Open Carry again

[JRH6856]

Maybe I should have said, those that don't vote have lost the right to have me give them any credence when they whine.

I do agree with that.

 

[JRH6856]

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence regarding deterrence, interviews with criminals and their perspective on picking armed victims, and, even though this kind of thing is almost impossible to document, a documented case of a couple open carry guys with holstered handguns eating in a restaurant deterring a crew of armed robbers (Waffle House here in Georgia)

Anecdotal evidence is better taken as an indicator of something that deserves more study rather than as evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn. There are just too many variables that can't be adequately analyzed and accounted for.

 

[Warp]

Anecdotal evidence is better taken as an indicator of something that deserves more study rather than as evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn. There are just too many variables that can't be adequately analyzed and accounted for.

Is there a scientific study showing that concealed carry is better than open carry?

I'm not the one that asked for something we all know doesn't exist and cannot be cited as support for either option.

 

[buck460XVR]

Vermont (forever), New Hampshire (1923), Washington (1961), Indiana (1980), Maine and North Dakota in 1985, South Dakota (1986) and Florida (1988)

That's 8 states before 1990. In those states it has been the norm for 25 years or longer. Granted, 25 years is not forever but you get the idea.

25 year is a long way from forever and I had already been legally OCing for 15 years before that. I don't get your idea that just because a few folks with relatively little or no experience with OCing have a better grip on the subject. Only that they are talking not from experience, but from subjective observation. When one looks at the populations of those 8 states in the years before 1988, what percentage of the overall population of our country do you think they made up?

While OC may not be practical for most folks that carry where you happen to reside, why does that make it impractical for folks that live elsewhere? There is a great big world out there once you get out of your own yard.

 

[BSA1]

It is a fallacy that someone open carrying will be targeted first and that they must draw their gun if a robbery occurs.

For example a convenience store or gas station. Is the robber after the money in the till or is he going to rob each individual customer? If he is after the till then I don't care and am standing back being a good witness.

If he is also robbing the customers for starters the robber must see my gun.

Second Open Carry does not mean my gun can not be easily concealed.

Third Open Carry does not mean my gun is easily visible.

I carry a black gun in a black holster in a high ride holster at 4 o'clock. It rides against my body and is not easy to see when facing me. Even more difficult when wearing a dark colored shirt. In a robbery, etc. all I have to do is take a slight step backwards with my right leg shifting my right hip and body backwards. My left side of my body is now bladed towards the robber and, guess what he can not see my gun. (Practice this in the mirror and you will understand it). Plus my right hand is also slightly behind my side next to my gun. Or I can move my arm forward of my holster and block seeing it by holding my arm against my body.

I can also use store shelving / displays as cover by standing partially behind it.

So I still have the element of "surprise" as the robber does not know I am armed and I have a significant advantage over conceal carry as I don't have to worry about telegraphing and clearing my cover garment when drawing my weapon.

Also there is no right to vote in the United States.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: It is a fallacy that someone open carrying will be targeted first and that they must draw their gun if a robbery occurs.

If the firearm remains unnoticed for the entire duration of the event, that is true.

For example a convenience store or gas station. Is the robber after the money in the till or is he going to rob each individual customer?

The former, usually, but is the robber apt to assume that an armed citizen will pose no danger to him as he goes after the money in the till? Not likely.

For starters the robber must see my gun.

To make you any more threatening to him than anyone else, yes.

Second Open Carry does not mean my gun can not be easily concealed.

I suppose you are saying that, if you realize that a robbery is unfolding before your gun has been noticed, you will somehow be able to hide it. Is that it?

I carry a black gun in a black holster in a high ride holster at 4 o'clock. It rides against my body and is not easy to see when facing me.

When facing you from what angle?

In a robbery, etc. all I have to do is take a slight step backwards with my right leg shifting my right hip and body obackwards. My left side of my body is now bladed towards the robber and, guess what he can not see my gun. (Practice this in the mirror and you will understand it). Plus my right hand is also slightly behind my side next to my gun.

I can also use store shelving / displays as cover by standing partially behind it.

It would, of course, be very prudent indeed to do everything you can to prevent the robber, and of course his tail gunner (and that might prove more difficult), from realizing that you are armed.

So I still have the element of "surprise" as the robber does not know I am armed and I have a significant advantage over conceal carry as I don't have to worry about telegraphing and clearing my cover garment when drawing my weapon.

If your plan works, yes.

On the other hand, the concealed carrier need not draw at all, and in most cases he or aha should not, unless it is clear that he or she has no choice. And he or she can do that in a manner that is unlikely to "telegraph" anything.

Personally, I would prefer to not be wearing a firearm openly in the unlikely event that robbers who had not seen it first and elected to go elsewhere came in with guns drawn.

 

[BSA1]

Every part of the country is different. In my area it is usually one robber with maybe a wheelman waiting outside. He is in and out in a minute or two. Oh and it helps to have a car that starts. :-0

Our bank robbers usually act alone.

You adjust your tactics for the criminals in your area. My first plan is always retreat and get out of Dodge if possible. ;-)

 

[silicosys4]

silicosy4,

Most of your comments are so far off the wall I wondered how much knowledge and experience you really have with carrying handguns.

I open carry. Just how to you expect me to react when you try to snatch my gun? Fall to my knees and beg you to spare me? Think again Francis.

I carry in a Rosen high ride with a FBI forward tilt. This means my gun cannot be snatched from behind me. So my attacker will have to be at least partially in front of me. When you grab for my gun that means you intend to seriously injury or kill me. In doing so all bets are off.

So what is going to happen is I am going to lock my right elbow against my gun and right arm against my body to protect it. I am going to stomp on your feet injuring your insoles, kick you in the lower legs and knees and kick you in the groin. At the same time with my free hand I am going to deliver open hand blows to your nose driving the blow through into your sinus cavities, twist your ear, gouge your eyes, hook my thumb into the inside corner of your mouth ripping the skin. If I can find a piece of your bare skin I am going to bite…hard! When I am able to draw my gun I will give you the bullets.

Now are you sure you want to open this dance? You lack of experience and training in defensive tactics doesn’t apply across the board. A read of "Fight Like A Cornered Cat" might be useful for you.

I have only been able to find one document incident of a citizen open carrying (i.e. handgun in holster on body) being disarmed by a unexpected attack. The attacker was able to get the gun and shot and killed the gun owner after the now unarmed gun owner chased the attacker as he fled the scene with the gun.

If you have any documented reports of the incidents you are describing please post them.

Nothing but chest thumping and posturing.

I would of course, unleash my super ninja kick, and jump immediately to the right, execute a takedown...yada yada yada

None of that is what you "would" do.
That is all what you'd "hope" you'd have the ability and the reaction to do. Honestly sounds like something you came up with while sitting in front of your computer eating cheezits, wondering how bad@$$ you could be.
How many times has someone tried to snatch your gun away?
Sounds like you have a really detailed plan, and those are notorious for falling apart in the dynamics of an actual situation.

This has already been posted to this thread, but here you go...again.
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2014/10/gresham_man_robbed_of_pistol_a.html

 

[Warp]

2 or 3 people open carrying in the United States have been relieved of their pistols in the past...oh...decade or so...as far as any of us know.

Clearly that incidence rate indicates that if you open carry, you're going to be accosted for your firearm, even if you don't do the same things 'wrong' that those people did.

Just like, clearly, a person who buys an AR15 style rifle, magazines, ammo, and LBV/plate carrier is going to shoot a bunch of people in a public place, because that has happened so many times in the past decade.

Similarly, people who concealed carry are going to either forget their pistol in the bathroom, or accidentally discharge the pistol in the bathroom, be it at Walmart, a school, wherever.

Also, people who carry a gun in their car are going to take it out and use it in a bout of road rage.

 

[silicosys4]

2 or 3 people open carrying in the United States have been relieved of their pistols in the past...oh...decade or so...as far as any of us know.

Clearly that incidence rate indicates that if you open carry, you're going to be accosted for your firearm, even if you don't do the same things 'wrong' that those people did.

Just like, clearly, a person who buys an AR15 style rifle, magazines, ammo, and LBV/plate carrier is going to shoot a bunch of people in a public place, because that has happened so many times in the past decade.

So how many concealed carriers have been targeted and robbed specifically because of and for their properly concealed weapon?
We are talking about the pro's and cons here of open carry. You have just been presented with a con. Spluttering and saying that open carriers have a low likelihood of specifically being targeted for their firerarm is true, but it is still an unneccessary risk that could be avoided in many circumstances by carrying concealed.
People have been robbed for their open carried firearm. If/when that happens its really bad PR for the 2a. Avoidance is easy.

 

[BSA1]

silicosys4,

Guns? No.

Edged weapons, homemade knives, shanks and razors numerous times.

The article you linked is poorly written. Another article said he was walking down the street showing his new gun to his friend. It sounds like the victim was carrying the gun in his hand and it was not even loaded. He certainly was in Condition White. Imagine the media slanting or leaving out facts.

Any other documented cases???

 

[silicosys4]

silicosys4,

Guns? No.

Edged weapons, homemade knives, shanks and razors numerous times.

The article you linked is poorly written. It sounds like the victim was carrying the gun in his hand and it was not even loaded. He certainly was in Condition White.

Any other documented cases???

Well then here, go ahead and read one of the other 50 articles about it, I'm sure one of them will satisfy your editorial eye

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=open+carry+man+robbed

In the meantime, do you have a single incidence of a concealed carrier targeted and robbed specifically for their CCW? I have provided an instance of a man being targeted and robbed of his open carry weapon.

and here is another one.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/30/man-accused-of-stealing-gun-from-conceal-and-carry-holder/

"Police said an adult male was walking home in the area when a man, later identified as Merriweather, was walking the other way and suddenly slammed the victim into a parked car.

The victim hurt his arm and wasn’t able to defend himself."

So tell me BSA, when you've been unexpectedly slammed to the ground, are you going to be able to execute your very detailed plan of attack while you are gasping for breath, and cradling an injured limb?
How long have YOU been carrying a gun, since you seem to think that you are not vulnerable to ambush and will magically be able to retain control of the situation no matter what?

 

[Kleanbore]

2 or 3 people open carrying in the United States have been relieved of their pistols in the past...oh...decade or so...as far as any of us know.

I recall about that number in the last five years, but what does that tell us?

The total number of persons who're routinely exposed to that risk is extremely small. While open carry is lawful in many jurisdictions,people I know who live in them (except for those in Arizona) have observed that it is a rare occurrence even in most of those.

One really needs a much larger data sample to do any kind of valid quantification of risk.

Now, in an area in which the prevalence of open carry is high (such as Phoenix and Tel Aviv), one can reasonably expect all but the least rational potential criminals to exercise just a little discretion before trying to slash or smash an open carrier from behind....

But where it is low, the risk exposure will be low.

 

[Warp]

So how many concealed carriers have been targeted and robbed specifically because of and for their properly concealed weapon?

How many concealed carriers have been targeted and robbed specifically because the attacker(s) believed they would be unable to put up a an effective defense?

We are talking about the pro's and cons here of open carry. You have just been presented with a con. Spluttering and saying that open carriers have a low likelihood of specifically being targeted for their firerarm is true, but it is still an unneccessary risk that could be avoided in many circumstances by carrying concealed.

We are talking about the pros and cons of concealed carry vs open carry. You have been presented with the fact that deterrence exists and is a real thing yet you choose to completely ignore that possibility. If you ignore the pros and look only at the cons the discussion is worthless.

People have been robbed for their open carried firearm. If/when that happens its really bad PR for the 2a. Avoidance is easy.

For the sake of clarification...is your position that if a choice results in any possibility whatsoever of a negative outcome, that choice is bad?


Example: When I drive to my doctor's office for a checkup, I could be injured or killed in an automobile accident on the way there. Easily avoided, I shouldn't go. Or is it only with open carry that you fail to weigh both the pros and the cons?

 

[silicosys4]

How many concealed carriers have been targeted and robbed specifically because the attacker(s) believed they would be unable to put up a an effective defense?

That wasn't my question. This is a straw man argument.

We are talking about the pros and cons of concealed carry vs open carry. You have been presented with the fact that deterrence exists and is a real thing yet you choose to completely ignore that possibility. If you ignore the pros and look only at the cons the discussion is worthless.

I have been presented with no such thing, just your continued ascertions in absence of evidence.

For the sake of clarification...is your position that if a choice results in any possibility whatsoever of a negative outcome, that choice is bad?

If you have other options that are just as effective yet negate the chances of a negative outcome significantly, yes...one choice is better than the other.

Example: When I drive to my doctor's office for a checkup, I could be injured or killed in an automobile accident on the way there. Easily avoided, I shouldn't go. Or is it only with open carry that you fail to weigh both the pros and the cons?

No, a proper example would be more like "When I drive to my doctors office traffic its raining so I'll drive a car instead of a motorcycle."
I haven't failed to weigh both the pro's and con's of open carry in an urban setting. You have done a poor job of presenting the pro's, forcing me to conclude that there aren't many, if any.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: You have been presented with the fact that deterrence exists and is a real thing...

It is plainly obvious that an openly carried firearm that is seen by a potential attacker before he decides to attack will have the effect of deterring the attack. And that deterrence may prevent it.

Not so if it is unnoticed. At that point, it clearly presents a risk. If an attack does occur, the presence of the firearm if it is then noticed can prove quite a liability for the carrier.

And, of course, there is the additional risk presented by the attractiveness of the firearm to a vicious robber. Everyone stands in line at one time or another, no one (regardless of what he might believe) can exercise complete awareness all of the time, and no retention training or equipment can defend against the carrier being disabled in a surprise attack from behind by a lethal contact weapon by one or more assailants.

The likelihood is no doubt remote, but as we say, the stakes are high.

 

[ATLDave]

Here is a blog post from gunnuts.net. I'm inclined to agree with most or all of it.

http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/10/08/open-carry-advocate-has-gun-stolen/

 

[Midwest]

Vermont (forever), New Hampshire (1923), Washington (1961), Indiana (1980), Maine and North Dakota in 1985, South Dakota (1986) and Florida (1988)

That's 8 states before 1990. In those states it has been the norm for 25 years or longer. Granted, 25 years is not forever but you get the idea. I live in one of those states and I just don't see a lot of OC going on in the cities although it's been legal here since statehood.
[/B].
__________________

Kentucky has been open carry since 1792
.

 

[Warp]

That wasn't my question. This is a straw man argument.

If you are going to say that the pros of open carry are a straw man then we are through here.

It is plainly obvious that an openly carried firearm that is seen by a potential attacker before he decides to attack will have the effect of deterring the attack. And that deterrence may prevent it.

Not so if it is unnoticed. At that point, it clearly presents a risk. If an attack does occur, the presence of the firearm if it is then noticed can prove quite a liability for the carrier.

And, of course, there is the additional risk presented by the attractiveness of the firearm to a vicious robber. Everyone stands in line at one time or another, no one (regardless of what he might believe) can exercise complete awareness all of the time, and no retention training or equipment can defend against the carrier being disabled in a surprise attack from behind by a lethal contact weapon by one or more assailants.

The likelihood is no doubt remote, but as we say, the stakes are high.

Yes, being robbed/attacked or not is definitely high stakes.

And, yes, open carry can potentially prevent you from being attacked. That is part of the equation, no matter how hard some people try to ignore that side of the scale.

Everything in life has pros and cons and risks, how/what/if you carry is no different.

 

[BSA1]

solicosys4,

There is nothing in the link you cite that the victim in Minnesota was open carrying. In fact the headline says "conceal and carry".

As for Google well you have not cited any more specific cases.

At this point you are becoming shrill. I have made my points and counterpoints so I have nothing new other than I have never said I am opposed to conceal carry. They both serve me well.

 

[silicosys4]

solicosys4,

There is nothing in the link you cite that the victim in Minnesota was open carrying. In fact the headline says "conceal and carry".

As for Google well you have not cited any more specific cases.

At this point you are becoming shrill. I have made my points and counterpoints so I have nothing new to add.

Pardon me, I should have clarified, didn't mean to be misleading.
that link was more a response to your post about your "plan" if you were to be attacked.

anyways. Considering you entered this thread with a rather personal and unneccessary attack against me and you have yet to contribute a single link or fact to correlate your statements....

 

[BSA1]

Solicosys4,

No personal attack intended towards you. I have taken issue with several of your points as you have with mine.

I didn't realize that when you cited the case of the conceal carry holder in Minnesota you were wanting to discuss tactics if the gun arm is disabled as the topic is about open carry. Since you ask in my case I would draw my Gerber folding knife from my left pocket, flip it open with my thumb and slice and dice. I may ultimately lose the fight but I am going to cause some damage before going down.

My key point is wolves prefer sheep. A aggressive counterattack is the last thing a attacker is expecting and wants. A tactical mindset takes time to develop but it really isn't very hard.

Hopefully you will take something positive from this debate as I know I am.

 

[CoalTrain49]

While OC may not be practical for most folks that carry where you happen to reside, why does that make it impractical for folks that live elsewhere? There is a great big world out there once you get out of your own yard.

Well, I travel quite a bit, mostly in the western states. I don't travel in the NE so I have no knowledge of how people carry there. I've also traveled and lived in N. Africa and Europe if that matters. So your assumption that I haven't been out of my own yard would be incorrect.

25 year is a long way from forever and I had already been legally OCing for 15 years before that. I don't get your idea that just because a few folks with relatively little or no experience with OCing have a better grip on the subject. Only that they are talking not from experience, but from subjective observation. When one looks at the populations of those 8 states in the years before 1988, what percentage of the overall population of our country do you think they made up?

To begin with I'm not saying that CC is better for everyone. I OC sometimes myself when I hike and hunt. My point is that in the states that have both CC and OC the vast majority of the public that carry, carry concealed. Because there are no records for people that OC it would be hard for me, or anyone, to use a stat to prove otherwise. But there are records of permits for people that CC in states where OC is legal. In PA (where I don't live) the number of CC holders is about 1 in 13 people. The average here in WA is about the same. So are there 900,000 people in PA who OC daily or even occasionally? I doubt it.

If you OC, that's great. I would rather see people OC than not carry but CC is by far the preferred method of carry. And it isn't because people just don't have experience with it. They clearly don't like the idea enough to do it or they would save themselves the hassel of being fingerprinted, investigated and paying a fee for a class and a permit.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well, I travel quite a bit, mostly in the western states. I don't travel in the NE so I have no knowledge of how people carry there. I've also traveled and lived in N. Africa and Europe if that matters. So your assumption that I haven't been out of my own yard would be incorrect.



To begin with I'm not saying that CC is better for everyone. I OC sometimes myself when I hike and hunt. My point is that in the states that have both CC and OC the vast majority of the public that carry, carry concealed. Because there are no records for people that OC it would be hard for me, or anyone, to use a stat to prove otherwise. But there are records of permits for people that CC in states where OC is legal. In PA (where I don't live) the number of CC holders is about 1 in 13 people. The average here in WA is about the same. So are there 900,000 people in PA who OC daily or even occasionally? I doubt it.

If you OC, that's great. I would rather see people OC than not carry but CC is by far the preferred method of carry. And it isn't because people just don't have experience with it. They clearly don't like the idea enough to do it or they would save themselves the hassel of being fingerprinted, investigated and paying a fee for a class and a permit.

North Africa and Europe have absolutely no bearing on gun ownership and firearm carry in the U.S. To say it does and to compares us to them is ridiculous. I'm surprised any 2nd Amendment supporter would prefer their stance on gun ownership/carry over ours. I wonder how much of that Europe you've been to allows the average citizen to carry a loaded firearm....concealed or open?

I never said OC was better for everyone either. Nor is the best for every scenario. But it does work well for some of us in some scenarios. I too CC the majority of the time. So what? If the majority of folks that CC have a 9mm for their weapon, does that make carrying my .38 or .45 wrong, or should I be chastised for it? No, it doesn't. Same should be true for OCing responsibly.
While 900,000 folks in PA may have permits, I doubt very much that all of them practice CC everyday. I'd be surprised if the percent that does is even a majority. Many will only CWC occasionally when they feel it's needed or appropriate. Similar to me and OC. The permit only gives them the choice of legally carrying concealed. The 2nd Amendment gives most of us the privilege to OC.

I truly do believe tho, that the majority of folks that oppose OC, have little or no experience doing it themselves or witnessing it being done responsibly. That's why it seems so foreign and just wrong to them. Certainly understandable. Just as is the idea that some folks fear the idea of OC by themselves or others. While many whine about the CWC licensing requirements, it's not that big of hassle. It's advantages at times is well worth the bother, that's why most folks do it. I know that's why I did. But in my part of the world, in certain scenarios, OC works very well and many times works better that CWC. Why must I contend with folks chastising me for practicing it legally and responsibly?

 

[BSA1]

All of the arguments against open carry are the same ones that were made when conceal carry laws were passed. Time has proven those arguments have not come to pass.