Open carry article

[SnowBlaZeR2]

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.

I'll be honest, I originally stopped reading that post as soon as you called a firearm a "talisman". There is nothing magical about it. Going through it, since you pointed back to it, I see that you continued to state that open carrying was somehow the equivalence of magic. Really? I'd try to avoid that line of thinking.

NavyLCDR made quite a few significant counters to your post, and I don't think much needs to be added. I'll only add about some of the views of training and tactics. For all but the coolest ninjas, avoidance is always a high priority, when possible. OODA is a great thing to have in your toolbox, but it's not the end all, be all in decision making. Also, Shivworks themselves (your "Gold Standard") believe that most criminals look for the easiest targets and are easily deterred by a show of force. I don't remember them advocating against open carry, either. Too many seem to get wrapped around their idea of a self defense encounter. They seem to have all the answers about what will happen for each scenario. No training program has all the answers.

Another thing I want to say, is that I tend to avoid listening to anyone that advocates their personal methods as the right way or the only way. Any trainer that openly advocates their training as the only way to do business is not worth my time or the government's money.

Just some things to think about. Take what you like, ignore what you don't.

 

[conw]

I'll be honest, I originally stopped reading that post as soon as you called a firearm a "talisman". There is nothing magical about it.
.

I don't have enough time to respond to the rest but I think there is a communication barrier or reading comprehension issue here.

I do not believe firearms are effective talismans or that users should look at them that way. If you read my post that way, you misinterpreted it.

I was characterizing passive use of a visible firearm for deterrence and the belief that such deterrence can not easily be attained through more active and versatile methods. If you thought the point of view I was arguing against was actually my point of view, there was a breakdown in communication.

If you stopped reading it because the metaphor was offensive in some way I'm really not sure why it would be.

 

[oron]

O.C.

I Miss Az.
Nothing better then " Calys "
Gasping ****!!!!!

AS I get my icecream!!!

Ar-M4
XD-45
92 Rds 45, Acp
450 Rds 5.56

And one large sharpened steel.

Carter

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

reading comprehension issue here

Nope, but I'd avoid this as well.

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.

It isn't Dungeons and Dragons where we get a saving throw against bad guy encounters by having a gun showing on our hip.

And with that skill set in place the idea of a talisman to ward off minor noncommitted criminals becomes laughable.

with your talisman

at worst purely magical thinking.

I understand your point of view just fine, but the idea of comparing carrying a firearm to magic is ridiculous, at best.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

If you stopped reading it because the metaphor was offensive in some way I'm really not sure why it would be.

Not offensive, ridiculous.

Look man, you're getting wrapped around it more than you need to. Let's move back to the topic.

 

[conw]

Nope, but I'd avoid this as well.











I understand your point of view just fine, but the idea of comparing carrying a firearm to magic is ridiculous, at best.

Oh I'm not mad or anything, just bemused

We both agree firearms are not magical and that they shouldn't be regarded as such, that much is clear .

What's unclear to me is whether you think that

A) I was actually saying "firearms are talismans"

Or

B) the fact I was saying "some people's view of firearms borders on talismanic; those people are misinformed" was ridiculous because you are certain no one's thinking could accurately be described that way. Metaphorically of course. Hopefully no one thinks firearms are LITERALLY magical

 

[Kleanbore]

In Missouri, whether to permit open carry is the province of counties and municipalities. Several years ago, some self styled "activists" took it upon themselves to promote open carry by "exercising their rights"--carrying openly while patronizing various establishments in urban areas in which open carry had not yet been specifically prohibited.

The result was predictable. One by one, each of the targeted municipalities, and a number of adjacent ones, pass ordnances forbidding open carry. Recently, we were able to prevent that from happening in the largest city in a county that is all open carry, at least for the tim being.

None of the reaction was based in any way on real issues or on the merits of one form of carry over another. It was political and emotional--the old "wild west" straw man. But it was swift and sure. The issue was put on council agendae and taken care of at the very next meetings in each location.

The controversy spilled over into an attack on concealed carry, which had passed by the slimmest of margins over a gubernatorial veto some years before. The open carry advocates were roundly criticized by local gunshop owners, trainers (there are a lot of them--the CCW enforcement requires training), and virally all concealed carriers whom I know. Due to the exhibitions put on by those "activists", any chance we had of getting open carry has been lost for a long time. Shades of Starbucks.

I do favor legalization of open carry. I would like to worry less about covering my firearm. There are firearms I have that cannot readily be concealed. But that won't happen here any time soon.

I do think that there are times and places and good reasons for open carry However, I do not think that, under most circumstances, open carry is a good idea for defensive purposes in densely populated urban settings.

I do not recall ever hearing any recognized trainers recommending open carry as a general practice for self defense by lone individuals in urban areas.

I would not elect do do so. I will add, however, that there are places in which I have had to stop in which I think we would have been better off with two or three of us carrying openly than carrying concealed. As I said in an earlier post, I prefer company.

An ever increasing number of citizens I know carry concealed. There are more licensed carriers in the state than there are law enforcement officers on the street during any one shift. But the number carrying is still minuscule in terms of percentages. And in the areas in which open carry is lawful, you just don't see it. If you did, I might well be inclined to follow suit from time to time. But I really don't want to rely on the eyes in the back of my head to detect that very remote, but very serious, risk by myself. I would rather blend into the crowd, or have company.

In a nearby privately owned local gun store, the persons behind the counter carry concealed, though they are not required to do so. I do not know their reasons.

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, the term "talisman" has become widely used, and is clearly understood, in discussions about whether having a firearm in one's hand or on one's hip can effectively protect the bearer from harm or violence. It gets the point across perfectly.

I'm not sure I have ever used it, but may of our staff, and many authors, use it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Folks, the term "talisman" has become widely used, and is clearly understood, in discussions about whether having a firearm in one's hand or on one's hip can effectively protect the bearer from harm or violence. It gets the point across perfectly.

I'm not sure I have ever used it, but may of our staff, and many authors, use it.

Doesn't make it correct, though...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talisman

: an object (such as a ring or stone) that is believed to have magic powers and to cause good things to happen to the person who has it

1 : an object held to act as a charm to avert evil and bring good fortune

2 : something producing apparently magical or miraculous effects

A firearm endowed with the magical power of the "element of surprise" to ward off evil... it's actually quite humorous.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

It gets the point across perfectly.

I disagree, and will leave it at that.

I'm not sure I have ever used it, but may of our staff, and many authors, use it.

Congratulations to them. We aren't discussing moderation of a firearms forum or magazine articles. We are discussing training and use of firearms. I've never had an instructor compare the use of deterrents to magic.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I do favor legalization of open carry. I would like to worry less about covering my firearm. There are firearms I have that cannot readily be concealed. But that won't happen here any time soon.

This is my biggest issue. I should not be worried about being arrested if I reach too high and some soccer mom is offended by my constitutional rights.

I do not recall ever hearing any recognized trainers recommending open carry as a general practice for self defense by lone individuals in urban areas.

Just wanted to highlight this. I completely agree. This goes back to the idea some have that one size fits all. It simply doesn't.

 

[barnbwt]

"I Miss Az.
Nothing better then " Calys "
Gasping ****!!!!!"

Why does it always feel like we're having two conversations?

"AS I get my icecream!!!"

Thank you.

--------------------------------------

"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."

Someone will have to explain to me why someone looking to acquire a wallet quickly would likely ambush someone who they see has a firearm at the ready.

If cops were constantly being knocked over for their precious pistols because gang bangers had such a hard/I] time getting them from burglaries, illegal out of state imports, or straw purchases --so much so that these incidents were more common than muggings or violent robberies-- I'd be inclined to believe that a holster would make one a target. But since such incidents as these actually seem to be very few and far between, even compared to the fairly rare occurrence of a violent assault in an American's life, the passive deterrent effects of a displayed weapon (as evidenced by zillions of armed peace officers, soldiers, security teams, and jack-booted thugs being respected by unhappy citizens daily, rightly or wrongly) likely trump the item's attraction to thieves. More so if they aren't even armed themselves. That's my opinion, at least.

If I wanted a gun fast, I'd ask around and see if my buddies had one I could borrow, first, and the second, if any of them knew someone who could sell one after I mug a wallet off some (unarmed) guy(s), and third, if anyone knew of a place where I could break in and lift one while the owners are out. Using some non-ATF-regulated means to fell an armed guy and hope to not get shot in the process figures pretty low in my calculations (but then, I'm smart and not a criminal, and criminals are supposed to be really stupid )

TCB

 

[NavyLCDR]

If I wanted a gun fast, I'd ask around and see if my buddies had one I could borrow, first, and the second, if any of them knew someone who could sell one after I mug a wallet off some (unarmed) guy(s), and third, if anyone knew of a place where I could break in and lift one while the owners are out.

I would just pick up and walk away with one of these:

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by barnbwt: Someone will have to explain to me why someone looking to acquire a wallet quickly would likely ambush someone who they see has a firearm at the ready.

Has anyone so contended?

If cops were constantly being knocked over for their precious pistols because gang bangers had such a hard/I] time getting them from burglaries, illegal out of state imports, or straw purchases --so much so that these incidents were more common than muggings or violent robberies-- I'd be inclined to believe that a holster would make one a target.

It has been said here before, and I should think it would be obvious and well understood, that he who attacks a policeman for any reason and harms him has a very dim immediate future. That is a very effective deterrent.

But ordinary citizens are attacked from time to time, for various reasons. There are bad guys out there, and if a couple of them were to hit me over the head, they would not have every officer, airborne and on land, within seventy five miles looking for them within minutes.

And yes, if one has the time and the means, there are many, many better ways, more sure and much safer, than to take a firearm from another person. But that requires foresight, planning, and prior recognition of the need.

If I wanted a gun fast, I'd ask around and see if my buddies had one I could borrow, first, and the second, if any of them knew someone who could sell one after I mug a wallet off some (unarmed) guy(s), and third, if anyone knew of a place where I could break in and lift one while the owners are out.

Those are tried and true ways of obtaining weapons unlawfully. So is breaking into cars outside a sporting event. But they are not "fast".

Using some non-ATF-regulated means to fell an armed guy and hope to not get shot in the process figures pretty low in my calculations (but then, I'm smart and not a criminal, and criminals are supposed to be really stupid )

I don't know what you mean by "non-ATF-regulated means", but if you were desperate enough to commit violent crime and if you needed a firearm right now, what would stop you from taking it from that unsuspecting guy standing in front of you with a firearm on his belt?

Spats McGee has already provided us with a few examples of that happening. The frequency of occurrence is minuscule, but so is the incidence of open carry. Increase the latter, and expect an increase in the former.

The likelihood is no doubt remote, but the potential consequences are extremely severe. The risk can be mitigated. One easy way to do that is not provide the opportunity to the potentially desperate violent criminal actor in the first place.

 

[tomrkba]

I don't know what you mean by "non-ATF-regulated means", but if you were desperate enough to commit violent crime and if you needed a firearm right now, what would stop you from taking it from that unsuspecting guy standing in front of you with a firearm on his belt?

Nothing is certain. An acquaintance of mine survived multiple tours in Iraq, only to be beaten with a baseball bat during a robbery. They stole his concealed Glock 19, wallet, phone and mags. He received a traumatic brain injury and a long hospital stay.

As for "what would stop you from taking it": CONSEQUENCES and

1) Retention holster.
2) Retention training
3) The guy's knife stabbing you multiple times

Maybe you would get a lucky shot in and KO him. But that's not certain either.

We can play the "What If" game all day. The purpose of doing so is to annoy and divert rather than do anything productive.

 

[Red Wind]

This OC vs CC debate goes on forever , does it not? As a born Ridgewood, New Jersey Boy, lucky enough that his parents escaped in 1948 to Florida, I know the answer .

Either way ,All the Way ,Sir!

4TH BN 68 Armor 82 AB 1964-1966

 

[gamestalker]

I open carry my shotgun and AR on occasion, but only if I'm likely to need one of them.

Some examples of such is when I'm out walking after dark, I'll sometimes carry one, or the other, in addition to a handgun. Coyotes and other 4 legged predators are common threats in my neck of the woods.

I've lived in a few really bad neighborhoods over the years, and in those circumstances I would carry either a SG or an AR.

GS

 

[tomrkba]

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.

The answer is quite simple: open carry is about the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege to keep and bear arms. Carrying concealed with a permit is not exercising the right to keep and bear arms. Many people mistakenly believe otherwise.

In the many states, open carry is constitutional carry. Concealed carry is a permitted privilege the involves money, time, and government mandated requirements. Unfortunately, in many of those states, open carry was suppressed by the police and politicians despite being legal. Open carry has resulted in many states passing premption, which cleans up a patchwork of unconstitutional local gun laws.

Mark Levin is fond of saying "We live in a post-Constitutional society." Open carry is about drawing a line against that. Much of the purpose of those "shopping for a confrontation" videos that many complain about are about getting government agents to comply with the law. A cop harassing a person safely open carrying is actively suppressing the right despite any protests to the contrary ("There could be a report of a man with a gun" or "The description could match a criminal"). I do not believe these reasons for a second; they are fabricated for the purposes of suppression since all the 911 operator needs to do is ask how the gun is being handled and the overall context of the person's behavior. If the person was waving the gun around or making threats, the 911 lines would light up. If the gun is holstered, then a cop running over there goes with the intention of suppressing that person's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[buck460XVR]

A cop harassing a person safely open carrying is actively suppressing the right despite any protests to the contrary.

^^^yep, but still, many here claim that it's the gun owner, by carrying openly, that is the one in the wrong and doing the provocation. Around here, the active use of OC in the last few years has greatly increased the awareness by LEOs that not only is OC legal, but it can be and is an responsible way to carry. The reason many folks were harassed by LEOs in the past when OCing, is because the cops didn't know any better. Most LEO agencies around here, have since educated their officers about OC and the proper way to handle such situations. Thus, contrary to the beliefs of many here, the practice of OC has improved the quality of our gun ownership. Like any other right, if you don't use it, you will lose it. This is what I think many of those against OC or have had negative experiences with it, have been experiencing.

I'm still scratching my head over those stating "open carry is irresponsible, that's why I don't believe in it. But I still want it legal, so when I'm irresponsible and allow my CW to show, I won't get arrested."

 

[BSA1]

I'm still scratching my head over those stating "open carry is irresponsible, that's why I don't believe in it. But I still want it legal, so when I'm irresponsible and allow my CW to show, I won't get arrested."

This is probably the best point made so far.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: I'm still scratching my head over those stating "open carry is irresponsible, that's why I don't believe in it. But I still want it legal, so when I'm irresponsible and allow my CW to show, I won't get arrested.

Well, I do want it legal, for that and the other reasons that I have enumerated.

But I do not think it is a prudent thing to do in a densely populated urban environment. Why display a valuable item, whatever it might be, to any one of the dozens and dozens of strangers who pass well within Tueller distance in front of me, in back of me, and on both sides while going different directions, any one of whom might choose to take it?

What's the point? To make a statement?

It wouldn't make me any safer, and I certainly would not want to be thinking about drawing on them all the time.

Leave the jewelry and the smartphone and the firearm out of sight and keep the lap-top case secure, and you will mitigate that risk.

And if you are a young person, do not wear the hottest thing in athletic shoes.

It's just common sense.

 

[Sol]

"Around here, the active use of OC in the last few years has greatly increased the awareness by LEOs that not only is OC legal, but it can be and is an responsible way to carry. The reason many folks were harassed by LEOs in the past when OCing, is because the cops didn't know any better. Most LEO agencies around here, have since educated their officers about OC and the proper way to handle such situations."

quote from post #94

I guess if they were truly re-educated they wouldn't even get in said situation to handle it properly in the first place because technically OC is just as legal as taking your dog for a walk. Theorhetically you shouldn't even get approached or talked to.


As for the oc vs. Cc element of surprise or tactical advantage or victim profiling there isn't much to say. You see we are talking about humans, not computers.

Computers need to be told what to do and will do the activity over and over and over... The same way everytime.

Humans operate on free will. Humans do exhibit repetitive behavior on occasion, and if something was to be done, say a bank robbery, we could make a loosly held hypothesis that it was be done a certain way. Some statements made about the bank robbery will be true, others will not. There is no set way to rob a bank. There is no way of telling who was in there before and while the bank got robbed.

Point is, free will and free thinking dictates behavior for us.

Way too many X's and variables for anyone to calculate anything about how something should/ would/ could happen.

Why do an armed robbery at the bank on Friday when it's ten times easier to waltz in and rob a church blind on Monday morning?

 

[NavyLCDR]

What's the point? To make a statement?

That is exactly the point - to make a statement. To make the statement that if you want my wallet or my car or my gun you are going to have to risk your life to take it from me. Pretty simple statement. Especially when 99% of the rest of the public is not making such a statement nor backing it up with any visible evidence.

Big Stick Diplomacy on a personal level.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/troosevelt/section9.rhtml

[Theodore] Roosevelt, throughout his political life, felt that being prepared for conflict was the best recourse the United States had to prevent war. He believed that if the U.S. made a show of force to the rest of the world, other nations might be more hesitant to challenge the American military. As a corollary to this, he also understood that the threat of force rather than force itself was often sufficient to deter military conflict. He summarized this belief with an old African proverb, "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far."

Deterrence is most effective when the potential aggressor has evidence that the negative consequences of his/her actions are very likely to far outweigh the benefits they might gain from those actions.

 

[buck460XVR]

Well, I do want it legal, for that and the other reasons that I have enumerated.

But I do not think it is a prudent thing to do in a densely populated urban environment. Why display a valuable item, whatever it might be, to any one of the dozens and dozens of strangers who pass well within Tueller distance in front of me, in back of me, and on both sides while going different directions, any one of whom might choose to take it?

What's the point? To make a statement?

It wouldn't make me any safer, and I certainly would not want to be thinking about drawing on them all the time.

Leave the jewelry and the smartphone and the firearm out of sight and keep the lap-top case secure, and you will mitigate that risk.

And if you are a young person, do not wear the hottest thing in athletic shoes.

It's just common sense.

It is just common sense. As stated, a few years back you could be killed because you were wearing a tennis shoe of high value. Then it was certain leather jackets...now it's high priced cell phones. Same could be said for Rolex watches and driving a 'vette. Folks have been killed for the gold in teir teeth. Wrong place at the wrong time spells trouble. Always has, always will. Awareness and common sense tho, goes a lot farther than unfounded fear, misunderstanding and paranoia. Claiming a gun owner OCing is asking for someone to attack them is like saying a woman that dresses in anything other than potato sacks in public, is asking to be raped. Even when dressed in potato sacks, there is always a chance she may be raped, so what does that prove?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: Deterrence is most effective when the potential aggressor has evidence that the negative consequences of his/her actions are very likely to far outweigh the benefits they might gain from those actions.

Thet is very true, and it always have been.

To make the statement that if you want my wallet or my car or my gun you are going to have to risk your life to take it from me.

That statement is valid if one can make the strategy work. One cannot do that if one cannot see them, or if they start from so close that they can do grievous harm me before one can even begin to draw. And they can create that situation rather easily, in a crowded area.

If they are determined to do that, one's only hope is that they do not notice the firearm.

In that situation, the benefits that would accrue to them outweigh the additional risks they would assume.

The only mitigation strategy I can come up with, other than staying home, is to not make that potential benefit so obvious.