Open carry vs. concealed carry poll.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Urbana John says:

Not long ago there was a discussion about OC & CC, and the BG getting or trying to take an OC weapon away from "one of us".

Stats prove that it happens more to LEO's more than us!!!

Usually happens inside jails or court houses with the "die hard" BG's.

Sometimes it happens to "us", in our homes while the BG is doing his thing, but I've NEVER heard or read anything about a BG trying to do his job and trying to take an OC firearm off "one" of us first.

If I was OCing, I'd be 2 or 3 times more "alert" to a stranger getting toooo close to me, and "if" that happened,,,,my hand would already be on my weapon!!

My point exactly. OC complicates your tactical situation, as you now have to guard against strangers getting "too close".

Police OC. But they also have retention training, retention holsters, are physically fit (mostly), are trained in hand to hand combat, are not too old or frail, have backup available, and with all that, BG's know for a fact that if they whack a cop every cop within 50 miles will be looking for them with extreme prejudice.

I like wearing open top holsters for ease of draw. A vest or open from sweater makes for very easy access if needed. I retain the element of surprise. I don't have to worry about some dirtbag 20 years younger than me and twice as big standing behind me in line at Mickey D's.

I OC around my little spread here in TX. And of course OC isn't an option here in public at the present time. But I have OC'd in Phoenix and I personally find CC much more comfortable anywhere where there are a lot of people around.

Gun snatches have happened, and not just to police. There's a thread on opencarry.org about a guy in VA who was OC'ing and was ambushed from behind by two BG's, one of whom took his gun.

You can't walk around with your hand on your gun whenever anyone gets within a few feet of you. Too much of that will draw unwanted attention, and is what I would call a heck of a way to live.

In sparsely populated rural areas it's a different story.

And it's always good to have the option of OC. So I would like to see the law changed here in TX to allow it.

 

[JesseL]

My point exactly. OC complicates your tactical situation, as you now have to guard against strangers getting "too close".

I always guard against strangers getting too close, even when I'm not carrying at all (which isn't often). OC may slightly diminish your tactical position, but I think the deterrent effect strongly bolsters one's strategic position. The first step in not becoming a victim is to not look like a victim.

I don't have to worry about some dirtbag 20 years younger than me and twice as big standing behind me in line at Mickey D's.

This is why I tend to stand sideways in lines along with habits like continually looking around and sitting facing the doors and with my back to a wall. I don't worry too much about the guys 20 years younger than me, as they're currently only 9 years old and rarely 12 feet tall or 450lbs

I really think that good situational awareness negates all of the downsides to open carry, and anyone interested in living very long should be practicing good situational awareness anyway.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

This is why I tend to stand sideways in lines along with habits like continually looking around and sitting facing the doors and with my back to a wall.

This sounds to me like a tacit admission that open carry leaves you more exposed to a snatch attempt or ambush.

Which is my point.

Nothing stops someone CC'ing from being aware of their surroundings, looking around, etc. And when CC'ing one retains tactical surprise.

I'm not so sure about the "strategic advantage" you refer to - the deterrent effect. Sure, some might be deterred. But others might find it easier to pull an ambush.

And note that I fully recognize that if one is OC'ing in a group (of others also OC'ing) that there is a massive deterrent effect. No BG or even 2 or 3 of them is going to try to ambush multiple OC'ers.

But alone it's a different story, at least in my opinion. Knowledge is power. If I know I'm packing and the BGs don't, I know something important that they don't know. They might think they are surprising me, but when I pull my gun it will be they who will get the big surprise.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Nakedshoplifter writes:

Most rational people realize that bank robbers do not fill out deposit slips and wait patiently in line for their turn to speak to a teller.

What ever gave you that idea? Actually, it's pretty common for bank robbers to write a note on a deposit slip, wait in line and just hand it to the teller when they get to the front of the line, all nice and quiet like. No commotion. No fuss, no muss.

Having said that, I've OC'd at an American express office in Phoenix one time when I was visiting and had to get a lost card replaced. The place was set up pretty much like a bank, with teller windows and everything. No one gave me a second glance as far as I could tell. No problems.

 

[TallPine]

OC complicates your tactical situation, as you now have to guard against strangers getting "too close".

Not bathing too often solves that problem

 

[JesseL]

This sounds to me like a tacit admission that open carry leaves you more exposed to a snatch attempt or ambush.

It's a tacit admission that you're vulnerable anytime there are people around that you don't completely trust. Like I said, I try to be aware of my surroundings whether I'm carrying open, concealed, or not at all.

But alone it's a different story, at least in my opinion. Knowledge is power. If I know I'm packing and the BGs don't, I know something important that they don't know. They might think they are surprising me, but when I pull my gun it will be they who will get the big surprise.

If you're being attacked and you don't already have your gun drawn, you have been surprised. I'm not real clear on just what you extra advantage you gain by pulling your gun and surprising the BGs attacking you?

Either they'll see the gun and run away, (in which case open carry would have probably completely prevented the attack before it started); or they'll continue the attack and you'll have to shoot them. If they happen to falter for a moment at the surprise of seeing your gun, how much have you really gained? (Personally, I doubt that that moment of hesitation will be much longer than the time lost to drawing from concealment).

I'm not so sure about the "strategic advantage" you refer to - the deterrent effect. Sure, some might be deterred. But others might find it easier to pull an ambush.

Which comes back around to the argument for situational awareness. If you're paying enough attention, effectively ambushing you will be very, very hard.

 

[Ed Ames]

This sounds to me like a tacit admission that open
carry leaves you more exposed to a snatch attempt or
ambush.

Kinda. You are vulnerable to snatch-n-grabs any time you are in a press. Not just when you are open carrying, not just when you are concealed carrying ... always. People are constantly doing bump-n-grabs of purses, wallets, etcetera in grocery/fast food lines.

To that extent open carry is like wearing a watch, having a cell phone, or holding a purse (if you are female) -- you are exposing a valuable item that some people will covet to public examination. The bolder of those people may attempt to steal the exposed item(s).

On the other hand, stealing a weapon is inherently riskier than stealing a cell phone. It is a weapon and people understand that people with weapons are often dangerous. So you are less likely to have people steal your gun off your belt than steal your cell phone off your belt.

How many times have you had a cell phone stolen off your belt? It happens all the time. Probablly several dozen times an hour in the USA alone. Guns stolen off belts will happen at a lower rate than that.

Now you get into the influence of law. Disregarding the law it's hard to imagine that someone who would open carry would not also be carrying concealed. A gun on your belt and a gun in your pocket just makes sense. The only time that wouldn't be true is if there were strange laws. E.g. laws that allowed you to open carry but not concealed carry, or laws that allowed you to only concealed carry here but only open carry there and not carry at all somewhere else. Those laws can create a real problem.

To me the real issue with open carry is that many forms of concealed carry aren't very concealed. Look at the standard OWB "concealment" people talk about. Yeah, it's concealed until you lift your arms or take off your jacket. I've seen quite a few people carrying "concealed" in CA (which has only limited open carry) where they weren't concealed nearly as well as they should have been. If open carry was legal they would be fine though. With open carry they could take off their jacket or make a mistake with their ams and the issue would be strictly social.

Beyond that, there really are some times when warning colors are important. It might be tactically advisable to take off your jacket, or just pull away the concealment garment, well before any incident develops. In places without legal open carry those actions can be criminal.

The risks of a belt grab of your gun are lower than the risk someone will grab a cell phone off your belt or a wallet out of your pocket. The advantages of open carry in some situations is significant.

 

[WayneConrad]

The "Gun Free School Zone" was a major study for a while on a defunct post. The reason I stated CC yes, OC no, was because, partly, of the alcohol sales stated in a previous post. NM has had OC since forever, but the GFSZ did not allow any carry, unless CC licensed. It becomes a "lawyer speak" problem, and I sure don't want to be the test case. I personally consider CC yes, OC no in GFSZ - but IANAL!
sailortoo

Major study? This is one of the simplest laws Congress ever passed. The whole thing fits on one page. Here's where you can read it: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...l_Zones_Act.pdf+GFSZ&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us .

Two parts that apply here. Here's the first part, saying you can't have a gun near a school.

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise
affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that
the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to
believe, is a school zone.

Here's the second part, which exempts from the school zone prohibition anyone with a license of some kind--notice, it doesn't say CCW, and it doesn't say you have to conceal, either in this part I quote or anywhere else in the act. That's it. No law licence needed here. This is simple stuff.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shalldoes not apply to the
possession of a firearm—
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before
an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;

Is there some additional prohibition in New Mexico law that you are thinking of, and getting mixed up with the federal law?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

JesseL said:

I always guard against strangers getting too close, even when I'm not carrying at all (which isn't often). OC may slightly diminish your tactical position, but I think the deterrent effect strongly bolsters one's strategic position.

Originally Posted by frankie_the_yankee
This sounds to me like a tacit admission that open carry leaves you more exposed to a snatch attempt or ambush.

JesseL responded:

It's a tacit admission that you're vulnerable anytime there are people around that you don't completely trust.

See bold highlighted phrase in your original statement.

OC and CC are not the same. It may be a truism that you are "vulnerable anytime", but it doesn't change the fact that OC and CC present a different tactical situation both to the LAC and to the would be assailant.

A person can have the same situational awareness while CC'ing as while OC'ing. Everyone agrees that situational awareness is a good thing, so we don't need to confuse the issue by introducing it here.

The real issue is, other things being equal, (including situational awareness) which carry mode is better most of the time?

I would submit that OC has some clear advantages in the area of deterrence when groups of two or more OC'ers are out and about together. And I am just as convinced that CC is much better in most situations for a person who is alone or is the only one present who is carrying.

I would also submit that a person OC'ing (especially alone), must maintain the highest level of situational awareness when in crowded places to ensure against a snatch attempt. This is much less of an issue with a well concealed sidearm, as a potential snatcher or assailent will have no idea that the gun is there.

Some OC'ers freely admit that they avoid such crowded places altogether. So I would say, what good is a mode of carry if it causes me to have to avoid places I would otherwise go out of concern over a possible snatch attempt?

I've got a life to live. I'm gonna go where I want to go. My objective in carrying a gun is to enhance my personal security wherever I decide to go, not complicate it.

Some people are big, young, and strong. Maybe they figure no one will risk going hand to hand with them to take their gun. They may even be right. To them I say, "Congratulations. With luck, your time will come one day."

I was never very big, but years ago I used to be young and strong. Today I'm small, old, and weak. Most 15 year old kids could kick my butt. Nobody is going to be afraid to take me on. Martial arts training is out of the question for many reasons. There's no way I want to get into a scuffle with someone trying to take my gun.

So from where I sit, unless you're into tempting fate, CC is clearly a better choice for most people.

 

[sailortoo]

Gfsz - Oc/cc

Not to tangle up this thread with the GFSZ problem (and it is a problem!), my comment about "lawyer speak" refers to the law as understood by the layman, is frequently not the same as what a lawyer or judge seems to see. First, "a simple law ... fits on one page" - may seem simple, but my file on the study/discussion of the GFSZ implies the opposite. Now a simple, straight forward and uncomplicated single sentence, in the US Constitution - the Second Amendment - seems to have law colleges, judicial districts, lawyers by the gross, totally at odds with each other! It doesn't get much simpler than that, but look where we are. My NM CCW license states in plain language on it "Concealed Handgun License", no other mode. In other words, I am licensed for concealed carry - period. I realize that is nit picking, but that is exactly what lawyers do for a living. Other states use different licensing and different wording, giving a different outlook on what liability might be involved. What anyone else wishes to do in a GFSZ is their business, but I go with concealed.
sailortoo
Semper Paratus (also)

 

[JesseL]

This difference of opinion must come down to differing personal philosophies of a more fundamental nature.

When I was growing up I got into quite a few fights. I was always a little bigger and stronger than average, but I was pretty nerdy and lacking in confidence. I conveyed the image of an easy target to bullies and the like, despite the fact that I almost invariably came out on top in the fight (though the aftermath dealing with school administrators was usually worse than the fight).

After a while I learned that I could avoid all the fights (and ensuing official hassles) by standing up straighter, looking people in the eye, and generally looking meaner when necessary.

I think some of these experiences have carried through into my adult preference for open carry.

Thus far open carry has not complicated my life beyond the complications I already feel are necessary, and I believe it can go a long way in helping me avoid unpleasant complications.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Thus far open carry has not complicated my life beyond the complications I already feel are necessary, and I believe it can go a long way in helping me avoid unpleasant complications.

If it works for you, by all means do it. You are living in one of the most OC-friendly states in the country, and in probably one of the most OC-friendly cities in that state.

I just point out that you should not assume that what works for you works just as well for others. For some others it may. For some, and I would say "most", it may not.

Tactical surprise worked well for Hannibal, Alexander, Yamamoto, Nimitz, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Schwartzkopf, so I figure it's good enough for me.

On the other hand, strategic deterrence worked for Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc., so it too has its points.

And I think we agree that we prefer for the law to allow us to each choose our preferred option.

 

[JesseL]

If it works for you, by all means do it. You are living in one of the most OC-friendly states in the country, and in probably one of the most OC-friendly cities in that state.

That's probably true. I think though that the local social climate allows me a perspective on the practical benefits open carry without having my perceptions confused and confounded by negative social pressures.

Tactical surprise worked well for Hannibal, Alexander, Yamamoto, Nimitz, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Schwartzkopf, so I figure it's good enough for me.

Have you got an example of any of them using surprise in a defensive maneuver though?

And I think we agree that we prefer for the law to allow us to each choose our preferred option.

Definitely.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Tactical surprise worked well for Hannibal, Alexander, Yamamoto, Nimitz, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Schwartzkopf, so I figure it's good enough for me.

Have you got an example of any of them using surprise in a defensive maneuver though?

Sure. The landing at Inchon.

The North was on the offensive and had pushed the Allied forces south, to a very small region around Pusan. We were on the brink of defeat, nearly losing our entire expeditionary force in the process. The landing at Inchon was a surprise defensive measure by MacArthur that successfully reversed the tide of the North's attack and resulted in our forces pushing the North back almost to the Yalu River, where the Chinese entered the conflict.

I'm sure numerous other examples abound, but this one is probably by the far one of the largest and the most well known.

Contrast with Corrigador, where the Japanese knew exactly what they were up against. (i.e. no tactical surprise.) Despite it's utterly massive (but static) fortifications, both above and below ground, the Japanese were able to simply hammer away at it until Corrigador eventually fell.

I think though that the local social climate allows me a perspective on the practical benefits open carry without having my perceptions confused and confounded by negative social pressures.

I don't regard my perceptions as clouded in the least by any sort of pressures. I OC all the time on my little spread, and I could not care less what any visitors think about it. Anyone who doesn't like it is perfectly free to take a hike.

What is different on my spread is that I have full control over access. I am not going to find myself in close quarters with groups of people whom I don't know or trust. So the tactical situation is very different.

I've also OC'd when visiting Phoenix, where I felt no social pressures. But at certain times the tactical situation was not to my liking.