Open Carry

[Mainsail]

A violent criminal attack requiring the immediate use of deadly force for self defense is one of those things that "could happen", and nothing else. The likelihood is not high, but the potential consequences are severe. Some of us carry concealed weapons because of just such a possibility.

Yeah……so? My point is in the way some seem to prioritize those rare encounters; because some of them happen a lot more than others.

For someone to say, “open carry is tactically unsound because you’ll be the first one shot in a bank robbery”, would indicate that they prioritize organized bank heists above the typical street mugging (or as I said, they’re shy about the real reason they don’t like OC).

If I prioritize the more likely (of rare events) and make my plan to emphasize those first, and the bank heists farther down the list, I consider thusly:

GOALS- Not be a victim. Not ever need to (last resort) shoot another human. Be in a Grand Jury instead of before one. Avoid lengthy legal actions (criminal and/or civil) with the resulting financial catastrophe compounded by loss of security clearance and loss of employment.

REALIZATION- If it ever comes to it, and I have to shoot someone, there are severe moral and legal consequences, which are unavoidable, even if I am clearly in the right (exponentially worse if there is any doubt whatsoever, or the truth can be twisted). Bad people are well aware of concealed carry, it’s no secret, and it is not a surprise. Bad people are fully prepared and expecting at least some resistance. Avoiding trouble is easier than fighting my way out of trouble. Everyone robbed on any given day looks exactly like a person carrying a concealed firearm. Every study ever done suggests criminals prefer unarmed victims over armed ones.

That’s my thought process and it leads me to the opinion that at many times, open carry will deter most criminals. No, not all criminals. So prioritizing for the most likely threat I can conclude that for where I live and the crimes most committed there, open carry has more potential to realize the goals I stated above.

 

[wojownik]

TX HR308 2015-2016 84th legislature
Bill Title: Recognizing February 10, 2015, as Howard County Day at the State Capitol.

Umm... Darn?

HB 308 - "Relating to the places where a person may carry a handgun if the person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun."

HR 308 was about Howard County Day.

 

[Ed Ames]

Thanks. I'm in the habit of looking up things like that, and when GEM referenced Howard county day I was ....puzzled. HB makes sense.

 

[Mainsail]

I do not consider OC to be an issue of what is, or is not, tactically sound (or tactically better) -- for better or worse, the OC issue has caused many in society to cast a jaundiced eye toward all gun-owners.

I don't like open carry assclowns any more than anyone else, but assclownery isn't exclusive to open carry either.

You may recall a shooting at the Fred Meyer in Bremerton. A guy with a CPL gets a call from his wife- strange people in her store, may be armed. He drives there, does a quick walk-through of the store, then sits outside in his car videotaping a couple in a van he thinks are the armed weirdos.

Weirdos (who live in the van) confront him about the videotaping and an argument ensues. Weirdo pulls knife on CPL guy and CPL guy shoots him. CPL guy gets 16 years.

Remember folks, DE-escalate whenever possible, assclownery isn't exclusive to open carry, and your license or permit doesn't make you a detective with qualified immunity.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mainsail:

Bad people are well aware of concealed carry, it’s no secret, and it is not a surprise. Bad people are fully prepared and expecting at least some resistance. Avoiding trouble is easier than fighting my way out of trouble. Everyone robbed on any given day looks exactly like a person carrying a concealed firearm. Every study ever done suggests criminals prefer unarmed victims over armed ones.

That all makes sense except for "Everyone robbed on any given day looks exactly like a person carrying a concealed firearm". Open carriers are also victimized from time to time.

That’s my thought process and it leads me to the opinion that at many times, open carry will deter most criminals. No, not all criminals.

I think it can reasonably lead someone to the opinion that open carry will likely deter criminals who have the option to come back later or to go somewhere else, unless the objective of the perps is to acquire the gun itself, or unless the perp comes upon the victim in a line from behind and already has the upper hand.

Should the criminal urgently require a car and money at the time and place of the encounter (that does happen where I live, near two major drug arteries), the deterrent effect might not suffice at all. And the known presence of the defenders' firearm could force the issue and make the result much more serious than a robbery.

Should an open carrier inadvertently walk in on a crime in progess, when a "tail gunner" can reasonably be expected to assume that he has no choice but to open fire, there would be no deterrence whatsoever. The open carrier will be in much greater danger than would someone not known to be armed.

One has no way of knowing in advance what kind of situation one may encounter.

My judgment is that the risks outweigh the potential deterrence.

 

[Mainsail]

That all makes sense except for "Everyone robbed on any given day looks exactly like a person carrying a concealed firearm". Open carriers are also victimized from time to time.

A miniscule percentage of open carriers are ever robbed, while 99.99% of concealed carriers, or those that look just like them, are robbed. Them ain’t great odds.

I think it can reasonably lead someone to the opinion that open carry will likely deter criminals who have the option to come back later or to go somewhere else, unless the objective of the perps is to acquire the gun itself…..

You don’t really believe the bad guy is thinking, “I want a gun, I think I’ll see if I can find someone openly carrying and rob him” do you? So your argument is reduced to the chances of someone that desperate, being in the right place, ready to act on impulse, formulating and executing a plan despite the danger to himself. Pretty small odds don’t you think?

Should the criminal urgently require a car and money at the time and place of the encounter (that does happen where I live, near two major drug arteries), the deterrent effect might not suffice at all. And the known presence of the defenders' firearm could force the issue and make the result much more serious than a robbery.

Then open carry might not be best for you where you live, but see below.

Should an open carrier inadvertently walk in on a crime in progress, when a "tail gunner" …

If you prioritize that sort of organized crime above the type I see here, then hey, let’s agree it’s great to live in a free country (while it sort of still is). Personally, I would rate the risk of petty crime of opportunity above the tail-gunner available type, but that’s just here.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mainsail:

A miniscule percentage of open carriers are ever robbed, while 99.99% of concealed carriers, or those that look just like them, are robbed. Them ain’t great odds.

I'm sure you didn't mean to say that. It makes no sense whatsoever.

In any event, my discussions with friends who live in or travel in open carry states from the Pacific Northwest to Alabama indicate that they have seen very few open carriers except in a few locales in which crime is extremely infrequent.

One major exception to that is Arizona.

If there are few carrying openly, few will be victimized.

You don’t really believe the bad guy is thinking, “I want a gun, I think I’ll see if I can find someone openly carrying and rob him” do you? So your argument is reduced to the chances of someone that desperate, being in the right place, ready to act on impulse, formulating and executing a plan despite the danger to himself. Pretty small odds don’t you think?

The presence of anything visible that has value greatly increases the odds of an armed or strong-arm robbery.

Yes, trying to take a firearm does present greater risk than does snatching an iPad, but as one who has discussed the subject with corrections officers who have observed inmates training rigorously for the occasion, I do not regard that risk as sufficiently high to offset the attractiveness, at least enough for my liking.

If you prioritize that sort of organized crime above the type I see here, then hey, let’s agree it’s great to live in a free country (while it sort of still is). Personally, I would rate the risk of petty crime of opportunity above the tail-gunner available type, but that’s just here.

The data we have seen on this board indicate that if one is the victim of a crime of violence, the odds are that there will be two or more perps.

The news reports where I live support that overwhelmingly, except in the case of bank robberies, where single gunmen seem to like to ply their trade, unless it is the case that the other guy is just never identified.

That makes sense. One can reasonably expect any violent criminal actor to prefer to have another set of eyes and weapons involved from the initial interview and through to the escape with the goods.

Much safer that way.

 

[Mainsail]

Posted by Mainsail:A miniscule percentage of open carriers are ever robbed, while 99.99% of concealed carriers, or those that look just like them, are robbed. Them ain’t great odds.

I'm sure you didn't mean to say that. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Stand three people next to each other; one carrying openly, the other carrying concealed, and the last unarmed. The second two look identical. When you're out carrying concealed, you look exactly the same as any unarmed person- sorta the point with concealed carry, right?

It works in reverse too. 99.99% of victims that were robbed, mugged, or raped looked exactly like any concealed carry person looks. Concealed carry isn't likely to prevent my victimization. Like I said, CCW is no secret, you admit as much with the comments about prisoners practicing disarming techniques.

Concealed carry is less effectual at meeting the goals I stated previously than open carry. If one of my goals was to surprise a robber after he'd chosen me as a victim, then concealed carry is definitely preferable.

 

[hatt]

i never thought open carry made much sense

the point of carrying my gun is to protect myself, why would i show anyone who potentially seeks to do me harm;

1) that i have it

2) where it is

just my two cents

1. So they move on to greener pastures

2. Right here ready for business

 

[Malamute]

1. So they move on to greener pastures

2. Right here ready for business

And therein we have the basis of the different viewpoints. Many obviously believe that having an exposed gun deters crime, and many do not believe that. I havent seen conclusive or consistant evidence that it deters it. I have heard of a number of cases of guns being stolen simply because they could be seen. Some dont seem to feel those instances are either credible, or outweigh the talisman/repellant effect.

It could be assumed that if one carries a gun, it would be "right here and ready for business" if it can be seen or not.

Nobody seems to be swayed in either direction in these discussions so far as I can tell. People believe what they believe, for whatever reason they believe them, and arent subject to change.

 

[hatt]

I don't really care what antis on gun forums think. The real world is what matters. In the real world, the projection of strength is respected by predators/criminals. Built right into the DNA of man and beast.

 

[Water-Man]

I'd bet that many of the folks who CC and are against OC would change their minds if there were alot of people that OC.

Most of their arguments would vanish.

 

[BSA1]

One theme that keeps repeating itself by those opposed to Open Carry is that if a crime was to occur the person who is O.C. firearms will automatically be spotted and that violence will result. The problem with this theory is the assumption that the O.C.’s gun will be spotted.

The manner in which the gun is carried as much to do with it being noticed. My most common edc is a SIG P239 in a Rosen high ride pancake style holster worn of strong side at 4:00 position. Both gun and holster are black and the gun rides very comfortably close to my body.

When viewing me from my left side the gun and holster is not visible. I can easily conceal it from someone looking at me from the front simply by dropping my arm down in front of the holster. If the person is on my right I can obstruct their view by moving my right hip back and blading my left side towards them. It does not to be a lot of movement. I can also take advantage of any cover that might be available such as a store display rack. Of course being seen from the rear is more likely as it is with conceal carry.

With the hot summer weather approaching my 5 shot stainless steel snubbie is coming out of the safe. At the moment I carry it in a belt holster with a thumb snap. Even though it smaller than my SIG it is much more noticeable simply because of the type of holster I carry it in.

The second assumption is the criminal is expecting the victim(s) and witnesses to be armed. As general rule criminals prefer to rob sheep and choose their target accordingly. Certainly the m.o. of crimes vary from community to community and region to region and tactics should be adapted. In my nearby large community getting gas at 2:00 am in most parts of the city is safe. They have a sizable gang problem but most of it is in certain parts of town. Gangs robbing businesses is not a common crime here. However in other communities it may well be. But if I lived in such a community and shopped in businesses gangs target I would be making a lot of adjustments starting with why the heck am I shopping here and how much firepower I was carrying.

Of course if I was wearing a cartridge belt with loops full of bullets I would be made from a distance away. Likewise as commented covering the gun with a piece of cloth does not prevent the carrier from being made either.

I carry both ways and base my activities on a honest risk assessment of where I am an going to be.

 

[Ed Ames]

It is interesting to think that, historically, it was concealed carry that was considered controversial while open carry was not. After all, pretty much all but one state banned concealed carry at one point, while most states allowed open carry.

As I understand it, the argument is that concealed carry is cowardly. With open carry you are openly showing your potential to defend and anyone who starts a fight with you does so with advanced warning that you can respond with arms. If you carry concealed, however, you are a snake in the grass. The danger is unseen and therefore someone who would fight you won't realize their peril until it is too late.

Concealed carry was seen as the providence of card sharps and other disreputable (dishonorable?) types.
Is that true? I've heard it said but I don't know. It makes as much sense as many of the arguments in this thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Water-Man:

I'd bet that many of the folks who CC and are against OC would change their minds if there were alot of people that OC.

I would certainly feel a whole lot safer open carrying in an area in which many people regularly carry openly.

Safer than open carrying anywhere else, and probably safer than carrying concealed.

 

[Lord Teapot]

1. So they move on to greener pastures

2. Right here ready for business

alternatively,

1) they now know how to approach me

2) they now know how to instantly disable my defense

 

[Lord Teapot]

I'd bet that many of the folks who CC and are against OC would change their minds if there were alot of people that OC.

Most of their arguments would vanish.

most likely, but so long as open carry is very uncommon, open carry simply makes you into a target. i wish everyone would exercise their god given right to bear arms, but that's just not how it is, and i act based on reality not on ideal situations. an ideal situation being: i trust a criminal to back off when he sees my gun, not gonna happen.

 

[buck460XVR]

open carry simply makes you into a target.

Folks keep saying this, but have no real evidence to support it, other than their "gut feeling". Does open carry make you a target? Odds are, my gut tells me, maybe in a very small percentage of scenarios......about as many as scenarios where open carry deters a crime. Thus a wash.

an ideal situation being: i trust a criminal to back off when he sees my gun, not gonna happen.

...and how do you know this? Do you carry openly often and have criminals approach you, is this another "gut feeling" or are you just pulling this outta a body orifice?

I don't open carry to scare people and I don't open carry to impress people. When I open carry I do so outta convenience and practicality. In my state, CWC only became legal a little over three years ago. Before that the only legal option we had for SD outside the home was OC. Even then when it was the only option we had, responsible folks used discretion on where they OC'd. Like not OCing into a bank. Not OCing to your kid's soccer game. Even now with CWC legal, there are still many folks here who do not have a license and still OC. There are still many scenarios where it is easier to OC than it is to CWC. Not every scenario in life is in a crowded subway station on a dark and dreary night, surrounded by crackheads. As I said before, I OC and CWC, depending on my situation. Both work well for me.

Don't like to OC, then don't. But support the right of others to do so, instead of condescending and belittling them as just "clowns" showing off.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BSA1:

One theme that keeps repeating itself by those opposed to Open Carry is that if a crime was to occur the person who is O.C. firearms will automatically be spotted and that violence will result.

I haven't seen that one.

It is simply a matter of risk.

The problem with this theory is the assumption that the O.C.’s gun will be spotted.

No.

It is a matter of the likelihood that it will be.

When viewing me from my left side the gun and holster is not visible. I can easily conceal it from someone looking at me from the front simply by dropping my arm down in front of the holster. If the person is on my right...

Think persons, moving anywhere.

 

[hatt]

Of OC made people a target you'd see plenty of news stories posted here since most states allow OC. I've seen a grand total of one story. And that wasn't a random incident. The people who disarmed dude knew dude.

1+1=2.

No evidence to support narrative: check
Defies accepted principles of how the world works: check

Pretty clear the narrative is absolute nonsense.

 

[X-Rap]

While only a fool will rely on the Talisman Effect, the largest gun organization in the world frequently claims crimes are thwarted at many times the reported rate due simply to the presence of a gun. I've never seen statistical proof but the claim makes sense and it has long been one of the cornerstones to personal defense.
These guns are no doubt those in households, vehicles, CC and OC but the common thread is visual presence.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by hatt:

Of OC made people a target you'd see plenty of news stories posted here since most states allow OC. I've seen a grand total of one story. And that wasn't a random incident. The people who disarmed dude knew dude.

That might make sense, if OC were very commonly practiced.

But it isn't. In most place open carry is very rarely done.

I brought up the subject in a class not long ago. Several of the students were corrections officers. Some were instructors.

Not one person thought the idea was prudent at all.

 

[BSA1]

It is interesting to think that, historically, it was concealed carry that was considered controversial while open carry was not. After all, pretty much all but one state banned concealed carry at one point, while most states allowed open carry.

As I understand it, the argument is that concealed carry is cowardly. With open carry you are openly showing your potential to defend and anyone who starts a fight with you does so with advanced warning that you can respond with arms. If you carry concealed, however, you are a snake in the grass. The danger is unseen and therefore someone who would fight you won't realize their peril until it is too late.

Well if you thinking about the days of the Old West frontier towns you are mistaking real life for reel (movie) life.

The primary goal of community businessmen and promoters was economic development. This require attracting big money investors from back East and the railroads. Businessmen then, like today, are generally very conservative when choosing what businesses and industry to invest in. They look to long term stable investments with a guaranteed growth.

In the real West numerous communities were started and directly competed against each other. Business investments and especially the railroads determined which towns lived and those that died. The lurid image of dime novels of drunken cowboys and outlaws carrying firearms, robbing banks and businesses, having gunfights in the streets, cowboys rawhiding through the streets and terrorizing women scared the big money investors from back East away.

To counter this dime novel image the first thing most communities did was to ban open carry. Conceal carry was often also banned but was largely not enforced against honest businessmen and citizens. Banning open carry was basically a public relations tactic while conceal carry laws were targeted towards being able to arrest those engaging in unacceptable behavior.

Keep in mind that organized trained law enforcement was often slow to come to many small western towns. Businessmen and banks were expected to provide their own protection. The Federal Government even provided handguns to banks into the 1930's. Even through the 1930's law enforcement depended on armed citizens responding quickly to calls for help. There are numerous well documented instances of armed citizens quickly responding to a crime in progress and the bad guys getting shot up to doll rags.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by X-Rap:

....the largest gun organization in the world frequently claims crimes are thwarted at many times the reported rate due simply to the presence of a gun. I've never seen statistical proof but the claim makes sense and it has long been one of the cornerstones to personal defense.

... the common thread is visual presence.

Don't you think that that has to do with a gun in hand?

FWIW, I have personally defended myself successfully in three home invasions without firing a shot. But I wasn't walking around wearing a gun belt, and the gun was not on a wall rack.

In each instance, the firearm was leveled directly at the invader.

Yes, the claim does make sense.

 

[Ed Ames]

So we have something that we seem to agree:

A) should be legal, regardless of prudence

B) isn't common enough to matter very much, statistically

C) if it was more common, wouldn't be as big a risk.

Is there much more that can be said? I guess I'm wondering what each of you hope to prove by arguing this topic.