I know a lot of people are proponents of open carry but I've wondered if this has some major strategic flaws:
-the open-carrier is easily identified as a higher-level threat to a bad guy(s). I could see this becoming a major issue in say a bank robbery.
-the open-carrier is 'advertising' they have a weapon which might be taken from them. Yes, there are retention holsters and yes, police have this problem, but they are trained on weapon retention.
-it may be very hard to distinguish between a bad guy and a open-carrier. Let's say you walk into the local mini-mart with your AK strapped across your back... How does the merchant know you aren't there to rob him?
-police harassment / legitimate concern. Just seems like a headache at best and a potential standoff at gunpoint at worst.
I understand some people may be for open-carry on principle. But my main question is: do you consider open carry to be a strategic mistake, particularly if you can carry concealed legally instead?
-the open-carrier is easily identified as a higher-level threat to a bad guy(s). I could see this becoming a major issue in say a bank robbery.
-the open-carrier is 'advertising' they have a weapon which might be taken from them. Yes, there are retention holsters and yes, police have this problem, but they are trained on weapon retention.
-it may be very hard to distinguish between a bad guy and a open-carrier. Let's say you walk into the local mini-mart with your AK strapped across your back... How does the merchant know you aren't there to rob him?
-police harassment / legitimate concern. Just seems like a headache at best and a potential standoff at gunpoint at worst.
I understand some people may be for open-carry on principle. But my main question is: do you consider open carry to be a strategic mistake, particularly if you can carry concealed legally instead?