Open carry article

[Mainsail]

...or in the news/on Youtube, where people are doing so to be provocative.

I could post a video of me openly carrying a handgun in a holster, but it would be pretty dull.

Don't form opinions based on youtube.

 

[ohbythebay]

I agree with 627PCFan

BIG difference in open carry with a Glock strapped to your hip vs a rifle or shotgun in your arms (or slung over your shoulder). That was done to make a point and had no value except to enflame a touchy subject.

Most people seeing a holstered pistol tend to assume you have reason to carry. Maybe you are an off duty office. Maybe you are security. While an eyebrow may rise, ire will not.

Se a rifle and even I am going to be on high alert because there is no reason to carry a rifle in a public place. Its just overkill (no pun intended).

 

[orionengnr]

"In Mothers Demand Action we have a lot of members who are politically conservative. But ask them if people should be able to open carry and they don’t want that.”

Yeah, and we hold our monthly Vegan Luncheon at Sonny's Bar-B-Que...

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Personally, I don't like the idea of open carry. ...most importantly, it defeats the element of surprise that is the advantage of a CCW.

PERSONALLY, I really avoid this line of thinking myself. "Element of surprise"? I do not want to need any element of surprise!!! I want to avoid ANY encounter before it comes to me! The last thing I want to do is need to surprise someone with my gun. I want someone to see it and choose a softer target. Maybe, a criminal will even see my gun and think "Gee, people do carry guns; maybe assault isn't the best way for me to continue living".

I hear the "element of surprise" argument all the time and I think it is truly just a cover for another reason... The real reason is discomfort with the idea of having a visible pistol on your belt. It can be uncomfortable. It does require more attention to surroundings, more preparedness against a gun-grab, and attracts more stares and higher scrutiny from authorities. I think that is why people say "I keep the element of surprise" really, because they want to avoid all of those things much more than be better prepared to draw on an attacker. ETA: The concerns of discomfort, higher scrutiny, higher attention to surroundings, fear of a gun grab, etc. are all valid concerns, BTW. OCing a gun does not in any way mean that you can just casually go about your day and relax. I do have a slightly higher level of stress when I OC and I expend more time and energy analyzing my surroundings when OCing. OC is not the perfect answer for every person in every environment. However, I think the "element of surprise" is a red herring of an argument, rather than just saying the truth, which is "I just don't want everyone to see my gun; I want to blend in and go about my day in a relaxed manner". Just say that, unless... are you really gambling on the "element of surprise" in saving your life in a split-second violent encounter? More so than having avoided the violent encounter ever taking place?

I also think that, if you are truly betting on the "element of surprise" to be the one/main practice that saves you in an encounter, then you are relying very heavily upon your training in drawing from concealment, split second decision making under intense stress, and luck. In open carrying, I rely less on my ability to clear concealment, MUCH less split second decision making (because my gun is already a visible deterrent and I appear to be a harder target, so less chance of a petty assault), and much less on luck. Regarding luck... I have put my capabilities right out in the open, so I have reduced the chance of being the unlucky target of an assault. I have reduced the chance of having an unlucky snag or getting a bad grip hold while trying to clear concealment. I have increased the ability to carry a larger gun, which I can grip, hold, shoot, and handle more confidently. Becoming the unlucky target of a gun grab - the chances of that are SO low, and please don't compare me with an officer who seeks out bad guys and pursues them.

No, I am not advocating OC for anyone else. Yes, there are risks and it is a harder practice to become comfortable with. Yes, there are drawbacks.

 

[CatManDo]

You are merely repeating the same arguments that were made when States began to pass concealed carry laws. Long on emotion and short on facts. Shoot-outs, murder rate increasing, folks packing iron would be more aggressive, etc. As we now know none of that has happened. In fact concealed carry has become so widely accepted all 50 States have C.C. laws at least on paper.

The surest way to lose a right is not to exercise it. For decades the States did not exercise their rights in the 10th Amendment. Case in point look at the States fighting the Federal Government trying to stop the overly expansive and expensive laws that now regulate most of our daily lives.

In July open carry becomes legal in Kansas. I intend to exercise my right to do so. If by doing so makes you upset then don’t look.

As for packing long gun vs. handgun I don’t consider carrying a long gun while shopping, getting in and out of the vehicle and bringing into action if needed practical. My primary summer o.c. is a J-Frame stainless steel 38 simply because it is easy to carry, easy to get in and out of the truck with and doesn’t get in the way of my activities. I also have a pair of very nice tuned 1911’s one of which I may carry after I get a holster I like.

I think if you check, OC wasn't illegal in Kansas, just some cities/counties within Kansas. This new Law will strip those areas of their individual restrictions and make OC legal anywhere in Kansas.

 

[mljdeckard]

I think that the 'element of surprise' is at LEAST outweighed by the deterrence factor. Having said that, if you are going to open-carry, get some retention training, and use a retention holster.

I do find that most of the sentiment and advice against OC come (coincidentally enough) from states where people aren't allowed to do it.

I teach my students, just because something is legal, doesn't always make it a good idea. If you are doing it to prove something or make a point, you will probably fail miserably. You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

I personally OC when I am doing outdoor things in outdoor places with outdoor people. I have been known to remove my cover garment in places like restaurants when I am too hot.

Utah now has codified that mere possession of a gun is not brandishing, and police may not charge someone with disorderly conduct if they are carrying a gun and not doing anything wrong.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Its all about exposure. The reason OCing is so crazy to some people now, is because they never see it. Anywhere, and when they do it startles them. If times changed and everywhere you went you saw someone open carrying, this would be a sincere non issue. It would just be the culture. Gotta start somewhere though. Hopefully its texas next.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I think that the 'element of surprise' is at LEAST outweighed by the deterrence factor. Having said that, if you are going to open-carry, get some retention training, and use a retention holster.

I agree very much with what you say here, as well as with the rest of your post.

IN ADDITION TO thorough training on retention skills and the accompanying equipment, I feel that using a shoulder holster keeps my gun in a place where a gun-grab would be very difficult for the attacker. It's also pretty comfortable and I have had some compliments too.

Yesterday, I had a nice talk with the woman working at Radio Shack (in a mall). She liked my shoulder holster and commented. We talked about guns and had a friendly discussion. Her co-worker looked very skeptical and kept his eyes on me. However, he helped me a moment later. We all had a nice chat as he rang me up and I left them with a smile. If I'm wearing a belt holster, it is rare than anyone even notices that I'm carrying.

 

[Glock19Fan]

Open carry rarely deters a crime. If I walked into a bank to rob it, I would change my plans because I seen someone openly carrying. I would simply make him my first target, whethet ots by gun shot or disarming him.

Open carry is the best way to get yourself unwanted attention really quick and everywhere you go. I feel most people do it because they feel it makes or gives them authority rather than any practical or tactical reason.

 

[conw]

Open carry rarely deters a crime. If I walked into a bank to rob it, I would change my plans because I seen someone openly carrying. I would simply make him my first target, whethet ots by gun shot or disarming him.

Open carry is the best way to get yourself unwanted attention really quick and everywhere you go. I feel most people do it because they feel it makes or gives them authority rather than any practical or tactical reason.

Lots of criminals simply aren't scared of guns. This isn't hard to demonstrate. They're especially not that scared of guns that are holstered and being carried by law abiding citizens in plain sight. That's just talismanic thinking.

Sure some criminals if you want to call them that might be deterred. But they're also probably not that interested in you to begin with if you are reasonably fit and confident in your demeanor. If they're that easily discouraged it isn't like the gun would be the only method of deterring them so I fail to see the benefit. It isn't Dungeons and Dragons where we get a saving throw against bad guy encounters by having a gun showing on our hip.

There are excellent training classes on prefight management and you know what? Open carry isn't part of the strategy in any of them. That's because the person and his or her skillset and real time decision making is what matters. And with that skill set in place the idea of a talisman to ward off minor noncommitted criminals becomes laughable.

Forget about the element of surprise as a pure tactic and consider management of information. When information that factors into your self protection ability leaves your control and it becomes 100% clear to dozens or hundreds of people each day you give up initiative and allow the other guy to decide what to do sooner with more insight into your capabilities.

Sometimes that may be leaving you alone. Maybe. But a passive one size fits all strategy for deterrence isn't taught anywhere because it's simply not a way of increasing chances of success in serious situations in the same way as an intensive proactive trained response to those situations.

As I stated the skillset for avoidance and deterrence is very effective and useful but the gun may potentially be necessary if the unknown potential assailant decides to push through the various levels of verbal and positional blockades and demonstrates clear intent to harm you.

At that point when milliseconds count you want to be ahead of the curve by having a fully formed plan based on more information and a farther position in your own OODA loop than the bad guy. By letting someone who is determined to harm you see your gun you've let him pre-feed that info into his own plan, rapidly cycle through Observe, Orient, and possibly Decide.

As he begins to Act you're playing catch up and no matter how good your training or physical speed, you'll have a better outcome IF the fight is on, if he gets stuck at Orient while you Decide and Act. Drawing a gun from concealment isn't the only way to disrupt the OODA loop but it is part of a comprehensive strategy that is effective.

Careful management of information wins battles and fights because it enables you to keep your opponent off balance by forcing unexpected decisions as you are already able to take decisive action.

When information leaves your control that could change the nature of the fight you make these trade offs. In my view saying that the ability to passively deter minor scumbags with your talisman automatically trumps the ability to dictate the terms of the fight to a real deal serious apex predator criminal (e.g. Platt and Matix or numerous other spree criminals who killed gun owning citizens to better arm themselves ) is at best apples and oranges and at worst purely magical thinking.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Open carry rarely deters a crime. If I walked into a bank to rob it, I would change my plans because I seen someone openly carrying. I would simply make him my first target, whethet ots by gun shot or disarming him.

Open carry is the best way to get yourself unwanted attention really quick and everywhere you go. I feel most people do it because they feel it makes or gives them authority rather than any practical or tactical reason.

So where are the news stories of the civilians not in police uniforms getting shot first in robberies? I challenge you to come up with 5 in the last 20 years.

Another urban myth that people like to believe; for whatever reason I don't know. Maybe it gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside is all I can imagine. There is no evidence to support the claim of open carrying Joe Citizen getting shot first in his normal daily life....unless he happens to be wearing a police or security uniform.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed.

40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/07/gun-owner-saves-lives-in-the-richmond-va-golden-market-shooting/

Open carry was an advantage in this case because in the video I saw just how fast the GO managed to draw his gun and begin to return fire. You always hear about how open carry is so bad tactically – you’ll be the first one shot, etc. Oh, yeah? The GO had a HUGE gun in plain sight and he was NOT shot. Who got shot first? An unarmed store owner.

http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

Lots of criminals simply aren't scared of guns. This isn't hard to demonstrate. They're especially not that scared of guns that are holstered and being carried by law abiding citizens in plain sight. That's just talismanic thinking.

And is this your own expert opinion, or do you have any real world facts or studies to support it?

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-screen.pdf

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following:
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

The MAJORITY of criminals won't CHOOSE a victim with a gun. It's just common sense. Why would the criminal CHOOSE to attack the person they can see is carrying a gun or CHOOSE to rob the convenience store where they see an armed person when all they have to do is wait 5 minutes for that person to leave or walk down the street one block and pick one of the remaining 99% of the general population that is not visibly displaying the means to kill them with? Criminals aren't stupid, they are lazy and they don't want to attract attention to themselves or get caught. How many bank robberies or robberies of armored cars are there compared to the robbery of individuals, convenience stores, and unoccupied homes and cars? Sure, the bank and armored car robberies make the news - but how many burglaries are committed every day against single individuals, unoccupied cars and unoccupied homes that don't make the news? Probably thousands. And why is that? Because they are easier targets and criminals like easy targets and targets where there are people with guns are not easy.

There is no magic talisman - there are only odds. And the odds are that the MAJORITY (not all) of criminals will just pass on a visibly hardened target and move on to the easier one - especially when 99% of the public and public places like gas stations and convenience stores don't have guns being visibly carried in them.

Why do armored car companies use uniformed and visibly armed security with the big display of their armored and marked trucks? Why don't they use vans with the armor concealed, and plain clothes guards carrying concealed weapons? It's called deterrence. And deterrence works far better when it is made visible and known.

If the sight of my gun turns away just one criminal and keeps them from attacking me or my family, then it has been successful. I will never know if it was successful or not because the criminal isn't going to come up to me and say, "Man, it's a good thing you were in here with your gun because I was going to rob this place, but now I am going to go down the street to the next store."

However, real world facts and history indicate that there is a far greater chance of the criminal just leaving me alone if they see my gun than the chance of getting shot first because of it.

The real world fact that we all have to face, whether we conceal or open carry, is that we must be ready to kill the person who chooses to attack us. It is much easier and much less uncomfortable for us to believe that the "element of surprise" will save the concealed carrier - or that no criminal will attack the open carrier - neither of which is 100% guaranteed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: So where are the news stories of the civilians not in police uniforms getting shot first in robberies?

Why would a uniform make a victim who is seen to be carrying any more likely to be shot?

It might well show up in the statistics, because in the vast majority of heavily populated urban areas, only uniformed officers are permitted to carry openly.

I would think that any thinking armed robber who sees a person with a firearm at the scene would choses to wait until a later time or go somewhere else. That's deference. It should apply whether or not the carriers are uniformed, though the criminal actor would be more likely to notice the uniform.

Common sense would tell us that the only real risk would occur if there were more than one criminal and the one who notices the policeman or the armed citizen cannot adjust the plan timely, or an armed person walks in on a crime in process.

The latter has happened. The person walking in was carrying concealed. But he was an off-duty policeman, and he was shot because he was recognized.

In the only case I know of personally in which open carriers were shot first, the victims were uniformed officers. They had to be. The crime occurred in a gun free zone.

Which, as it happened, was in an area in which open carry is not lawful. There are no openly armed persons not in uniform to test the question.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why would a uniform make a victim who is seen to be carrying any more likely to be shot?

People like to post news stories of police officers and security guards being shot in robberies as evidence that armed Joe Civilian will get shot first in a robbery. Those stories presented simply do not support that Joe Civilian in plain clothes will get shot first because he is open carrying. They do support the fact that when a robbery of a high value target is planned - it is planned to shoot the armed security guard first and police are shot to prevent apprehension and arrest.

Most violent crimes happen against individual persons or small stores. Real world evidence suggests that the majority criminals either leave individuals or stores where the owner is known to be armed alone or run at the sight of a gun.

 

[BSA1]

I think if you check, OC wasn't illegal in Kansas, just some cities/counties within Kansas. This new Law will strip those areas of their individual restrictions and make OC legal anywhere in Kansas.

HUH???

I said “In July open carry becomes legal in Kansas. I intend to exercise my right to do so. If by doing so makes you upset then don’t look.”

The word “becomes” is future tense. You can read the summary of the law in HB 2578.

Open carry rarely deters a crime. If I walked into a bank to rob it, I would change my plans because I seen someone openly carrying. I would simply make him my first target, whethet ots by gun shot or disarming him.

Please post any data and statistics to support your claims otherwise you are reacting emotionally the same as Liberals and Anti-2A folks do.

Open carry is the best way to get yourself unwanted attention really quick and everywhere you go. I feel most people do it because they feel it makes or gives them authority rather than any practical or tactical reason.

So what?

Everybody has different reasons for doing things they do. I drive a 15 year old beat up pickup because I don't want to make car payments any more. My son drives a new high performance Mustang that drinks premium gas.
We have vastly different reasons for driving the vehicles we do but we both accomplish the same goal...arriving at our destination safely.

So when you state "they feel it makes or gives them authority rather than any practical or tactical reason" does that mean it is a bad thing? How many people become or are Police Officers because they enjoy the authority it gives them? I guess if the feeling authority is a bad thing then we need to start weeding the LEO's that enjoy the authority they have.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: People like to post news stories of police officers and security guards being shot in robberies as evidence that armed Joe Civilian will get shot first in a robbery.

Really?

Those stories presented simply do not support that Joe Civilian in plain clothes will get shot first because he is open carrying.

Of course they don't.

But logic and basic common sense do support the contention that, on those occasions on which the presence of the officer or the openly armed civilian (citizen who is not an officer) does not happen to deter the crime, the criminals can reasonably be expected to use deadly force, and to use it first, against persons who would pose an immediate threat to their freedom and safety.

They do support the fact that when a robbery of a high value target is planned - it is planned to shoot the armed security guard first and police are shot to prevent apprehension and arrest.

Or to prevent their being shot, don't you think?

But in the majority of the cases that have made the news in our area in the last year or so, officers who have been shot have either been pursuing criminals (something that civilians do not do) or they have happened upon the scene of a crime in progress, on the street or in a store or service station or in a home (which can happen to anyone).

We have not had a robbery of a hardened "high value target" around here for a long time. There have been a lot of bank robberies--little banks in supermarkets and in strip malls and the like--where no armed guards were present. No shootings, usually.

 

[Tirod]

I think that the 'element of surprise' is at LEAST outweighed by the deterrence factor. Having said that, if you are going to open-carry, get some retention training, and use a retention holster.

I disagree, but if someone chooses to use a retention holster, it's their business. What I disagree with is the notion that for some reason the opponent will get close enough to make a gun grab in the first place.

How often does that happen with no prior warning, and why? If you are standing at counter in an auto parts store, what is the propensity of some other customer at random to snatch your pistol?

I think we vastly overstate the probability and use the wrong standard to "fix" the problem - a police officer's holster. Well, his job is to march to the sounds of confrontation and insert himself into the dynamics in order to gain control over the situation and quell the unrest.

That's NOT our job if we are OC'ing, precisely because we may very well introduce a negative accelerant to the situation. It's none of our business, as both parties would point out, and a show of lethal force early in the conflict isn't what is needed whatsoever.

This is where the anti OC crowd picks up the chorus of "why are you carrying, you only make things worse!" And why those that do OC likely have to consider they are even more in the legal spotlight when stumbling into a confrontation between two individuals.

If it's going to degenerate into a scuffle or beatdown, the more appropriate response may very well be to grab your phone, dial 911 and let the cops sort it out. Physically inserting yourself into the heat of the battle may tempt one or the other to grab your gun, exactly what you didn't want to happen. It's all about the psychology of male confrontation which is studied under the vernacular term "monkey dancing."

If you have a habit of intruding into the affairs of others, then, by all means, get a retention holster and study martial arts. Otherwise, if you plan to OC, at least make sure it's a holster that can't dump the magazine or snag the grip and pull it out inadvertently.

Back to the odds of someone just snatching your pistol with no warning at all - not likely. I'm not saying there is no risk, I am saying that by and large the majority of us don't consider the risk worth worrying about. Nonetheless, if more people do OC, the probability will increase.

Taking that probability, and not arguing at what single decimal digit percentage it wouldn't likely even rise to, I take the view why were "you" blithely wandering about your business with no recognition of the threat? If the gun is a potential snatch target, then, conduct yourself accordingly. Don't let yourself get sandwiched into crowds, or conduct business where members of the public can randomly get close to you. Manuever your body position to protect your gun - in the "auto parts" scenario, maybe have the gun side toward the counter to reduce grab risk.

Or, carry concealed, which reduces the gun grab risk a whole lot more because the random kook won't have a clue you are carrying. If someone is worrying about a gun grab OC, you have just revealed why it might not be so suitable for that individual in their life. They have measured their skill against the risk and found themselves wanting.

As for carrying an AR in public, I think it's better explained by comparing it to strippers. A lot of us don't have much problem with it at the right time and place, but exposing the general public to it isn't our cup of tea. We can appreciate that there may be a right to do so, but in the sense of exercising a decision based on values, it's not something I am going to do. Considering that I would fully qualify as a member of an eldercare nudist colony, I'm sure many would thank me for keeping myself off the streets, unclothed or with an AR.

On the other hand, where's that photo of the young Israeli woman carrying an M16? Maybe we'd have a lot less hassle if that was all we saw. Goes to how open carry is presently being merchandised. If the folks doing it looked less like a bunch of wannabe operators and looked more like student teachers, it would be much harder to generate a lot of opposition.

How are you perceived in society? If you appear to be capable of your own self defense, why gild the lily with a visible firearm? And, if you appear to be quite capable of losing a fight, why not improve your public image by OC? It's really the old rules of Dress for Success - large imposing people tone it down, smaller slightly built individuals spice it up. That more closely follows the saying that God created man, but Colt made them equal.

It's not whether we should or should not OC, it's who should be doing it. So far, Mothers Demand Action is getting some great photo ops to support their point. Quit putting up guys with guns, and start counter demonstrating with women. Meet them in public on a level playing field.

We need an exponential increase in women who open carry, and at that point, the tables are turned.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The basic facts are that there is no real world evidence to suggest that regular Joe Schmoe openly carrying a firearm is at any more significant risk or danger from criminals because the gun is visible. There is real world evidence to suggest that the majority of common, everyday criminals don't want or choose to mess with a victim that has a gun. That is even the basis of the "element of surprise" theory - as soon as the criminal is faced with the gun they will run. There are no absolutes - there are only odds. Odds are more in favor of the criminal that sees the gun will avoid the situation where the gun is present than they are in favor of the Joe Schmoe everyday citizen getting shot first because of the gun. I will continue to play the odds that are in my favor - without making any claims of any absolute outcomes.

 

[Kleanbore]

I do not put any stock at all in the idea of "surprise". Rather, concealment is, I think, better described as "camouflage", in one sense, and as keeping one's valuables out of sight in another.

The likelihood that someone will choose to attack an openly armed citizen for the purpose of obtaining the firearm is probably very remote, in most circumstances. The problem is, the potential consequences are extremely severe.

A retention holster is probably not a bad idea, but it is probably not a very effective mitigation strategy, either. It will not protect against a knife or a rock or a gunshot. Nor will "situational awareness" help much when the carrier is standing in line. And we all have to stand in line from time to time.

If I were carrying openly, I would feel most secure in a location in which others were also carrying. I would not be the only "attractive nuisance", if you will, and a gun grabber would likely be deterred by the presence of other persons with firearms.

 

[buck460XVR]

Personally, I don't like the idea of open carry. It's needlessly provocative, and most importantly, it defeats the element of surprise that is the advantage of a CCW. Still, I'm all in favor of open-carry laws, it prevents prosecution in the event of a CCW accidentally being exposed.

That said, this situation in the article is exhibit A on what not to do. I know that people who open carry with rifles and such are doing so to make a point and inform people of their rights, *but* it's overly confrontational and makes us look bad to the people we're trying to persuade. That sort of advocacy is counter-productive.

I never said that the article reflected my views. It doesn't reflect me at all. I was simply stating my opinion, from someone who doesn't carry a gun at all. I'm not 21 yet.

In your first post, you claim you do not like OC, and that there are no positive reasons for it other than to keep someone from getting cited for exposing their weapon. Not all states that don't allow OC will hang you for accidentally printing while CWC. While you did not claim the article reflected your views, it did, in fact, mirror them. Citing examples that mirror your reasoning/opinions after stating your reasoning/opinions generally means those example reflect them....and yes the article mirrors your opinion.


You are right to seek knowledge from sources and folks with more experience than you. Figuring out why, how, where and when you will carry, before you can carry, is a good thing. Having a strong opinion about something you know little about, is sure to get folks questioning that opinion. Telling folks with more experience than you, that in your opinion, what they are doing is not proper or appropriate, will surely get that opinion questioned.

Whatever you decide when the time comes, is your decision, just as it is for all of us that are lucky enough to live somewhere we have a choice. Wasn't too long ago many of us didn't have a choice. Some still don't. Being responsible, and acting appropriate is the same, whether the weapon is concealed or carried open.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1: I guess if the feeling authority is a bad thing then we need to start weeding the LEO's that enjoy the authority they have.

Actually, that is one of the things that interviews and psychological tests used in the screening of applicants are designed to detect.

And any overt behavior indicating that officers do in fact "enjoy the authority they have" is apt to lead to very short careers.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If I were carrying openly, I would feel most secure in a location in which others were also carrying. I would not be the only "attractive nuisance", if you will, and a gun grabber would likely be deterred by the presence of other persons with firearms.

And how many stories of gun grabs from Joe Schmoe civilian are there? There are multiple easier and safer methods for someone to illegally obtain a gun than to attempt to take it from the person carrying it. At least 99% of the time I am the only person within sight visibly carrying a gun.

 

[Spats McGee]

And how many stories of gun grabs from Joe Schmoe civilian are there? . . . .

It's certainly not unheard of. Here, here are just two examples.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: And how many stories of gun grabs from Joe Schmoe civilian are there?

Very few. We've been over that:

...in the vast majority of heavily populated urban areas, only uniformed officers are permitted to carry openly.

The likelihood that someone will choose to attack an openly armed citizen for the purpose of obtaining the firearm is probably very remote, in most circumstances. The problem is, the potential consequences are extremely severe.

If frequency of occurrence were the only consideration, most people would probably conclude that carrying a firearm in the first place would not be worth the inconvenience.

There are multiple easier and safer methods for someone to illegally obtain a gun than to attempt to take it from the person carrying it.

Yes, of course, if the action is planned in advance.

At least 99% of the time I am the only person within sight visibly carrying a gun.

Personally, I would prefer company.

 

[RustyShackelford]

OCing, armed robbery, tactics....

I agree with a few recent posts but take issue with a few others.
1) Who goes on a gun forum saying; "if I robbed a bank, , I shoot ___ . " I'm glad you are thinking things thru & will be organized if and/or when you do these felony crimes.
2) While it's not common, some uniformed guards & LE have been robbed by armed thugs or groups of crooks. It's never happened to me personally but I can recall news stories in my metro area of armed, uniformed security officers who were held up & even murdered.
Sometimes the guards were distracted or given a ruse, others, like a young armed security officer in St Petersburg FL was shot in the back of the head with no warning.
The officer was OCing. A 9x19mm duty pistol with other weapons(Taser, ASP, OC spray).
3) Proper tactics whether you open carry or use a CCW, should be used in a armed robbery, assault. Can you engage 4/5 armed subjects quickly in a "takedown" robbery? What if a thug panics & grabs a hysterical hostage? Could you properly deal with that threat?

I personally wouldn't think a OCing armed citizen would be singled out by felon or robbery crew. They would more than likely seek out a better, safer area where they wouldn't be threatened or face a gunfight.
I'd add that when security or sworn LE are in critical incidents often times it's because a subject panics & wants to flee or they are high/intoxicated & not thinking clearly.

Rusty

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Id bet that if a few forum members who normally CC went out & OCed they'd see it's not that big a deal

Exactly right.

We need open carry in case your shirt tail rides up and exposes your gun.

We need concealed carry in case your shirt tail comes untucked and covers your gun.