If open carry serves no criminal deterrence function, why do the police do it?
this isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison.
1. an officer generally wears body armor. an armed citizen generally does not.
2. an officer has a police radio. an armed citizen does not.
3. an officer generally has other weapons and handcuffs available to subdue and arrest a criminal. some armed citizens do, most do not carry other weapons other than a folding pocketknife and not very many armed citizens carry handcuffs.
4. shooting/assaulting/killing a police officer usually has more serious ramifications than shooting/assaulting/killing a citizen.
5. in some states a citizen can only carry concealed (Texas as an example) unless he is a uniformed security guard and properly licensed. a peace officer can carry either open or concealed.
is the gun a deterrent to crime? i think it is part of the entire package that deters crime, like the uniformed presence of the police as a whole.
most "robbers" do not want to start the robbery by committing murder.
while that may be true, they certainly don't want anyone else they encounter to be armed as well, and if that armed open-carry citizen is mistakened for an off-duty police officer, he may be shot first. crooks dont like witnesses, especially cops.
i remember in CA in 1998 a wanted felon ran handcuffed from the police in the SF Bay Area. he ran from a pursuing officer into a vacant high school. he was then challenged by a person in plain clothes with a gun. it turned out he was an armed citizen who heard on his police scanner that they were chasing a wanted felon. under CA law the citizen had the right to arrest the felon at gunpoint, which he did.
the felon reportedly said he was not scared of being shot by the police because he knew the police officer could not shoot him. but he stopped when he saw an armed citizen because he did not know what an armed citizen might do.
