Open carry article

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: 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.

That does not compute.

Displaying valuables or large amounts of cash is an obvious invitation for violent criminal actors. The distinction is, they have to be a lot more careful if they decide to try to take a firearm. Failure is not an option.

And the risk of serious personal injury to the victim is probably a lot higher, usually, for that reason.

 

[Warp]

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.

There is this thing called deterrence. We have discussed it in this thread...and probably every other open carry thread that has ever existed.

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?

Uh...no.

I hope you don't honestly believe that you are 100% invincible to any kind of surprise.

Unless you are God, you cannot guarantee you will "have identified any threat long before you need the element of surprise"

 

[GEM]

Situational awareness in a crowded subway or urban street is quite different from situational awareness at Starbucks or the soccer mom crowd in the bleachers.

You going to draw on every sketchy character within the Tueller radius. I guess some of you never walked down the street in NYC, Chicago or DC. If those locales legalize open carry - would you?

Besides the vigiliance literature is pretty clear that you can't maintain Condition Yellow or Orange for very long.

How about the folks who pass in back of you in the urban street?

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

And if they start from so close that they can do grievous harm to the victim before the victim can even begin to draw, then concealed carry has no value either, does it? Are you going to attempt to draw you gun from concealment when the criminal already has a gun pointed at you or a knife to your throat?

I will continue to place my bets on the odds that IF the criminal sees the gun first they will simply move on to the next guy - ESPECIALLY in a crowded urban environment, such as downtown Seattle where I do open carry when I go there, where there are hundreds of victims present who are not displaying the means to kill a criminal with.

If the criminal doesn't see my gun and gets close enough to point a gun at me or a knife to my throat, then it doesn't matter much if my gun is concealed or not, unless I am going to try to give my car keys or wallet to the criminal and then draw my gun to shoot them as they flee - and if it was a crowded urban environment like you say - that wouldn't exactly be the smart option either, would it?

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Situational awareness in a crowded subway or urban street is quite different from situational awareness at Starbucks or the soccer mom crowd in the bleachers.

Agreed.

You going to draw on every sketchy character within the Tueller radius. I guess some of you never walked down the street in NYC, Chicago or DC. If those locales legalize open carry - would you?

Besides the vigiliance literature is pretty clear that you can't maintain Condition Yellow or Orange for very long.

How about the folks who pass in back of you in the urban street?

Who said anything about automatically drawing on every potential threat? There are other actions to take well before considering drawing your firearm. Once again, everyone will be different. We all have different training, capabilities, thought processes and situations. There's no reason to think that what works for you, will work for me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

It's just common sense.

I've got a question for you, Kleanbore. Why don't armored truck companies have this "common sense"? Why do they make such a big show and production while transporting large sums of money? Why do they have the big trucks with their logo all over it, guards wearing uniforms and visible firearms? And they do this in the most crowded and urban areas, don't they?

If it was better to not have your defenses on display, then why don't those companies use plain vans with the armor hidden, plain clothes guards with concealed weapons, and transport the money in plain looking boxes or bags? Aren't the armored truck companies just inviting criminals to attack them?

 

[Warp]

I've got a question for you, Kleanbore. Why don't armored truck companies have this "common sense"? Why do they make such a big show and production while transporting large sums of money? Why do they have the big trucks with their logo all over it, guards wearing uniforms and visible firearms? And they do this in the most crowded and urban areas, don't they?

If it was better to not have your defenses on display, then why don't those companies use plain vans with the armor hidden, plain clothes guards with concealed weapons, and transport the money in plain looking boxes or bags?

Because the vast majority of the time, deterrence works, very arguably making it the more practical choice.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Because the vast majority of the time, deterrence works, very arguably making it the more practical choice.

Well, you just caused me to change my signature line .

 

[Red Wind]

If it was better to not have your defenses on display, then why don't those companies use plain vans with the armor hidden, plain clothes guards with concealed weapons, and transport the money in plain looking boxes or bags? Aren't the armored truck companies just inviting criminals to attack them?

Yeah,Brinks, Wells Fargo,Loomis, Pinkerton and so many others, have followed that same line of reasoning for over 100 years. Why? The strategy works the vast majority of the time.

They are not fools.

 

[conw]

That's an interesting example to base an argument on.

The guns are to protect an asset rather than merely enhance the enhance individuals carrying. In that case I'd say the mutually acknowledged "most of the time" deterrence makes sense... From the standpoint of the people who choose to require OC. Which is the companies involved rather than the people working the job. Who are generally wearing body armor, by the way.

However what might be useful for translating this fact to private citizen applications is to examine whether absolute reduction in encounters is offset when we examine the level of planning and force used by bad guys when they DO get robbed. For a variety of reasons the BGs tend to come at them harder. And let's not act like they never get robbed; I found a source stating 61 attacks per year occur on armored cars in the US.

I don't feel that the comparison has much merit for me personally. Others may feel differently. In either case I think the comparison merits more rigor than just saying "well, it works for them, so it should work for me!"

 

[Warp]

That's an interesting example to base an argument on.

That isn't the base of any argument.

It's just an example of the principle at work.

The guns are to protect an asset more so than the individuals carrying. In that case I'd say the mutually acknowledged "most of the time" deterrence makes sense... From the standpoint of the people who choose to require OC. Which is the companies involved rather than the people working the job. Who are generally wearing body armor, by the way.

However what might be useful for translating this fact to private citizen applications is to examine whether absolute reduction in encounters is offset when we examine the level of planning and force used by bad guys when they DO get robbed. For a variety of reasons the BGs tend to come at them harder. And let's not act like they never get robbed; I found a source stating 61 attacks per year occur on armored cars in the US.

Good thing the individuals carrying don't have loads of cash, I'd say.

I don't feel that the comparison has much merit for me personally. Others may feel differently. In either case I think the comparison merits more rigor than just saying "well, it works for them, so it should work for me!"

Nobody is saying that.

It was brought up as an example of the principle.

Nobody is saying they choose to open carry, or saying open carry will work for them, because armoured car companies do it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: And if they start from so close that they can do grievous harm to the victim before the victim can even begin to draw, then concealed carry has no value either, does it? Are you going to attempt to draw you gun from concealment when the criminal already has a gun pointed at you or a knife to your throat?

The value of concealed carry in such a situation should be patently obvious.

What would a lead a crook to single someone out as a potential victim, and what attract them to a particular individual vs anyone els in the crowd, if that someone were not exhibiting jewelry, a shiny Nikon D4, or a firearm, any of which would have street value?

One of the most effective defensive tools in the animal world and on the street is camouflage--blend in, and do not look like food or a source of riches.

The visible weapon may well serve as a deterrent, but the deterrent value will be very much impaired if the defender has no opportunity to employ the weapon.

...as in an environment in which violent criminal actors, perhaps coordinating electronically, are moving among many others in extremely close proximity to a victim, and on all sides.

I will continue to place my bets on the odds that IF the criminal sees the gun first they will simply move on to the next guy - ESPECIALLY in a crowded urban environment, ...

But that "next guy" does not have a firearm to offer. And if the carrier cannot draw it, the deterrent value would be be virtually nil.

Do you not believe that, if the risk of taking it is low (by surprise, inside arms length, from behind, two on one, grab the arms, stab and slash), that that firearm makes an inviting target?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: I've got a question for you, Kleanbore. Why don't armored truck companies have this "common sense"? Why do they make such a big show and production while transporting large sums of money? Why do they have the big trucks with their logo all over it, guards wearing uniforms and visible firearms? And they do this in the most crowded and urban areas, don't they?

First, they had better be wearing uniforms and clear identification to make their legitimacy obvious. Wouldn't it be something for the Brinks guys to show up and be told "some guys in shorts and T-shirts just came and took the money in a minivan"?

And if they were wearing armored truck company uniforms, why in the world would they try to conceal their firearms?

Your question makes no sense to me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Do you not believe that, if the risk of taking it is low (by surprise, inside arms length, from behind, two on one, grab the arms, stab and slash), that that firearm makes an inviting target?

What I believe is that the rate of criminals taking guns from Joe Schmoe civilians carrying them in a holster is so low that you can't come up with ten examples per year of it actually happening. So, apparently, criminals just aren't all that interested in stealing guns from the people wearing them. All of this talk about inviting the criminal to plan his stealthy attack to sneak up behind you and snatch your gun is best left for writing movie scripts rather than describing real world events.

 

[Ed Ames]

What would single someone out as a potential victim and attract them to a particular individual if he or she were not exhibiting jewelry, a shiny Nikon D4, or a firearm, any of which would have street value?

Unilaterally enforced social interaction is usually about power. Whether the social interaction is in the form of theft, rape, or general mayhem, the real attraction is rarely the obvious one. Workplace sexual harassment is not really about sex, and armed robbery is not really about Nikons. People who are interested in street value alone usually resort to asocial forms of theft such as burglary.

So here's the question: Will people who actualize their need for personal empowerment through acts which could justify deadly force feel they are more, or less, likely to feel empowered by engaging an obviously armed person?

Obviously that depends on the individual. Most will see the risk as disproportionate and choose others to interact with. Some will respond positively, feeling they would be more empowered by successful interaction with an armed individual. Woud the later group have ignored you otherwise? That is a difficult claim to support.

Do you not believe that, if the risk of taking it is low (by surprise, inside arms length, from behind, two on one, grab the arms, stab and slash), that that firearm makes an inviting target?

Most people, when faced with a rattlesnake, ignore it or back away. A percentage of the population will attempt to kill the snake out of fear. An even smaller group, faced with exactly the same animals, capture and keep them in their homes.

Most people, when faced with an open carrier, ignore it or back away. A percentage of the population will attempt to pass laws against open carry out of fear. An even smaller group, faced with exactly the same open carriers, thinks about stealing their guns.

I do not know what percentage of the population would capture a rattlesnake, but fear of capture is not the reason I wouldn't want to be a snake.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's an interesting statistic for the "you'll get shot first" theorists:

http://www.ncssc.org/Pg/Doc/AN INTERVENTION STRATEGY BY THE GAINESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.pdf

Printed page 4, electronic page 11:

The data revealed that 92% of all the robberies occurred when only one clerk was present in the store. This statistic was not particularly significant since very few stores employed more than one clerk during the 1981-1986 period. Instead, the attention-getting factor here was the number of situations in which the robber had waited for the store to "clear out" - presenting a single victim upon which to prey.

In 85% of the robberies which occurred, no customers were present at the inception of the crime and there was not a second clerk in the store. The scenario which developed repeatedly within the data analysis was that a perspective robber would enter the store and browse up and down the aisles until any present customers would leave before attempting the robbery. Of the remaining 15%, a second clerk was present in 8%, and a customer was present in an additional 7% at the inception of the robbery.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: What I believe is that the rate of criminals taking guns from Joe Schmoe civilians carrying them in a holster is so low that you can't come up with ten examples per year of it actually happening.

The number is very, very low indeed.

So, apparently, criminals just aren't all that interested in stealing guns from the people wearing them.

A much more reasonable conclusion is that there are very, very few persons carrying firearms openly in densely populated areas in rush hour in the first place. As GEM suggests, walk down the street in Chicago, DC, or NYC. There are no guns to take. Ergo, none are taken from people on the sidewalks, or from those standing in line at counters.

But that does not tell us that criminals who are given the opportunity would not be interested in stealing them, or anything else they might see, for that matter.

Travelers and tourists are advised to avoid exhibiting high value items in public in those places, and in places like Caracas, Mexico City, Rome, and even Vatican City. A readily noticeable high end single lens reflex camera around your neck may not be yours for very long in such a place. It is a desirable item. So is a firearm, for very obvious reasons. And a firearm on your belt on Wacker Drive when thousands of people are hurrying to the different Metra and CTA stops to catch their trains would have no effective deterrent value at all. That persons fall victim to knockout attacks, purse snatchings, and the taking of briefcases and lap-top computers in such environments is not necessarily because they were not alert; some things just happen too fast. Of course, it would never happen to us, would it? We are too smart and too good. Or so we like to convince ourselves.

All of this talk about inviting the criminal to plan his stealthy attack to sneak up behind you and snatch your gun is best left for writing movie scripts rather than describing real world events.

Spats McGee cited some real world events. Add more visible guns for the taking and one can expect more to be taken.

There are reasons why instructors offer retention training, and that law enforcement officers are required to undergo it. The problem is that there are some circumstances in some places in which, and some tactics against which, retention tactics are not at all effective.

 

[Warp]

The number is very, very low indeed.

A much more reasonable conclusion is that there are very, very few persons carrying firearms openly in densely populated areas in rush hour in the first place. As GEM suggests, walk down the street in Chicago, DC, or NYC. There are no guns to take. Ergo, none are taken from people on the sidewalks, or from those standing in line at counters.

But that does not tell us that criminals who are given the opportunity would not be interested in stealing them, or anything else they might see, for that matter.

Travelers and tourists are advised to avoid exhibiting high value items in public in those places, and in places like Caracas, Mexico City, Rome, and even Vatican City. A readily noticeable high end single lens reflex camera around your neck may not be yours for very long in such a place. It is a desirable item. So is a firearm, for very obvious reasons. And a firearm on your belt on Wacker Drive when thousands of people are hurrying to the different Metra and CTA stops to catch their trains would have no effective deterrent value at all. That persons fall victim to knockout attacks, purse snatchings, and the taking of briefcases and lap-top computers in such environments is not necessarily because they were not alert; some things just happen too fast. Of course, it would never happen to us, would it? We are too smart and too good. Or so we like to convince ourselves.

Spats McGee cited some real world events. Add more visible guns for the taking and one can expect more to be taken.

There are reasons why instructors offer retention training, and that law enforcement officers are required to undergo it. The problem is that there are some circumstances in some places in which, and some tactics against which, retention tactics are not at all effective.

Law enforcement officers seek out bad guys. LEO's make it their job to corner bad guys, to go hands on with bad guys, to force bad guys to be in actual physical contact with the LEO. LEO's put the bad guys in a position where sometimes their only two options are to be taken to prison or to attack the LEO in an escape/evasion attempt. This is radically different from what private citizens do.

Is there a reason you hand selected cities where people are not legally able to be armed for your examples?

How is it that people can open carry in large cities like Atlanta and Philadelphia without getting all of them stolen?

There are many many states and many cities, including big cities, where open carry is legal.

And I know for a fact people open carry in them.

I have open carried in them.

Why is it that what you say will happen...doesn't?

I mean, sure, it's possible. And sure, it's bound to happen eventually or some number of times. Just like licensed and other-wise lawful carriers are going to at some point (and have) illegally use their firearms in incidents of road rage. The fact that once in a blue moon somebody will be attacked for their gun, or even have it taken, doesn't mean open carry is a bad idea or that the net effect of open carry is bad...just like a random guy using his lawfully carried handgun in road rage once in a blue moon doesn't mean concealed carry is a bad idea or that the net effect of shall issue laws is bad.

 

[buck460XVR]

That does not compute.

Male chauvinists for years have blamed rape victims for the attacks on them because of the way they dressed, claiming that by dressing provocatively and advertising their goods, they are asking to be raped. Seems this is what you and many others are saying about OC a weapon. Display your firearm and you are just asking to be attacked for it or because of it.

As I said in my previous post, it is all about common sense. Dress like a slut and go alone to an all male Frat party and you will get treated like a slut. Dress the same way and go to a high class dance club and you will blend in with all the other high maintenance women. Wear large and expensive jewelry while walking down a dark street in a high crime area of town and odds are you will be noticed. Wear the same jewelery and go to a fancy restaurant and you'll be just one of many. Strap a military style weapon and two bandoliers of ammo on your body and walk into a kindergarten Christmas program and folks will get upset. Wear the same to go to the range and folks will just laugh at you. Go to a function with paranoid soccer mom's and flaunt and brandish a firearm and there will be phone calls......one does not need to be a brain surgeon to figure that out. If our CWC laws are doing what is intended of them, even if one is OC in a public place, criminals are now aware that the odds are, someone else in that public place is carrying concealed. If two or more folks are OC in that same public place, the criminal now knows he is out numbered. Use to be, folks would get upset and concerned for their safety when they saw a heavily tattooed man with a ring thru his nose get in line behind them at the store. Now, since that is a everyday occurrence, most folks don't take a second glance. I think the same can be said for OC in areas where it is legal and it has been practiced.

OC is not for everybody, nor is it appropriate in every venue. Like CWC there are risks to be considered and precautions to be taken. This is just part of responsible gun ownership. Just as respecting other gun owners right to do as they chose, as long as what they do is legal and safe. Just because you do not feel safe doing it, does not make it so for everyone.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Guns vs high value items/thefts....

I can see the merits of CC but OC can work fine for most gun owners/soc situations.
If you OC & aren't menacing, bullying, drunk/intoxicated, or aggressive, you really don't have any problems with it.

I read a recent media article about a weird guy who OCed at a little league baseball game. He reportedly paraded around talking to parents & spectators about his 2A rights & his weapon. Local PD officers on scene addressed the parents complaints but said the gun owner was not threatening or brandishing the firearm so he couldn't be charged.
Doing security work in the late 2000s, I worked briefly on a client's site that had a tenant who would strut around with his Glock pistol tucked into his belt.
He felt compelled to inform anyone & everyone he was armed/had a CCW license.

Unfortunately with the increase of concealed carry laws/statues & more gun owners in the last 5-10 years, there are more events of misconduct or inappropriate behavior. Just like bad drivers, bad parents or bad home owners; the fact that some gun owners/license holders choose to behave that way or have those attitudes should not reflect or represent all license holders/gun owners.

I'm 43 years old & a US military veteran. I've never had anyone see my sidearm or weapons & try to steal them.
Could that happen? Sure. Does it occur often all over the USA with citizens who OC on a regular basis? I highly doubt it.

 

[GEM]

When OC carry becomes common place in risky environments as I described then you will have the data base. Until then, arguing that there is little risk of a grab at the soccer game or Starbucks is rather silly.

So will the proponents OC on the subway? Like an answer on that one. If not, why not?

 

[Ed Ames]

So will the proponents OC on the subway? Like an answer on that one. If not, why not?

Unlikely. Why not?

I have never lived anywhere that had a subway that made sense. You drive to the subway station, get on, get back off, and where is your car to get to your destination? Being stripped for parts at the other end of the subway system. Not good. Much more sensible to drive to your destination directly and save the insurance claim.

But if they did make sense, I would be as likely to open carry there as anywhere else urban. I have lived in cities enough to know that most people are looking for the easy mark.

 

[Red Wind]

I have never lived anywhere that had a subway that made sense. You drive to the subway station, get on, get back off, and where is your car to get to your destination? Being stripped for parts at the other end of the subway system. Not good. Much more sensible to drive to your destination directly and save the insurance claim.

It makes sense in vast parts of New York City, with its almost 300 miles of subway line. Most New Yorkers in the 5 boroughs ,other than Staten
Island ,are only a few blocks from the nearest station.

My wife and I both have many relatives and friends who live there and have never owned a car their entire lives.

When they go on a out of town journey, they simply get a rental.

 

[Warp]

Go to a function with paranoid soccer mom's and flaunt and brandish a firearm and there will be phone calls...

"Flaunt and brandish"?

How does one do that, exactly?

Use to be, folks would get upset and concerned for their safety when they saw a heavily tattooed man with a ring thru his nose get in line behind them at the store. Now, since that is a everyday occurrence, most folks don't take a second glance. I think the same can be said for OC in areas where it is legal and it has been practiced.

This is an accurate observation of the main underlying issue IMO.

More people openly carrying more of the time...people will get somewhat accustomed to it...it won't be a big deal any more.

Of course, in many areas of the country it's already not a big deal.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: Is there a reason you hand selected cities where people are not legally able to be armed for your examples?

I "hand selected" the examples mentioned by GEM, in which both he and I have been, and in which I contend that no one in his right mind would open carry during rush hour.

He posed the question whether someone would carry in those places if it were made legal. For me , the answer is NO, nor would I carry openly in a subway. The pedestrian who stands out exhibiting booty for the taking in those places is a victim to be; and there is no real way to deter an attack, much less to defend against if very effectively once it is under way, in a really dense, fast-moving crowd.

Hardly anyone is carrying openly in Philadelphia, yet.

I would not have a problem carrying openly in Phoenix, but the population density and pedestrian traffic are both far, far lower than in the places that GEM mentioned. I have friends who carry there, but they usually go out in pairs.

I do not know enough about Atlanta to offer an opinion.

Why is it that what you say will happen...doesn't?

It is a fundamental tenet of risk analysis that losses occur very rarely when the level of exposure is very low.

Yes, there are some big cities in which open carry is permitted, but in most, it is not.

And in most of those in which it is lawful, one simply does not see it very often.

And maybe, just maybe, those who can carry openly are sufficiently prudent to not do so in high-risk situations.

When the conditions that involve risks occur very rarely, but the potential consequences are very severe, one must employ methods other than viewing cumulative occurrence data to analyze the risks. Some of us have made a living doing that.

One method is simulation. GEM's jury simulation articles are a great example. Mock trials to prepare for high-stakes civil judgments are often used. FoF exercises prepare us for defensive encounters, and i the case of sworn officers, for clearing houses, apprehending felons, reusing hostages, and so on. War games, air combat, ASW, disaster control.... One could simulate attacks on open carriers in conditions in which the victims cannot see them coming and see how they turn out.

Another is to evaluate analogous occurrences. If there are sufficient data regarding the taking of watches, camera, attache cases, and the like from helpless unsuspecting victims in extremely close quarter encounters, might one not reasonably conclude that the data would indicate something about firearms openly displayed?