the best smoke detectors, safest cars, and healthiest foods rather than criminal assault.

Well, we already know those answers.

The best smoke detector is your nose, best car is the one you don't have, and healthiest food is Mcdonald's or Burger King.

 

[MachIVshooter]

But 'I don't go to places where trouble will likely find me' is a little short sighted. Trouble can happen anywhere, so don't let down your gaurd because you think you're safe. Living in condition white, especially while armed, is a mistake. Most of us who carry, open or concealed, behave as they would any other time, armed or not.

Knowing that you can avoid most bad situations and "living in condition white" are not synonymous.

I know that I am far less likely to ever need my weapon if I don't go hang out on the street in five points or capitol hill at 3 in the morning. That doesn't mean I believe I am completely safe because I live 30 miles from Denver in a sparsly populated rural community, but I know for a fact that I am safer by the choice to avoid bad places at worse times.

Living in the sticks, door locks, alarms, dogs, guns, paying attention to my surroundings, staying away from dangerous places whenever possible-these are all things that reduce the risks to me and my family. That does not mean I (irrationally) believe that no harm can come to me/us. If I believed that, there wouldn't be a motion sensor at the entrance to the property, there wouldn't be surveillance cameras and there wouldn't be a .44 Spl. bulldog in the drawer beneath the keyboard I'm typing this on

 

[NavyLCDR]

I agree with you that in this situation CC would probably be tactically superior. I just don't want to bet that OC is tactically superior in a situation where I feel safer, because - as the saying goes - if I thought i was going to get into a fight I wouldn't have gone there. I carry because I can't know.

Deterrence is always tactically superior to defensive counter-attack. One of the biggest reasons is that it is impossible to possess credible deterrence without also possessing the ability to execute a strong defensive counter-attack. However, the ability to execute a strong defensive counter-attack can be possessed and have no detterent value whatsoever. The most effective defense is one in which there is an element of deterrence which you present publicaly, and an additional defensive counter-attack capability that you keep in reserve and secret.

That being said, there is no deterrence that can be guaranteed to work 100% of the time, and there is no defensive counter-attack that can be guaranteed to work 100%.

 

[conw]

Deterrence is always tactically superior to defensive counter-attack.
Successful deterrence is, but one must weight a given deterrence strategy against the ability to counter-attack. If we are talking about strategies, then as you say there is no guarantee that deterrence works. So deterrence as a strategy not guaranteed to work is not necessarily superior. Additionally as I allude to at the bottom of the quote I think it's a false dichotomy. Good deterrence sometimes leads into a good counter-attack.
One of the biggest reasons is that it is impossible to possess credible deterrence without also possessing the ability to execute a strong defensive counter-attack.
I disagree; even without taking into account bluffing, there are plenty of positional or verbal deterrence strategies that do not have anything to do, per se, with counter-attacking.
However, the ability to execute a strong defensive counter-attack can be possessed and have no detterent value whatsoever.
I agree, but it's an apples and oranges comparison, since many effective deterrence/evasion/disruption strategies have nothing to do with a gun. Additionally, you're dangerously close to implying that a gun is the only or best deterrence strategy, which I strongly disagree with.
The most effective defense is one in which there is an element of deterrence which you present publicaly, and an additional defensive counter-attack capability that you keep in reserve and secret.
I think I agree but don't necessarily see how this advocates for OC in any way whatsoever, except for the very generic "live and let live" OC advocation, of which I count myself a subscriber. It actually seems to promote CC, to me.

That being said, there is no deterrence that can be guaranteed to work 100% of the time, and there is no defensive counter-attack that can be guaranteed to work 100%.

I totally agree, which is why I prefer to derive my deterrence from dynamic strategies tailored to the situation and that lead into surprise counter-attacks, rather than a static constant-on strategy of revealing the info that I'm carrying.

I included some responses above.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Mark my words.

OC is NOT A DETERRENT. COPS have a) the law on their side (assaulting a cop is a BIG felony and here in Texas they have the automatic right to terminate the attack with lethal force), b) cops have other cops around very often as well as a two-way, c) Cops have retention holsters, d) cops have stun guns/pepper spray/ASP batons to boot. Now those all together ARE a deterrent.

OC by itself invites a snatch. BGs might not try it on a cop but some Joe getting milk in the local stop-n-shop, big difference.

If you decide you are gong to OC, I strongly suggest a snatch resistant holster and a buddy, just in case.

Deaf

 

[Stophel]

"OC is NOT A DETERRENT"

Don't remember the Waffle House incident?

 

[Stophel]

By the way, here's an update to the story. Maybe it sheds a little light on the situation... I kinda think I have an idea of how the situation went down.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...rged-in-2-south-richmond-killings-ar-1502468/

I'm looking to see if I can find anything else

 

[HOWARD J]

Did you notice that these boys will be tried in juvenile court.
They could be back on the street in less than 5 years ready & willing to kill more people.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Mark my words.

OC is NOT A DETERRENT. COPS have a) the law on their side (assaulting a cop is a BIG felony and here in Texas they have the automatic right to terminate the attack with lethal force), b) cops have other cops around very often as well as a two-way, c) Cops have retention holsters, d) cops have stun guns/pepper spray/ASP batons to boot. Now those all together ARE a deterrent.

OC by itself invites a snatch. BGs might not try it on a cop but some Joe getting milk in the local stop-n-shop, big difference.

If you decide you are gong to OC, I strongly suggest a snatch resistant holster and a buddy, just in case.

Deaf

So, if open carry is not a deterrent, than you really think that concealed carry would be? How do you explain the fact that once the DC gun ban was lifted the crime rate steadily decreased? How do explain that areas that have the most gun control also have the highest crime rate? Just a coincidence? Or...let me guess.... you think that the possibility that a person might be carrying a concealed gun is more of a deterrent than the known presence of a gun is?

Open carry will not deter every crime. But open carry is no deterrent? I'm sorry, but real world statistics and research indicate that you are very mistaken.

 

[Scout Dork]

If you OC, you better know how to defend yourself. If you don't(can't) carry, same. I'm all for OC.

It also goes the other way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mseO4078tEc

 

[Deaf Smith]

So, if open carry is not a deterrent, than you really think that concealed carry would be? How do you explain the fact that once the DC gun ban was lifted the crime rate steadily decreased? How do explain that areas that have the most gun control also have the highest crime rate? Just a coincidence? Or...let me guess.... you think that the possibility that a person might be carrying a concealed gun is more of a deterrent than the known presence of a gun is?


Open carry will not deter every crime. But open carry is no deterrent? I'm sorry, but real world statistics and research indicate that you are very mistaken.

Navy,

Concealed carry is a deterrent in that the would-be criminals do not know who is armed and who is not. Stats from such states as Texas back that up.


And the crime rate went down in D.C. because the same would-be criminals now knew some people MIGHT be armed as there is no OC in D.C.

Notice in such states as Arizona and Alaska, where O.C. as well as CC are in effect the crime rates were not changed one O.C. was allowed (since CC carry was allowed before O.C.)

Deaf

 

[Loosedhorse]

So, if open carry is not a deterrent, than you really think that concealed carry would be?

For a community, a known, significant rate of CC would be a deterrent (if criminals had other communities to go to), or an encouragement to use a more violent attack method. For any individual, CC would not be a deterrent; it might however provide tactical surprise against an attacker. For the individual, OC might be a deterrent, or might be an attractant for a less common attacker, or a signal to use a more violent attack. I thought that was all established.

How do you explain the fact that once the DC gun ban was lifted the crime rate steadily decreased?

So...if we (who have not studied the issue) can't explain why DC crime rates have fallen, it must be because of Heller? How did it get to be the default reason?

How many permits have actually been issued in DC? What "crime rates" have fallen? I don't believe that DC has likely issued ANY carry permits--how should that factor in?

In the last 10 years, few cities have experienced a sharper drop in violent crime than NYC. Somehow, I don't think that had anything to do with laxer gun restrictions.

 

[Neverwinter]

Or...let me guess.... you think that the possibility that a person might be carrying a concealed gun is more of a deterrent than the known presence of a gun is?

Open carry will not deter every crime. But open carry is no deterrent? I'm sorry, but real world statistics and research indicate that you are very mistaken.

On the contrary, the subject of mimicry is a very well studied one, and does contradict the need for certainty in deterrence.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So let's look at this way. Why do car alarms have the red light that flashes on the instrument panel? Is it so a criminal walking down the street can pick the car that doesn't have the flashing light to break into because they are easier to not get caught?

Why do home alarm companies put signs in yards and on windows? Is it so the criminals can pick the houses that don't have alarms to break into because they are easier?

Why do cops wear uniforms and clearly display badges? Why aren't all cops undercover to catch criminals in the act?

When there is a big event, especially a "charged" event where the is a high expectation of trouble, do they put more uniformed security presence there? Why not just undercover cops there to apprehend the troublemakers once it starts?

Why do armored car companies drive clearly marked vehicles and have uniformed guards? Why don't they just drive plain white vans and vary their schedules with "undercover" guards?

All of these big companies must be incredibly stupid, right? They should all take advantage of the element of surprise, because their visible signs, lights, and security measures surely won't be a deterrent, right? Why don't they advantage of stealth, deception and surprise? Wouldn't that be more effective for them?

 

[Neverwinter]

So let's look at this way. Why do car alarms have the red light that flashes on the instrument panel? Is it so a criminal walking down the street can pick the car that doesn't have the flashing light to break into because they are easier to not get caught?

Why do home alarm companies put signs in yards and on windows? Is it so the criminals can pick the houses that don't have alarms to break into because they are easier?

Why do cops wear uniforms and clearly display badges? Why aren't all cops undercover to catch criminals in the act?

When there is a big event, especially a "charged" event where the is a high expectation of trouble, do they put more uniformed security presence there? Why not just undercover cops there to apprehend the troublemakers once it starts?

Why do armored car companies drive clearly marked vehicles and have uniformed guards? Why don't they just drive plain white vans and vary their schedules with "undercover" guards?

All of these big companies must be incredibly stupid, right? They should all take advantage of the element of surprise, because their visible signs, lights, and security measures surely won't be a deterrent, right? Why don't they advantage of stealth, deception and surprise? Wouldn't that be more effective for them?

All of these examples are reminiscent of the logic that spurred the following comment:

So...if we (who have not studied the issue) can't explain why DC crime rates have fallen, it must be because of Heller? How did it get to be the default reason?

The absence of imagination in determining possible reasons for certain behavior is not a blank check to group them all solely under the purpose of deterrence. For example, the alarm signs serve as advertising for the company's services. With a little bit of thinking, alternative reasons for the above situations emerge.

 

[Ringolevio]

¡Basta ya! (Enough already!)

NavyLCDR:

All of these big companies must be incredibly stupid, right?

I have followed your theories (rationalizations) for OC for some time now.

So, when it comes to matters of "incredible stupidity", I will respectfully defer to your far greater expertise.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Anyone wondering why this one's closed?

If we could have the discussion without the rancor, that wouldn't be necessary....