Do you OC or CC and why

[Kleanbore]

Surprise is not a defensive tactic no matter how many times you call it that.

I do not call it that.

However, camouflage is certainly a defensive tactic, and so is concealment of the locations of defensive assets, whether human, armaments, or obstacles.

Pulling your CCW during an incident is not surprise- it's damage control- trying to turn the bad situation to go your way.

Well, if the attacker does not expect it, he will certainly be surprised.

Might it surprise your attacker?

Yes, and that just might save the defender's life, as JohnKSa pointed out.

The bad guys know about CCW- it isn't a secret.

?

There isn't much of a deterrent effect with CCW because the facts say that MOST people, even those with permits/licenses, don't carry.

I cannot speak to that, but criminals do say that they fear armed citizens, probably during burglaries.

I don't want the damage control, I don't want to surprise my attacker, I want to be left alone by the bad guys.

So do I. I try to not look like a victim.

OC has done that.

And for some, it has led to trouble.

You say that OC has worked for you. I'm afraid I find that somewhat reminiscent of people who have told me that they are not concerned about the risk of going into some neighborhoods because they have not themselves been threatened in those places in the past.

If you can see those who might otherwise threaten you, and if they know it, open carry could certainly deter criminals. The problem arises when a threat is close behind you, and for most of us, we cannot always avoid standing in lines. When the defender is not in a position to use it, the deterrent value of a firearm is diminished. A gun in a holster, even one in a retention holster, will not protect against gunshots, heavy blows, stab wounds, or sliced tendons.

And the person known to be carrying is certainly at greater risk in that regard than someone else. The gun has all of the attractiveness attributes of a Rolex, a large diamond, or a string of pearls, or in some neighborhoods, a pair of shoes, along with its very desirable utilitarian value as a weapon.

The likelihood may be less than remote, but we hear of such incidents often enough here to make it prudent to consider them in the risk equation.

 

[Warp]

So.... you have no ideas.

What??

I guess I need to give some examples of possible responses that do not involve drawing the gun or getting robbed.

Wait...I think I already did that?

I was in a PARK, people pass you every minute or so in the park. Your suggestions would get me arrested or sent to the insane asylum.

Arrested for for saying GET BACK with your hand out like a stop sign? I'm glad I don't live somewhere with laws like that?

I'm always reluctant to discuss the incident for two reasons, one is it's difficult to properly articulate, and second because there's always someone (who wasn't there) who has some grand idea of how it could have been done better. Let me clue you in on something; you will never be in a robbery that goes down in a way you were expecting and for which you were prepared.

You asked for other potential ways to handle it. I gave them. They are quite simple and widely applicable. You seem to be pigeon holing yourself into a very very narrow predetermined number of responses from which you can not deviate. This is dangerous

1. Never walk in the park, or leave my house for that matter = not practical whatsoever
2. Pull my CCW whenever anyone passed me on the path around the park = JAIL
3. Get robbed and pull my CCW as they were walking away = not reasonable even in a stand your ground state

 

[Mainsail]

Ridiculous. In all 3 cases I documented, the CCW'er surprised the attacker/abductor and was able to defend both himself and the other victims.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the terms, but those are not examples of using surprise as a defensive tactic.

Semantics aside, the question is, 'does it work?' The answer is yes, it does! I'm not arguing that though. I seriously doubt the victim was thinking, "Man, are you in for a surprise" as he drew his weapon.

My point is that I don't want it to get to that point. I don't want to surprise (your term) or engage in damage control (my term).

Do it your way if you want, I wish you luck because you will lose. Whenever you pull a weapon in defense you lose, it's only the degree of the loss that's indeterminate. You might prevail against your attacker, but there's a whole world of potential misery waiting just around the corner if you do. It might be as little as losing a few nights sleep, or as major as losing everything you've built up in your life; job, home, marriage, etc. That's not opinion, those things all have happened in the past.

I don't understand the idea that one's personal safety plan should rely so completely on defense.

 

[beatledog7]

CC or OC, carrying a gun is insurance.

Insurance (let's not consider heath care insurance for the moment; it's been heavily misused since post-WW2) is supposed to kick in only after everything else fails.

I'm pretty sure you guys don't whip out your car insurance policy to get a wash, or an oil change, or to buy gas. Depending on details, you might not ever use it to repair accident damage. No, it's for situations that can't be managed by any other method.

For life insurance to be collected, the covered person must be dead. Very definitive circumstances.

So whether you OC, CC, or some of each, please make sure you don't draw needlessly. You don't call on the gecko or Flo at the BP station, so don't draw when you could walk.

 

[Mainsail]

You seem to be pigeon holing yourself into a very very narrow predetermined number of responses from which you can not deviate. This is dangerous

Straw man argument. I'm saying that for the incident I describe above, those were my choices. I am NOT going to walk around the park thrusting my arm out every time someone walks by and shout "STOP!" Neither are you.

EDIT to add: I admit I made the mistake of having both hands in the kangaroo pocket because this meant Ididn't have the 'one-step-up' option of establishing a grip on the gun when I realized what it was.

But that's the point I made to JohnSka, it never goes down in a way you were expecting it to go down. When the C-141 was built in the 60s, the Emergency Procedures in Chapter Three of the flight manual were only a few pages, when I retired in '03 it was an inch thick. Guess what, almost every in-flight emergency I experienced didn't go the way the book said it would. We stayed alive by using the training and established procedures to work our way through.

 

[Warp]

Straw man argument. I'm saying that for the incident I describe above, those were my choices. I am NOT going to walk around the park thrusting my arm out every time someone walks by and shout "STOP!" Neither are you.

I guess I am confused.

I thought the teen(s) in question did more than "walk by" you.

Actually, I was even under the impression that you believed your open carrying prevented a crime from happening. I didn't realize it was nothing but a couple of kids walking past you in the opposite direction.

My bad.

 

[GEM]

Victim selection is well studied. Economically driven criminals observe gait and attitude. Weak and unattentive folks are targeted. An OC person (of course, not you) who was inattentive and looked like a nebbish would be a nice target to hit.

So, since we live on anecdotes - I was in a city on business at a meeting where I could not carry. Yeah, you wouldn't go there but I have to make a professional living.

Anyway, aggressive panhandlers would approach the convention goers (it wasn't a tac convention of steely eye dealers of death) but nice professionals. They would get in their face and get money. Poor Japanese folks were popular targets.

I was walking back to the convention hall and one saw me and decided to approach. No GUN! Horrors. But I looked him in the eye and gave my head a small shake of NO. He turned on his heel. How about that? Worked in DC also at another gig.

 

[Mainsail]

I thought the teen(s) in question did more than "walk by" you.

Wow. Either you're challenged by reading or you're just trying to be obstinate.

The park is a public park. There are lots of other people walking around the park. The only thing that differentiated these two teens from the rest of the people was the sudden change of course that led the one to block the path. There wasn't enough time to thrust my arm out and yell stop, unless I were to do that for every person in the park.

 

[Warp]

Wow. Either you're challenged by reading or you're just trying to be obstinate.

Your statements have been pretty contradictory, IMO, and you have been pretty absolute in your limited-options assessment. IMO.

 

[JohnKSa]

We'll have to agree to disagree about the terms, but those are not examples of using surprise as a defensive tactic.

You can disagree, but only if you are using a non-standard definition for the word "surprise". Other than that, there is no room for disagreement.

I don't want to surprise...

You may think you don't want to, but that's exactly what you did in your encounter. It's true that you didn't have to take any action at the time to surprise the two who confronted you, but they were certainly surprised and they certainly changed their plans as a result of that surprise.

Do it your way if you want, I wish you luck because you will lose.

This is very closed minded for two reasons.

1. "My way" varies dependent upon the circumstances. Although OC is very limited here, by law, I OC a good deal of the time when/where it's legal. The rest of the time I CC.

2. Reality tells us that both OC and CC can succeed dependent upon the circumstances so anyone who claims, without further qualifying the claim, that one or the other will result in losing hasn't thought the situation through or hasn't studied any real-world self-defense gun uses.

Whenever you pull a weapon in defense you lose...

It's certainly true that one may not pull a weapon without the proper justification in most areas. That is true in my area. However, again, it is clear that many people draw (or otherwise display) their weapons to successfully deter criminals without "losing" in any sense of the word. It's also true that if one displays a weapon when it is not legal that they are liable both criminally and civilly. But that doesn't automatically also apply to legal displays of weapons.

 

[herrwalther]

I believe the one youth was planning on grabbing my sunglasses off my face, and sucker punching me either before or after. Now, if I were carrying concealed here were my possible options:
1. Never walk in the park, or leave my house for that matter = not practical whatsoever
2. Pull my CCW whenever anyone passed me on the path around the park = JAIL
3. Get robbed and pull my CCW as they were walking away = not reasonable even in a stand your ground state

That is a good story and glad you avoided a potentially hostile situation. But I agree with a few other posters, those aren't really your only 3 options. Carrying concealed is part of the tool and skill set, but I don't believe anyone has gone into mindset of carrying whether OC or CC. For example I used to live in a suburb of Birmingham, AL and I would occasionally have to make trips into the city, which is infested by gangs in many areas. Part of my defensive mindset would be to maintain a scanning situational awareness to make sure no one was getting too close to me and change direction if I was going toward rougher parts of the city. In restaurants I sit with my back against a major wall so I can see everyone or the vast majority of the people in the building. These are mindset changes that are just as important as choosing a holster, firearm, or caliber. Would changing direction seem a viable option in your situation Mainsail? Probably not since you were on a track with semi-limited escape routes. But in areas where OC is not legal or frowned upon by the people or police, mindset will get you out of sticky issues.

 

[Bobson]

I OC and CC.

Where I am, who I am with, what I am doing, they all go towards dictating which mode I will employ.

Respectable answer. The first time I ever carried a gun was on a local fishing trip. I OC'd. Every time I've ever carried since, I CC'd. I've been giving a lot of thought to starting to OC, but I'm not sure I'm going to make a habit of it. I expect it will be similar to this quoted answer - will depend heavily on where I am and with whom; but mostly will probably still be CC.

 

[Warp]

That is a good story and glad you avoided a potentially hostile situation. But I agree with a few other posters, those aren't really your only 3 options. Carrying concealed is part of the tool and skill set, but I don't believe anyone has gone into mindset of carrying whether OC or CC. For example I used to live in a suburb of Birmingham, AL and I would occasionally have to make trips into the city, which is infested by gangs in many areas. Part of my defensive mindset would be to maintain a scanning situational awareness to make sure no one was getting too close to me and change direction if I was going toward rougher parts of the city. In restaurants I sit with my back against a major wall so I can see everyone or the vast majority of the people in the building. These are mindset changes that are just as important as choosing a holster, firearm, or caliber. Would changing direction seem a viable option in your situation Mainsail? Probably not since you were on a track with semi-limited escape routes. But in areas where OC is not legal or frowned upon by the people or police, mindset will get you out of sticky issues.

Cooper color codes. Condition Yellow at minimum while in public. Personally I'm borderline condition orange at all times when carrying openly, which is one of the reasons I only OC maybe 5% of the time. All that extra attentiveness gets old.

Attention also. Some people have mentioned that. I generally don't feel like drawing any attention to myself, even if it's just a couple extra looks from a couple people, or feeling eyes on me...hopefully some day that won't be an issue because enough people will open carry long enough that it won't even be worth discussing because nobody will give a crap

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mainsail: I seriously doubt the victim was thinking, "Man, are you in for a surprise" as he drew his weapon.

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to express with that comment.

My point is that I don't want it to get to that point. I don't want to surprise (your term) or engage in damage control (my term).

Most of us would indeed prefer to avoid trouble and to have trouble avoid us. Is that perchance your point?

Do it your way if you want, I wish you luck because you will lose. Whenever you pull a weapon in defense you lose, it's only the degree of the loss that's indeterminate. You might prevail against your attacker, but there's a whole world of potential misery waiting just around the corner if you do. It might be as little as losing a few nights sleep, or as major as losing everything you've built up in your life; job, home, marriage, etc. That's not opinion, those things all have happened in the past.

Yes, the use of force is an unpleasant last resort, but it is sometimes necessary.

I don't understand the idea that one's personal safety plan should rely so completely on defense.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, either.

We promote situational awareness, avoidance, evasion, and de-escalation. Before that, we teach not acting like a victim, as explained by GEM (Dr. Glenn E. Meyer). "Defense", if you mean that to comprise the use of force or the threat of force, is a last resort.

If what you are ttying to say is that wearing a weapon openly has a deterrent effect, yes, it can, but it may not be effective, and it may be outweighed by oiher factors.

You have spoken of an incident in which you came to the conclusion that someone wanted to take your sunglasses, and to "sucker punch" you before or afterwards. You have cited his actions as evidence of the deterrent value of your visible firearm. You may be right on all counts.

But might not someone--either someone who has just passed you, or someone else-- "sucker punch", or stab, or slash you from behind? How would your visible firearm deter that?

We hear people extoll the "deterrent" value of the visible firearm. Most LEO friends of mine discount the notion heavily, but in all fairness, it sometimes works. It can work when the perp is

• rational, and not acting under the influence of mind-altering substances or extreme rage; and/or
• not so desperate that he does not care whom he harms or kills due to an immediate need for money, an escape vehicle, drugs, weapons, hostages, whatever; and
• able to change a plan before it is intiated, say by an accomplice, when he sees your firearm; and
• either aware of the presence of your firearm, or not highly motivated to take it.

 

[NavyLCDR]

We hear people extoll the "deterrent" value of the visible firearm. Most LEO friends of mine discount the notion heavily, but in all fairness, it sometimes works. It can work when the perp is

• rational, and not acting under the influence of mind-altering substances or extreme rage; and/or
• not so desperate that he does not care whom he harms or kills due to an immediate need for money, an escape vehicle, drugs, weapons, hostages, whatever; and
• able to change a plan before it is intiated, say by an accomplice, when he sees your firearm; and
• either aware of the presence of your firearm, or not highly motivated to take it.

So where are all the examples of open carriers having crimes committed against them that most LEO should be able to provide? That's all we are asking for. Show us the examples where these crimes are common, more than one or two per year. With all these criminals so willing to attack the people they know possess the means to kill them with, there should be more than one or two reports per year of it happening.... if it were true.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: So where are all the examples of open carriers having crimes committed against them that most LEO should be able to provide? That's all we are asking for. Show us the examples where these crimes are common, more than one or two per year. With all these criminals so willing to attack the people they know possess the means to kill them with, there should be more than one or two reports per year of it happening.... if it were true.

Last thing first--a snide comment such as "if it were true" in response to a list of rather incontrovertible logical statements about the principles of deterrence does not speak well of you.

Now, regarding "one or two per year", I don't know what you think is magic about that, but it sounds arbitrary. Consider this: (1) there are comparatively few people who open carry; (2) there are comparatively few cases of lethal attacks on people; and (3) the intersection of those two sets is of quite small. The exposure is so limited as to result in a very small sample size.

There have been some examples, and we have seen them here, as recently as in the last few days. But "most LEO" do not make it their business to "provide" them.

But given limited exposure, one would have to use some other kind of risk analysis--say, common sense, for those who are capable of exercising it.

Can we agree on the following?

• The firearm is a desirable item for a criminal to acquire, if he can do so, and more so than jewelry, for example.
• The deterrent effect exists only when the perp believes that he is visible to or detectable by the armed citizen, and not when the perp is behind the citizen, absent mirrors.
• A desperate criminal may not be deterred by the point of a gun, much less by the sight of one.
• In the unlikely event that desperate criminals might undertake an armed criminal action, the realization that there is an armed citizen present, should it materialize after the event is already under way, would (1) negate any deterrent effect, and (2) put that citizen at great risk.

Prudent risk management need not depend upon the frequency of occurrences that will be seen only in rare combinations of underlying circumstances.

The likelihood of one's being clonked over the head from behind by a violent criminal actor while carrying openly is probably less than remote, but it would be difficult to argue successfully that that likelihood is not a lot lower still for the person who is not known to be carrying.

 

[beatledog7]

The likelihood of one's being clonked over the head from behind by a violent criminal actor while carrying openly is probably less than remote, but it would be difficult to argue successfully that that likelihood is not a lot lower still for the person who is not known to be carrying.

But is a civilian with a gun very different from a LEO in "bad guy clonking over the head to get the gun" terms?

If a civilian CCer is less likely to be "made and clonked" by a bad guy than a civilian OCer, then it's also far less likely that an officer not in uniform and carrying concealed would be "made and clonked" by a bad guy, yet an awful lot of LEOs wear a uniform and carry openly. Their departments dictate this practice.

Why?

Because the deterrence value of openly displaying the ability to resist with deadly force outweighs the "clonking" risk of carrying openly. One could argue that the risk of being arrested also plays a role, but if BG clonks the officer from behind, that risk is minimized at the onset.

A determined, clonking-over-the-head, gun-stealing bad guy can much more easily spot a uniformed LEO than he can spot me. LEOs in uniform undoubtedly know they stick out like neon signs, but they also know that the obvious ability and implied willingness to fight back is invaluable and outweighs the "clonking" risk. If they had any doubt of this, they'd rightly resist wearing a uniform and carrying openly, thereby making themselves targets.

 

[Warp]

I would also like to preemptively point out that LEO's suffering gun grabs are generally quite a bit different than than private citizens who openly carry. LEO's, by nature of their job, seek out violent criminals. The LEO's make a career out of chasing down and cornering the violent criminals in order to effect arrest, and many-a-bad-guy has resorting to attacking officers and grabbing for guns as their preferred option...but this kind of scenario doesn't happen with an openly carrying private citizen.

When dealing with an OC private citizen the criminal can simply wait for an easier victim, wait for the OC'er to leave, choose not to follow through with their crime at that point in time, etc. The LEO generally does not afford the criminal the luxury of such options.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by beatledog7: But is a civilian with a gun very different from a LEO in "bad guy clonking over the head to get the gun" terms?

Cookie Thornton shot a uniformed officer in the back simply to get his gun. We've had a couple of other incidents of officers being targeted for their firearms here.

Those are acts of real desperation. The half-life of a cop killer is very short.

The real difference, of course, is that the civilian is not obligated to carry his gun openly.

If a civilian CCer is less likely to be "made and clonked" by a bad guy than a civilian OCer, then it's also far less likely that an officer not in uniform and carrying concealed would be "made and clonked" by a bad guy, .....

True indeed.

...yet an awful lot of LEOs wear a uniform and carry openly. Their departments dictate this practice.

Yep. Part of the job. Be seen. Enforce the law. And carry a lot of other equipment that cannot be concealed, such as a radio, cuffs, a taser, pepper sprayers, more magazines than any of us carry....

A determined, clonking-over-the-head, gun-stealing bad guy can much more easily spot a uniformed LEO than he can spot me.

I believe that that is true. Of course, if he does not spot you, there is no deterrence, is there?

LEOs in uniform undoubtedly know they stick out like neon signs, but they also know that the obvious ability and implied willingness to fight back is invaluable and outweighs the "clonking" risk. If they had any doubt of this, they'd rightly resist wearing a uniform and carrying openly, thereby making themselves targets.

Some people choose that line of work, and some do not.

 

[Warp]

And there are always those real turds in the punchbowl who target LEO's simply for being LEO's

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Warp: When dealing with an OC private citizen the criminal can simply wait for an easier victim, wait for the OC'er to leave, choose not to follow through with their crime at that point in time, etc. The LEO generally does not afford the criminal the luxury of such options.

A rational criminal, to the extent that there are such being, can reasonably be expected to not initiate an armed robbery if a uniformed policeman happens to be present.

I would expect the same thing to be the case if open carriers were seen to be present and noticed in time.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's all we are asking for. Show us the examples where these crimes are common, more than one or two per year.

How could any crime against an OC'er possibly be common when OC is so rare?

I'm talking about public OC here, excluding LEOs and people carrying in their own businesses/on their own property.

First, let's make an estimate of the rate of OC. CHL holders in TX are about 2% of the public and only about half carry their guns based on the information I have gathered. OC rates seem to be much lower in the general population where OC is legal from what I can tell, so let's assume that it's about 5 times less common. That would give us about 52,000 OC'ers in a place the size of TX. I think we can all agree that figure is WAY on the high side since it would mean that OC'ers are as common as full-time LEOs based on the number of LEOs in the population--but let's run with it anyway.

Multiply that rate (0.2%) times the armed robbery rate. In TX, that rate in 2011 was about 0.11%.

That means the chance of an OC'er being targeted for violent crime (assuming no deterrent value at all) would be about 0.022% In other words, given the population of 26 million, about 57 OC'ers a year might be targeted for violent crime.

However, we all accept that there's a deterrent value to firearms, and that the deterrent value is significant to the average criminal. If we assume that the majority of criminals (let's say 90% since that's about the percentage of criminals that run when a gun is presented according to studies on defensive gun uses) are deterred by the sight of a firearm, then that gets us down to fewer than 6 cases a year out of a population the size of TX. 26Million x 0.2% x 0.11% x 10% is about 5.7

Even if we assume that all those incidents are reported to the police, that doesn't mean they would all be publicized. There are about 1100 homicides in TX per year and not all of the details of each of those crimes makes the news--information on armed robbery is even less widely available. So out of those 6 cases a year, we might be lucky to learn the details of one or two cases every several years.

And remember, we know we overestimated the rate of OC early in the calculation, so the real figures are even lower.

What it works out to is that until OC is much more popular/widespread, there will not be any reasonable way to accurately quantify the risk of attack while OC'ing due to the small numbers involved.

It's the same reason we don't see a lot of crimes against or crimes stopped by CC'ers even though CC is much more common than OC. There just aren't that many people carrying (whether OC or CC) in the general population.

...an awful lot of LEOs wear a uniform and carry openly. Their departments dictate this practice.

Why?

1. Since uniformed LEOs are known to be armed in this country, it would be totally pointless for them to conceal.
2. Since LEOs typically carry full-sized guns, a considerable amount of spare ammunition and lots of other gear besides, concealment is generally impractical.
3. Since, if they are required to provide an armed response, they will have to do so to against persons who know full well that they are armed, time will be of the essence and concealment would hamper that ability and for no good reason as mentioned above.

...who target LEO's simply for being LEO's...

It's a mistake to assume that it is always possible to correctly ascribe motive. For example, we know that the Boston bombers targeted an LEO in an attempt to acquire another firearm (they only had one), but if we didn't have that information available to us, we might incorrectly assume that they targeted him simply because he was an LEO.

 

[Warp]

FYI: Texas is pretty far down the list in terms of % of the population licensed to carry.

Also, many states allow open carry without a license.

I never even came close to implying that we knew the motive. I made an accurate factual statement that is relevant to the topic, nothing more.

As per usual, the most loud spoken against open carry live in states where open carry is not legal. It's kind of like how Chicago residents are so loud against concealed carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

As per usual, the most loud spoken against open carry live in states where open carry is not legal. It's kind of like how Chicago residents are so loud against concealed carry.

If you actually read my posts, you'll see that I've made it clear that I am not against open carry. You can even find that I've stated more than once that open carry is a better choice than concealed carry in certain circumstances.

As per usual, people assume that someone pointing out the flaws in an argument must have an agenda beyond simply pointing out the flaws in an argument. Do you think it's a good practice to allow people to continue to make foolish/inaccurate/easily disproved claims just because you agree with their basic goals? I don't.

FYI: Texas is pretty far down the list in terms of % of the population licensed to carry.

That's irrelevant. As pointed out, unless people believe that the rate of public OC (as defined in the post) is higher than the rate of full-time LEOs, the analysis is still accurate.

Also, many states allow open carry without a license.

Also irrelevant unless one can make a case for the fact that the rate of public OC is significantly higher than the rate of full-time LEOs. That figure was used as a double-check.

I never even came close to implying that we knew the motive.

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement. What was the relevance of this quote you made to the conversation at hand? "And there are always those real turds in the punchbowl who target LEO's simply for being LEO's."

 

[Warp]

What was the relevance of this quote you made to the conversation at hand? "And there are always those real turds in the punchbowl who target LEO's simply for being LEO's."

That is the motive for some of the attacks on police officers.

We know this.