Open carry article

[conw]

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.

Anecdotal evidence may be used to establish a "majority" and I'll even buy it for the sake of discussion. It still doesn't counter the arguments I laid out in my first post about trade offs.

You can make the decision to make that trade off but I'll still say it's apples and oranges at best. By lumping all violent criminals into one category and arguing for the passive deterrence strategy as a winner in a "majority of cases" you're simply failing to address a remaining significant minority of cases where it doesn't work AND introduces a huge disadvantage. I'll pass thanks.

And the burden of proof is on you to show how an open carrier being shot first (as in your post) with a uniform is somehow a lower bar to clear. These cases are exactly the minority we both acknowledge that lead me and many others to avoid OC because of the enormous downsides in those cases.

I'd argue it is a higher bar because:

-There are greater consequences for shooting a LEO, not less

-LEOs and their ilk are arguably more likely to act not less, because they're duty bound. You can not simultaneously argue that that is why they get shot BUT somehow a civilian is able to passively deter and discourage the same criminals in comparable situations by displaying a gun even though they're probably less likely to use it since they aren't duty bound. You can't have it both ways. (not to mention there's a huge leap in your assumption that a serious criminal in the midst of a big robbery will even know an OCer isn't an LEO)

For those reasons I assert that documented preemptive killings of uniformed officers open carrying are not only applicable to the situation being discussed but actually constitute a very high quality example due to being a higher bar to clear. If you have an alternative explanation for why it's irrelevant please share.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RustyShackelford: 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.

That makes perfect sense.

The problem would be more likely to arise if...

1. ...an openly armed citizen, or for that matter a uniformed officer, were to walk in when a crime is already in progress; or
2. ...the "tail gunner" were to notice the presence of the open carrier only after the crime is under way.

Of course, a concealed carrier who elected to draw and intervene would also be in a lot of trouble in the case of the latter.

I personally believe that the known or likely presence of firearms would generally deter almost all kinds of crimes except a "gun grab" or a preplanned mass killing.

 

[ohbythebay]

I always looked at it from this perspective

If a criminal walks in to rob someplace (a bank, store, etc.) and there is a security guard - yes, they may be a target. If one person is open carrying, they may be a target..

But I prefer MANY open carry - walk into that and same crook is not going to be so sure he wants to do this.

I always teach the analogy of this.

Place 20 people in a room with two bully's and 2 bats.
The bully's grab the bats and are in charge of 20 sheep.
Same room, 20 bats.
The sheep are now no longer sheep. The bully's are now emasculated in that they cannot use superior force.

My point is..how stupid do you have to be to try something like robbing a gun range? LOL

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There are reasons police wear uniforms and carry openly. One of them is that such an outfit discourages attackers.

 

[barnbwt]

"Gun advocates, not gun rights advocates"
What a disingenuous remark; they are exactly the same thing. Like supporting soldiers but not their war. I love how she goes on to say how big a supporter of carry rights she is, so long as people are "responsible" and never exercise them. I find her tyrranical machinations as "offensive" as she finds my self-empowerment (and this is what they actually object to) against violent force through a lump of metal, so there.

TCB

 

[conw]

I personally believe that the known or likely presence of firearms would generally deter almost all kinds of crimes except a "gun grab" or a preplanned mass killing.

Not disagreeing but rather using this snippet as a point for finer examination.

I believe it is important to carefully consider whether this deterrence is inherently unique and-or works to deter criminals in a way where commonly taught tactics would not.

Once we establish positions on that it is a good idea to examine the idea of whether it can replace learning those tactics... And if not what the advantage actually is if we establish (as I personally would argue) that deterrence/management/prefight techniques must be learned and trained and practiced by OCers and CCers alike.

These discussions often seem to treat the visibility of the gun and presumptive deterrence effect as a uniquely valuable or non-interchangeable quality. I don't see any reason to buy into that premise.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I see it often posted that those of us that choose to open carry will somehow be the immediate target of anyone and everyone out there looking to commit a crime. In my experience, this is almost or more likely always not the case. It's been highlighted that the vast majority of criminals are looking for an easy crime. They don't want a fight, they want to get what they're after with as little resistance as possible. For that reason, I firmly believe open carrying is an active deterrent to a large majority of crime.

Another issue is that you may be selected, and immediately outgunned or surprised. I'll concede that one citizen open carrying isn't a large deterrent, but that's not the way I think it should be. Imagine a society where a thief walks into a gas station with a few or more legally armed citizens. As far as being taken by surprise because everyone knows you're armed, that is something easily overcome by training and institutional awareness.

Personally, I don't open carry anymore. The only reason for that, though, is because it is not legal where I currently live. I'm confident in my capabilities enough to let anyone up to no good know I'm armed. They can figure out my intentions for themselves and decide how they want to react to that. All I can do is react to my surroundings.

I'm not advocating that everyone open carry. I am saying that I believe everyone should train as much and often as possible, and be comfortable enough to do so. I would encourage as many as possible to exercise those rights as well.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

"Gun advocates, not gun rights advocates"
What a disingenuous remark; they are exactly the same thing. Like supporting soldiers but not their war. I love how she goes on to say how big a supporter of carry rights she is, so long as people are "responsible" and never exercise them. I find her tyrranical machinations as "offensive" as she finds my self-empowerment (and this is what they actually object to) against violent force through a lump of metal, so there.

That's exactly how I felt, stated better. That's what I was talking about when I said she doesn't really want responsibility.

What she was talking was doublethink.

The best part is at the end. I can sense through the remarks she makes as the article goes on that as the interview continued, she became more and more unhinged.

“They’re saying there should be no regulation because people are going to break the law. Then we should have no laws for anything. They’re fighting the very thing that is designed to stop the ‘bad guys’ getting guns. If you can pass a background check then why are you flipping out about this?”

That's a huge leap in logic. Don't stop at allowing open carry, get rid of all laws! Gun rights advocates are crazed anarchists! Chaos in the streets!

Also, I think her comment about the background checks...I have no words. I'd like to be charitable and think that she simply doesn't see our perspective.

 

[Sol]

I believe that OC acceptance (where legal) is largely a geographical phenomenon.

I live in Ohio, OC is legal. In Cuyahoga county, the chances are you won't see any open carry. Now you go into a surrounding rural counties you will probably see it.

Most states are like this. Look at the map of your state. You'll see a few large metro areas and a bunch of tiny towns and whatnot in between. These tiny towns and rural areas house a majority if your states land mass. While the few large metro and surrounding areas house a majority of your states population.

What's "socially acceptable" in tiny town Texas, is not socially acceptable in Ft. Worth.

I don't OC. Why? Because I know that it will be a "problem" for somebody, and though it is a legal activity in my STATE, it is not the normal thing you witness in my CITY. Frankly, I don't feel like having any of my activities hindered because Johnny Goodcitizen Terrorist Fearing Watchdog decides to call the police and puts on a show for the neighborhood.

And if I wanted to OC...with almost 100% certainty, I could carry a camera and just go straight to YOUTUBE STARDOM!!

Anyways, the article is meaningless to me. Moms demand action was just preaching to it's choir of like minded individuals... Like the UK. Just a plug for a political group in my book.

Though one quote did strike a chord.

“I bristle at the gun lobby shrouding themselves in the nomenclature of ‘gun rights advocates"

Wonder if she bristles at the pharmacuetical lobbies that write our laws?
Does she bristle at the insurance lobbies that jacked up the cost of her healthcare?
Does she bristle at tobacco lobbyists?

She's upset at her own rights and doesn't "bristle" at the other million lobbyists whom actually effect the day to day lives of her and her children. Interesting to say the least.

 

[JTHunter]

OC vs. CC

Here's a hypothetical question for all of you.

Most of you will agree that thieves, muggers, "knock-out gamers", et. al., are basically cowards. What is the likelihood that they will try and attack someone carrying a baseball bat compared to somebody without a bat? Probably much less likely.

So, why wouldn't OC be just as much a deterrent? The perps will look for easier pickings!

 

[Warp]

I believe that in the majority of cases open carry is going to be a deterrent.

Why the hell would I want to have to use deadly force? Why would I WANT to have to "surprise" an attacker with a gun, when said attacker can be deterred from ever starting?

You have to view both sides of the scale. In my mind, the people who worry about the 0.001% where somebody might attack an open carrier to go for the gun...while ignoring the vast majority of cases where deterrence wins the day...are like the antis that will point to one example of a licensed carrier committing a crime with a firearm out of however man tens or hundreds of thousands of licensed carriers...and say SEE! SEE! I TOLD YOU SO! BAAAAAD IDEA!


But hey, we are all free to choose.

Okay, we aren't all free to choose.

But we all SHOULD be free to choose, and many of us actually are.


[personally, I conceal probably 95% of the time, but not always]

 

[Panzerschwein]

I agree with the OP.

 

[Field Tester]

To the posters that are advocates for CC only.

Do you feel OC is just a bad idea and a personal choice, or do you think it should be illegal? If it was up to you, would you outlaw OC?

Or are you more of the mindset that you're ok with it being legal but it's not for you?

 

[BSA1]

To the posters that are advocates for CC only.

Do you feel OC is just a bad idea and a personal choice, or do you think it should be illegal? If it was up to you, would you outlaw OC?

Or are you more of the mindset that you're ok with it being legal but it's not for you?

Hummm yes....

Hey, Hey, HEY!!!

Wait a darn minute!

You aren't saying that one of the big reasons against Open Carry is some gun owners are opposed to the idea of being able to carry a gun without the permission of the Government are you?

 

[mnhntr]

To the posters that are advocates for CC only.

Do you feel OC is just a bad idea and a personal choice, or do you think it should be illegal? If it was up to you, would you outlaw OC?

Or are you more of the mindset that you're ok with it being legal but it's not for you?

I think it should be legal nationwide as well as CC. I think it should be a personal choice much like I believe it should be a personal choice to wear a helmet or seatbelt. I think the government involvement in any personal decisions is ignorant and an over reach of power.

 

[LT.Diver]

I never got the whole open carry thing. Carrying your gun for all to see kind of reminds me of people who wear a tee shirt or jacket with their karate school name on it. Or boxers who wear a boxing glove necklace. I know a guy who has his martial arts style tattooed on his forearms. Why would you want to let someone know your skills, abilities, and weaponry?
I've been carrying concealed for the better part of thirty years, and the only one who knows is my wife. Oh yeah, and one rabbid raccoon.

 

[mnhntr]

I think the element of surprise argument is BS. If your situational awareness is good, you will already have identified any threat long before you need the element of surprise. So what would you have to hide then?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mnhntr: I think the element of surprise argument is BS.

I agree. I have no idea why any law abiding citizen who is not a sworn officer trying to capture someone would have any need at all for "surprise".

If your situational awareness is good, you will already have identified any threat long before you need the element of surprise.

Well, you probably will never "need the element of surprise" in the first place.

But---I think it is naive to think that good situational awareness " will always "identify any threat." We all stand in line, and we cannot see out the backs of our heads. Most of us at one time or another walk in crowds. We all pass strangers in doorways. The "surprise" will be on the victim.

Situational awareness is very important. We should know what is around us; we should watch out for suspicious persons in parking lots or near an ATM; we should think twice about entering a store with a running vehicle with a driver in it facing out near the entrance. We should be alert for the man with the shopping cart who is paying more attention to shoppers than to the shelves. But we should not believe that we will never be surprised.

So what would you have to hide then?

Valuable property; a Rolex, a ring, a smart phone, a camera, a pistol....

 

[barnbwt]

"The "surprise" will be on the victim."
And the victim will be someone the attacker thinks is least likely to resist the attack. Until they do, and now you've got 'em!

All that hiding the weapons does is increase the likelihood of miscalculation by everyone involved. Crook wouldn't rob the bank if he knew he'd be shot, wouldn't beat that old lady if he knew he could lose his life over a purse. And if you are in an isolated enough situation where a crook could 'take out the one guy with a gun and have free reign, if only he knew which one it was,' you would likely be ambushed by overwhelming force whether you have a gun on your belt visible or not, since blow to the back of the head prevents either.

But, neither of these situations takes politics into account, which is where OC finds issues. If you carry for the purpose of protecting yourself, OC makes more sense, if for the purpose of abiding (hoplophobic) community standards while retaining most of your defensive capabilities, CCW is the best.

This is trending, once again, into an "OC vs. CCW" derp-fest, so I'd recommend we close it down.

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.


Quote:
"In November, a few members of Moms Demand Action met at a Dallas restaurant when one of them spotted a group of 20 or so men and women in the car park outside carrying shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. It was a counter-demonstration by Open Carry Texas, but the women inside the Blue Mesa Grill claimed it was a show of force designed to intimidate them."

...C J Grisham told The New York Times at the time his gathering was peaceful and legal and that, “No matter what we do, [Moms Demand Action] is going to label us intimidating. It doesn’t matter how we carry, where we carry.”

And if they aren't carrying rifles, they will be painted as racist, hate-speaking, offensive radicals. You completely missed the point CJ Grisham was making. The rifles are unloaded, by law; they cannot be intimidating being carried around slung or at rest any more than a gun on a table can be (and is to anti's). The MDA's are gonna squeal and moan regardless, so why not make a folly of their most ridiculous fears; that those gun totin' maniacs are gonna shoot up the place --except they never do at these rallies. There is no "show of force" as MDA'ers claimed; I'd honestly think about slander/libel charges for such a claim, since carrying of an unloaded rifle is legally not considered a show of force in Texas.

These people are trying to turn the carrying of a slung, unloaded rifle in public into brandishing, and you think they will win by leaving the guns at home? At some point the lawful activity has to be exercised if it is to continue being 'lawful'

TCB

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barnbwt: And if you are in an isolated enough situation where a crook could 'take out the one guy with a gun and have free reign, if only he knew which one it was,' you would likely be ambushed by overwhelming force whether you have a gun on your belt visible or not, since blow to the back of the head prevents either.

Someone will have to explain to me why someone looking to acquire a firearm quickly would likely ambush someone who is likely to not have one.

 

[JSH1]

I don't see anything unexpected in this article, it is pretty typical of the attitude towards concealed or open carry I've encountered on my visits to the UK, even among gun owners there. They don't understand why a person would need or want to carry a gun in public which is perfectly understandable considering the majority of their police don't even carry a gun. It is simply a different culture.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Tail-Gunners & use of force incidents....

The new police chief(approx 800 sworn personnel in the PD) in my metro area had a real, documented use of force event(2000) like described in the topic.
He just came in & started a uniformed, off duty post in a sports bar/casual dining restaurant when a young thug ran into the building armed with a gun.
The chief(then a patrol officer) drew his PD issued P226 9x19mm, firing one round at the robber, killing him.

As for "seeded back-ups" or tail-gunners, they can happen too in critical incidents but they'd be a problem for any type of LE officer or LAC(legally armed citizen).
Real lethal force events are not like TV cop shows or Hollywood movies.
They can be over in seconds. There's no witty banter or choreographed stunts.

Rusty

 

[gamestalker]

I agree that OC is counter productive regarding the element of surprise, but beyond that, the OP seems to imply that OC should be regulated or even illegal.

Having been a resident of Az. for most of my life, I have been OC-ing for decades. I do so as a deterrent mostly, and for good reason, which I won't elaborate further at this time. But back before our law was changed from a CWP required to carry as such, I had to constantly make sure it was always legally visible. And even then, I encountered several situations in which LE would dispute how much of my iron was visible, or whether it was easily identifiable.

Fortunately this law, and some other very positive changes have been made to to our gun laws. Now, and thanks to our representatives, I can CC or OC at my discretion without the need of a permit what so ever, in the car, grocery store, the bank, or any place, other than where Federal law dictates. However, this is when a CWP does have it's obvious advantages, such as when traveling into states that recognize our state CWP, or when driving within 1000' of a school, you get the idea.

I couldn't personally live in a state that restricts how I carry, or restrict my ability to defend myself.

GS

 

[conw]

I think the element of surprise argument is BS. If your situational awareness is good, you will already have identified any threat long before you need the element of surprise. So what would you have to hide then?

I agree. I have no idea why any law abiding citizen who is not a sworn officer trying to capture someone would have any need at all for "surprise".

Well, you probably will never "need the element of surprise" in the first place.

That's why I don't use the term. It is too easy to dismiss and doesn't really capture the issue. In our internet age of snappy soundbites unfortunately these terms replace detailed analysis and get bandied about. I think that's a shame when it comes to a topic that really deserves serious consideration.

However, I gave a very detailed explanation earlier in the thread about the careful control of information to both make the right decision faster and slow the curve of the BG's decision making to your advantage in the prefight and fight.

I'm not going to rehash it here so if anyone disagrees with what I just wrote, please do have a look before replying to this abbreviated post.

This isn't new, Boyd's OODA loop concept is decades old. It's a hundred percent applicable here and has nothing to do with "surprise" or capturing people. No idea where that came from or why people seem to have such a narrow, black and white view of tactics when it comes to this particular issue. This stuff is taught in all of the best classes now and as I said earlier there's a reason that Shivworks classes for example, the gold standard, don't use open carry as a strategy, and it isn't coincidental.

 

[skoro]

I support open carry, even though I'll only carry concealed.