Open carry or concealed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a general rule, PMs are used for individual communication unless a particular member 'calls out' staff on a public forum. I've seen too many open carry versus concealed carry threads turn nasty, and I don't care for the arguments that result. I just want to be sure that's clear.

ETA - And it has nothing to do with who is handing who what in some display of high school debate team tactics. It's the kind of confrontational attitude reflected in the post immediately preceding this one that I'm referring to. And this particular topic seems to be a lodestone for attracting that kind of attitude. I could care less who carries what or how, but how people conduct themselves here on this forum IS my concern, and my responsibility.
 
One argument for open carry is that the gun can be a full sized service gun. I *can* conceal a M9. But it looks mighty funny.
Whereas open carrying one, most people would think I'm an off duty Army Officer or Cop. Strange, that.

My point is that while we keep discussing the "criminal might attack you first" or "might be detered" you very much CAN carry a big and easy to shoot gun.
Agreed that not everyone can comfortably conceal a full sized pistol, but that is why the smaller ones are so popular. I myself have no issue carrying (concealed) a 1911 government, or a PT92. My wife on the other hand has difficulty concealing anything bigger than her PF-9.

Any arguments that can be made one direction can usually be reversed for the other side. I personally carry concealed, at least to some extent. While I do not over react and call the police or berate a person for their personal choice in carry, many will, and do. Concealed is better for me because I do not want to attract the attention. I do like to educate people about guns, and the safe, legal use of them. I have found that those who are uncomfortable around guns are a bit more likely to find me more approachable if I do not have a gun visibly strapped on my hip.
But that is the beauty of this country, we are free to have our own opinions, at least for now.
 
Being visibly armed makes you a more appealing target because they can already see the reward (your gun) as opposed to a possibly thin wallet. The difference is that your attackers will either lay in ambush for you or attack with increased violence to overcome your being armed.

From the Tactical standpoint there is very little to recommend Open Carry in a Urban or suburban environment
Absolutely agree, and I've always felt that a great way to explain it is this:

Consider an active shooter situation. For whatever reason/s (which are irrelevant), a deranged individual hatches a plan to bring his firearm into a restaurant/bowling alley/whatever and shoot as many people as he can. Upon entering the structure, the individual notices a man carrying a handgun on his hip (or maybe even an on-duty, armed police officer).

Is this individual more likely to:

A. Leave the area and plan to strike another day, or
B. Ensure that the armed man / police officer is target #1

I believe option B is infinitely more likely.

Carry your weapon concealed. Strategically, there is nothing to gain by carrying it openly.
 
Bobson said:
Absolutely agree, and I've always felt that a great way to explain it is this:

Consider an active shooter situation. For whatever reason/s (which are irrelevant), a deranged individual hatches a plan to bring his firearm into a restaurant/bowling alley/whatever and shoot as many people as he can. Upon entering the structure, the individual notices a man carrying a handgun on his hip (or maybe even an on-duty, armed police officer).

Is this individual more likely to:

A. Leave the area and plan to strike another day, or
B. Ensure that the armed man / police officer is target #1

I believe option B is infinitely more likely.

Carry your weapon concealed. Strategically, there is nothing to gain by carrying it openly.

It seems as if the real world disagrees with you. Please provide us with an example of where the open carrier has been targeted by the deranged active shooter?

What happens in real life?

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/07/19/gun-owner-saves-lives-in-the-richmond-va-golden-market-shooting/

Here are my thoughts from watching that tape:

Talk about a cold-blooded, fast attack where an innocent was shot without warning! Unbelievable. Situational awareness is really important. Luck doesn’t hurt, either.
Open carry was an advantage in this case because in the video I saw just how fast the GO managed to draw his gun and begin to return fire. You always hear about how open carry is so bad tactically – you’ll be the first one shot, etc. Oh, yeah? The GO had a HUGE gun in plain sight and he was NOT shot. Who got shot first? An unarmed store owner.

All of these "you'll get shot first", "the bad guys will ambush you", "the criminal will attack you because they want your gun" theories, are just that, theories. And they happen to be theories with NO examples of them ever happening in real life.

Carry however you want to. Use whatever reasons you want to justify your choice from carrying. However, I for one feel it is only the responsible and HighRoad thing to do to point out the difference between what happens in theories in peoples' heads, and what happens in the real world.

In the real world, criminals attack the easiest targets they can find, with the least likely chance of getting caught or meeting resistance. In the real world, 99.5% of the population does not appear to be armed. In the real world, there is absolutely no reason for the criminal to attack the .5% of the population that they KNOW and can see are armed. It's just too easy to take cash/credit cards from the 99.5% of the population that appear to be unarmed and to buy what they want, including guns. It's also much easier and safer to steal guns that are unattended rather than attack the person who can immediately use the gun to defend themselves with.

Is an openly carried firearm going to deter every crime? NO. But the openly carried firearm is much, much, much more likely to deter the crime from happening to that person at that time than a concealed firearm is. I don't carry a gun to rid the world of criminals. I carry a gun to protect myself and my family from violent crime, and the best way to protect myself and my family from violent crime is to deter the crime from happening in the first place.

The chances of my concealed firearm deterring a crime from happening to me are zero. If there is just a greater than zero chance of the openly carried firearm deterring a crime, than why not choose the favorable odds. Add to that the fact that the only people open carriers have proven to be in more danger from while openly carrying a gun are police officers. There is no evidence in the real world to indicate the openly carried firearm causes any greater danger to the carrier from criminals.
 
As I read that true life scenario you linked NacyLCDR the bg came in totally focused on the store owner/clerk and began firing right off.
He was not paying the customers one bit of attention until single action good guy yelled at him to drop the gun.
Then all hell broke loose.
Although I am glad,no pleased, the good guys all came out alive and the bg is no longer a threat to society but I frankly dont get the correlation that the open carry guy was or was not singled out first here.
He reacted to the bad guys criminal intentions that by the way I read repeatedly here he should have minded his own business because the others were not armed and chose their fate because of that or that he might get in trouble because the lawyers guild repeately warns us of this etc.
This in my opinion was not a valid argument that the open carry guy was not the first to be targeted because the bg simply asumed no one had a gun,ordered them down and within two seconds shot the owner/clerk.
It was a blitz attack.
 
Several years ago I was in my neighborhood convenience standing in line when I nearly had my firearm taken from me.
I think you just made the case for all of those who are opposed to OC.
Not to say I would never OC if it were legal (I might...but it's not) but stories such as tis would give me serious pause.
 
heeler said:
As I read that true life scenario you linked NacyLCDR the bg came in totally focused on the store owner/clerk and began firing right off.
He was not paying the customers one bit of attention until single action good guy yelled at him to drop the gun.
Then all hell broke loose.
Although I am glad,no pleased, the good guys all came out alive and the bg is no longer a threat to society but I frankly dont get the correlation that the open carry guy was or was not singled out first here.
He reacted to the bad guys criminal intentions that by the way I read repeatedly here he should have minded his own business because the others were not armed and chose their fate because of that or that he might get in trouble because the lawyers guild repeately warns us of this etc.
This in my opinion was not a valid argument that the open carry guy was not the first to be targeted because the bg simply asumed no one had a gun,ordered them down and within two seconds shot the owner/clerk.
It was a blitz attack.

Which is exactly the point. That is they way every single mass/frenzy shooting you read/see on the news happens. There has not been one recorded incident of an open carrier being shot first in a robbery or shooting spree. The fact, in reality, is the criminal(s) in the heat of the moment aren't going to take the time to look at every single customer/citizen to see if they are armed or not. The chances of that happening are equal with the criminal(s) frisking every customer/citizen to see if they are carrying a concealed firearm.
 
Please provide us with an example of where the open carrier has been targeted by the deranged active shooter?
Not to be overly obvious, but wouldn't every attack on a uniformed, openly armed, officer fit that description
 
Orionengnr makes a good point here.
A short time back on this very forum I talked about an experience I had recently while carrying a micro 380 in a BullDog Cell Phone style holster in which a bg gave me some consideration about taking it which he later did to another guy pumping gas.
Now he thought what I had was a cell phone, not a fully loaded hot to go pistol.
So since I live in a not so nice area I could very well see a bad guy or group of bad guys wanting to snag some open carry guys $500-750.00 pistol if they were a lot bigger etc.
I guess if one carrys openly then it would be wise to have some sort of retention holster to help prevent this to some degree.
 
I would caution all here to avoid what my wife the statistician refers to as extrapolating beyond the available data. As far as I know, there are no reliable statistics kept anywhere in the country regarding the defensive use of firearms by private citizens. That makes it difficult to offer real proof in support of either position, OC or CC, beyond the occasional anecdote.

Thus as far as I can tell here, what we are left with is mostly opinion. I'd be glad to learn of any reliable source of current statistical information regarding the defensive use of firearms, both successful and otherwise, by armed citizens.
 
9mmepiphany said:
Not to be overly obvious, but wouldn't every attack on a uniformed, openly armed, officer fit that description

No, it would not fit that description because this discussion is not about cops getting shot. It's about Joe Citizen getting shot because they are carrying a gun. Entirely two different subjects.

Criminals notice cops because of their uniforms, and they shoot at them because along with the uniform comes the power to arrest them, which is one of the main goals of the criminal is to avoid being caught/prosecuted, which is exactly the same reason they don't pick out open carriers to shoot at, because that only increases their chances of getting caught, increases their chances of getting prosecuted for attempted murder vice armed robbery, and increases their chances of getting killed in return.

The benefit to danger ratio of shooting at a cop for the criminal is much greater than the benefit to danger ratio of attacking/shooting Joe Citizen carrying a gun. The benefit of shooting the cop is possible escape from arrest. The benefit of attacking an armed citizen is whatever they MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be carrying on their person. The exact SAME benefit which can be obtained much more easily by attacking one of the remaining 95.5% of the public who don't visibly carry guns.

By the way, there are lots of statistics available concerning the defensive use of guns. Just a start is here:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

Then if you follow the sources in the footnotes you can find lots more.

One of the more relative statistics to our discussion is this:

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

Page 12. Page 19 also contains some very enlightening statistics such as:
Fact: Of the 2,500,000
times citizens use guns to
defend themselves, 92%
merely brandish their gun
or fire a warning shot to
scare off their attackers.

It sure seems to indicate that the mere sight of the gun is enough to deter the criminal, in most cases.
 
Last edited:
No, it would not fit that description because this discussion is not about cops getting shot.

I thought the question you posed was: Please provide us with an example of where the open carrier has been targeted by the deranged active shooter?

How much more Open could the Carry be than a uniformed officer. If a deranged active shooter would engage an officer who surprised them with their presense, why would they not engage another armed person if they are surprised by the presence of an Open Carrier, once they had already committed to a crime?
 
Posted by NavyLCDR: Criminals notice cops because of their uniforms, and they shoot at them because along with the uniform comes the power to arrest them, which is one of the main goals of the criminal is to avoid being caught/prosecuted, which is exactly the same reason they don't pick out open carriers to shoot at, because that only increases their chances of getting caught, increases their chances of getting prosecuted for attempted murder vice armed robbery, and increases their chances of getting killed in return.
I don't think anyone would argue with the idea that a uniform makes an officer more likely to be noticed than a person who is not wearing a uniform.

I know of one instance where a criminal shot two officers dead for reasons other than their having the power of to arrest.

Criminals probably do refrain, in most instances, from shooting either uniformed officers or open carriers other than uniformed officers or anyone else, for that matter,if they can avoid doing so, but I do not understand why anyone would conclude that the lack of the power of arrest would enter into the decision.

However, I cannot imagine why anyone would conclude that shooting an open carrier other than a police officer would increase his chance of getting caught, increase his chance of getting prosecuted, or increase his chance of getting killed over what those chances would have been had the victim been a sworn officer. According to the conventional wisdom, quite the opposite seems to be true; according to news accounts around here, "cop killers" are hunted down and apprehended quickly and effectively.

While a violent criminal actor may not reason in the same manner in the same manner as other people, I think it is reasonable to speculate how a VCA who has decided to use a firearm may react under different circumstances if he happens to notice that a person is armed:

  • Scenario 1: If a criminal who sees an armed citizen is not committed to an attack at a particular time and place,, it is reasonable to assume that it is likely that the criminal will adjust his plans, and either choose another victim or leave and return at a later time.
  • Scenarrio 2: If the criminal notices an armed citizen and if it is not possible to change the plan (for example, if other accomplices cannot be warned), it is reasonable to assume that, for purposes of self preservation, the criminal will shoot the open carrier.
  • Scenario 3: If a crime is already under way, and a citizen arrives with a firearm and is noticed, it is reasonable to assume that the arriving citizen will be shot at immediately.
  • Scenario 4: If a criminal who feels he has nothing to lose has decided to commit a mass murder at a particular time and in a particular place, it is likely that armed persons who may be present will be targeted first.
  • Scenario 5: If two or more criminals are planning a crime and need an additonal weapon, any person openly carrying may be a potential target for that reason.

It would seem unlikely that any of these scenarios would play out differently if the armed person present had been a uniformed officer or an open carrying officer or civilian, except for the dynamics (the uniformed officer would surely be identified more quickly).

We had an incident not long ago that combined Scenarios 4 and 5. The first two victims were in fact uniformed officers. Their power of arrest did not deter the man who felt he had nothing left to lose. Had the crime not occurred in a "gun free" facility, it is possible that an armed citizen or two might have reduced the carnage, but since the murderer knew everyone present, the advantage would probably have accrued to the concealed carrier.

The basis for these assumptions is common sense. One thing that we cannot know is the effect of methamphetamine on the reasoning processes of a violent criminal actor; that's an increasing problem in the surrounding counties here, and several current and former officers whom I know tell me that meth users are usually not readily deterred, though I have been told of one case in which the red dot of a laser sight caused a meth user who had been cornered to submit to arrest.

The same officers tell me that if they were permitted to carry openly when off duty, they would not do so under any circumstances--for their own safely.
 
Kleanbore said:
However, I cannot imagine why anyone would conclude that shooting an open carrier other than a police officer would increase his chance of getting caught, increase his chance of getting prosecuted, or increase his chance of getting killed over what those chances would have been had the victim been a sworn officer. According to the conventional wisdom, quite the opposite seems to be true; according to news accounts around here, "cop killers" are hunted down and apprehended quickly and effectively.

You misunderstood my point. My point was, that given a choice between walking away from an armed citizen and finding another apparently unarmed target v. attacking the open carrier and causing a shootout - the majority of criminals will simply find another target.

The reason being is that causing a shootout with an armed citizen will only increase their chances of getting caught and prosecuted for attempted murder vice either getting away with a quiet low key robbery or getting caught and prosecuted for only the robbery.

The sound of gunfire is likely to draw a lot of wanted attention for the criminal. The criminal who isn't the deranged mass shooter type is looking for stealth, anonymity, and an easy target. Causing a gunfight by attacking the armed citizen does nothing to promote any of those.

Until I see real world evidence that Joe Citizen is in any more danger from criminals due to his openly carried gun, I will continue to play the odds that are in my favor that if the criminal sees and knows that I am armed, they will simply pick one of the other 99.5% of the public that doesn't appear to be armed for their target. That's what statistics and research indicates will happen the majority of the time.

My question is, with the odds in favor that my visible gun will spare myself and my family from the trauma of an attack, a shooting, possibly killing someone, and possible prosecution and civil court procedings, than why in the world would anyone not take advantage of that? Especial considering there is NO evidence to suggest that Joe Citizen is in any more danger from anyone other than police because of their visible gun?
 
I've OC'd for the last 3-4 years and have come to the conclusion that hinky looking folks seem to exit the area when they see I'm armed. Fine by me, and in MI, I can OC (as long as I have a CPL) places I can't legally CC, such as schools, theaters, bars and churches.
 
Posted by NavyLCDR: The sound of gunfire is likely to draw a lot of wanted attention for the criminal. The criminal who isn't the deranged mass shooter type is looking for stealth, anonymity, and an easy target. Causing a gunfight by attacking the armed citizen does nothing to promote any of those.
True.

My question is, with the odds in favor that my visible gun will spare myself and my family from the trauma of an attack, a shooting, possibly killing someone, and possible prosecution and civil court procedings, than why in the world would anyone not take advantage of that?
My assessment of the odds, and that of 9mmepiphany, differ from yours.

How about Scenarios 2, 3, and 5?

I do believe that if I were carrying openly and were alert, and a predator were looking for an easy victim, he would most likely choose someone else.

I also believe that if a criminal were looking for something of value and he saw my firearm, he might at least consider ways of overcoming me by surprise--perhaps by having someone else get my attention while he hits me from around the gasoline pump. Yes, it has happened.

I do not believe that if I were to come upon a crime in progress and an armed robber were to notice my firearm, my not being a police officer would somehow prevent my being shot at. Mas Ayoob relates the story of a police officer who was killed because he was so identified when he interrupted a robbery.

Especial considering there is NO evidence to suggest that Joe Citizen is in any more danger from anyone other than police because of their visible gun?
First, I will not ask you to prove a negative. That cannot be done.

Second, I would caution you to not believe that, because you cannot find something by using a search engine or because you have never heard of something, it does not exist.

Third, you seem to choose to forget or ignore examples of citizens being attacked and having their firearms taken from them that were provided in response to that same contention on another board. I have better things to do than search for them.

Open carry in urban areas is not a common practice; data are sparse, and as Lee Lapin pointed out, detailed data for civilian self defense encounters are not compiled. Personally, I am more likely to heed the advice of senior police officers whom I know who would not themselves carry openly, than from a passionate supporter of open carry who insists on denying the existence of the risks inherent in the several circumstances in which open carrying can result in an unfortunate outcome.
 
Kleanbore said:
While a violent criminal actor may not reason in the same manner in the same manner as other people, I think it is reasonable to speculate how a VCA who has decided to use a firearm may react under different circumstances if he happens to notice that a person is armed:

Scenario 1: If a criminal who sees an armed citizen is not committed to an attack at a particular time and place,, it is reasonable to assume that it is likely that the criminal will adjust his plans, and either choose another victim or leave and return at a later time.
Scenarrio 2: If the criminal notices an armed citizen and if it is not possible to change the plan (for example, if other accomplices cannot be warned), it is reasonable to assume that, for purposes of self preservation, the criminal will shoot the open carrier.
Scenario 3: If a crime is already under way, and a citizen arrives with a firearm and is noticed, it is reasonable to assume that the arriving citizen will be shot at immediately.
Scenario 4: If a criminal who feels he has nothing to lose has decided to commit a mass murder at a particular time and in a particular place, it is likely that armed persons who may be present will be targeted first.
Scenario 5: If two or more criminals are planning a crime and need an additonal weapon, any person openly carrying may be a potential target for that reason.

This is a very good summary of possible/common interactions with violent criminals anyone should consider when choosing to carry a firearm. To focus on too narrow a set of circumstances could skew your judgements.

NavyLCDR said:
My point was, that given a choice between walking away from an armed citizen and finding another apparently unarmed target v. attacking the open carrier and causing a shootout - the majority of criminals will simply find another target.
This is a very apt response to Scenario 1 above, but has little positive effect on the following scenarios
 
Kleanbore said:
While a violent criminal actor may not reason in the same manner in the same manner as other people, I think it is reasonable to speculate how a VCA who has decided to use a firearm may react under different circumstances if he happens to notice that a person is armed:...
If we were to apply your logic, I suppose we should all be wearing bullet-proof vests and ballistic helmets. While I don’t argue that any of the five scenarios could happen, you have to ask yourself how likely they are to happen. Scenarios two through five may be indicative of a Hollywood mindset but they are pretty fantastical in actual day to day life. There are countless threats besides just violent crime that can ruin or end your day; how can one be prepared for all of them and possibly function?

When you build your safety plan you may account for only a small number of contingencies, you cannot account for them all. You don’t put on a traffic vest before you cross the city street, even though doing so would reduce your chances of being hit by the crosstown bus significantly. You don’t carry a gas mask with you to the grocery store, even though a terrorist NBC attack is a possible threat. I could go on and on, but suffice to say that you cannot be both functional and totally prepared for every possibility. So how do we make it at all? We prioritize.

If the surrounding towns had terrorist NCB attacks recently, I would probably practice with and carry at the ready a proper gas mask. Since that is an unlikely threat, I prioritize it very low in my safety plan. Your scenarios, while certainly possible, are altogether unlikely. I prioritize the common street mugging or convenience store robbery much higher, and strategize accordingly. For me, where I live, that makes open carry preferable for me. I would venture to say that few (if any) on this forum (who are not in LE) will ever in their lifetime be involved in a real shootout. To build a plan based primarily on outliers and rare unique occurrences is the definition of silly.

Neither side in this discussion can rely on empirical evidence; it simply doesn’t exist, so we’re stuck with relying on personal experience and common sense. Would some crazed murderous 7-11 robber shoot an openly carrying customer? Probably! Is that scenario likely? Not remotely! Every video I've ever seen has the bad guy(s) walking in and heading straight for the cashier without giving even a glance around for customers, armed or otherwise. This has happened with police officers in the store! So what makes more (common) sense, that I would be shot first or that I’d have my pistol on target before he uttered two words? As I mentioned previously, I have experienced someone with ill intent very quickly change their mind about attacking me when they realized I was carrying.

While I like to have some level of preparedness for whatever may come, I know it is impossible to be fully prepared for everything. Anyone who says they can or are is either delusional or dishonest. I don’t want to shoot anyone. I have no interest in luring some dirtbag in so I can surprise and shoot him. If it comes down to me or him, I will do everything in my power to come out on top. The first step to achieving that goal is to be as unappealing a target as possible. This involves many tactics and practices, one of which is to let the bad guy know I am armed.
 
Last edited:
I have no interest in luring some dirtbag in so I can surprise and shoot him.

The repeated assertion that concealed carriers want to shoot someone is a strawman argument, and the idea of wanting to shoot "some dirtbag" is contrary to the express ideology of ST&T.

We do NOT want to shoot someone. We don't even not want to shoot someone. We want to not shoot someone. The semantic differences in the above statements might appear minor but they are very important.

If you believe that OC will help in that regard, fine. Some members here who carry do not have the option of OC, or face official harassment if they do OC even where it's technically legal. As I said earlier, as far as I can tell what we have here is mostly a difference of opinion. Since that difference of opinion has not been settled anywhere else on THR, it's not likely to be settled here either.

As long as the discussion here offers more light than heat, it's useful. If this thread like any other thread ceases to be useful, it's done...
 
Mainsail,
To be completely honest I think an opinion of an opinion passed off as fact is pathetic. You will never see me quote anyone than the original poster to give a requested response. After 12 years of military and 8 in LE I stand by my opinion. Secondly, I think you misunderstood my post because your response was nonsensical. Thirdly, how in the heck did Obama come into this discussion? (Rhetorical, I won't actually be reading any post by you)
I'm not trying to take the low road... I just think this kind of thing is what turns many people off from forums. So far, this one seems ok... and I hope it stays that way.
 
I applaud open carriers for making the statement that guns are "normal" in public. But... I often wonder if that exposed gun would you the primary target in a robbery: "That guy has a gun, so I need to shoot him first before turning to the jewelry store clerk."
Know what I mean? Still, I think open carry has it's place and everybody should do it as a public relations statement now and again.
I agree, but *I've noticed that the individuals **I've seen are guys wearing "HURR DURR VOTE FROM TEH ROOFTOPS" T-shirts with dirty jeans.

I've wanted to open carry while dressed respectably when I visit my brother in NM.




*personal opinion

**this means, not you, offended reader :)
 
Last edited:
I carry concealed because my having a handgun is no one's business but my own. I do not remotely care about "surprise" or "deterrence" in carrying my self-defense tool. I carry it because of Just In Case. I should be able to live in this country and go about the business of my unremarkable life unconcerned with the possibility of violence, but I cannot. I have lived in or very near to the snake pits on both coasts and am quite aware of what depredations lie in wait for the unwary.

I do not want to be an operator. I want to be left alone. I walk softly and carry a big gun...under my shirt. :D
 
Last edited:
Posted by Mainsail: While I don’t argue that any of the five scenarios could happen, you have to ask yourself how likely they are to happen.

I would venture to say that few (if any) on this forum (who are not in LE) will ever in their lifetime be involved in a real shootout.
In risk assessment terms, the likelihood would be described as "less than remote" for any of the five...

...far less than remote on any one day, and perhaps even in any one year. Statistics show, however, that the likelihood of one becoming the victim of some kind of violent crime during one's lifetime is substantial, declining markedly, of course, as one gets older.

If one were to base his decisions solely on the likelihood of what may happen today, one may choose to not carry a firearm at all, but the likelihood of a risk is but one aspect; one must also take into account the potential consequences. Then, one decides whether to accept a risk or to mitigate it.

Scenarios two through five may be indicative of a Hollywood mindset but they are pretty fantastical in actual day to day life.
I do not see any reason to conclude that.

Scenario 1--one or more violent criminal actors targeting a potential victim--does not happen very often. It would seem reasonable to me, at least, that in most circumstances when it does happen, a VCA would select someone other than a citizen who is obviously armed and prepared to defend himself.

Scenario 2--a VCA undertakes a crime of violence in a business establishment--happens with alarming frequency. In some instances, a citizen tries to draw, usually but not always from concealment, and in some instances ends up the worse for his or her efforts. It does not take a professional trained in risk management to conclude that if, the VCA who is already committing a forcible felony happens to notice that one of the persons present is armed, that person is at greater risk than another bystander who is not.

Scenario 3--an armed citizen walks into a crime in progress and is shot at--happens very rarely indeed, simply because most citizens are not armed. However, if a crime is in progress, there is absolutely no reason to not expect someone to walk in. If that person is seen to be armed, he will obviously present an immediate danger to the criminals, and will therefore himself be at risk. Massad Ayoob has written of this scenario and of an instance in which the person arriving was killed when the proprietor asked him to intervene.

Scenario 4--a criminal who cannot be deterred decides to engage in mass murder--is rare indeed, but we did have such a incident about two mimes from my house a few years ago. One might substitute for that "4a", in which a meth addict (very common here) is so desperate for drugs or money that he fails to behave as the "rational" perp described in scenario 1 and decides to fire upon those who would present the most danger to him.

Scenario 5--one or more criminals target a person with a firearm--has happened from time to time and news articles have been linked here. Regarding liklihood, if they are violent criminals, I think it quite reasonable to assume that they would prefer to take a known firearm than to take a chance on what might be in someone's wallet, as 9mmepiphany pointed out above. Would they be willing to take the risk? I do not want to find out.

Neither side in this discussion can rely on empirical evidence; it simply doesn’t exist, so we’re stuck with relying on personal experience and common sense.
I don't think personal experience will help much, but common sense and analysis is what we have to go on.

That's true in a lot of areas in which one does not have a lot of data such as actuarial data, mean times between failures, accident statistics, drug interaction data, infection susceptibility data, whatever. That does not ever eliminate the applicability of proper risk management techniques, and we have to make do with what we have.

This is the kind of subject in which psychological analysis, role playing, and simulation can tell us a great deal.

Would some crazed murderous 7-11 robber shoot an openly carrying customer? Probably! Is that scenario likely? Not remotely!
If you say so; have it your way.

You can affect the likelihood*--see the footnote.

Every video I've ever seen has the bad guy(s) walking in and heading straight for the cashier without giving even a glance around for customers, armed or otherwise. ... So what makes more (common) sense, that I would be shot first or that I’d have my pistol on target before he uttered two words?
You also did not notice the accomplice who went in first for the dual purposes of checking things out in advance and of preventing someone like you from doing just that. No one does. Happens all the time.
______
*Not long ago, I watched a program in which Massad provided advice on how one might go about reducing the risk of being the one to walk into the middle of a crime in progress. He mentioned that a quick shop at a highway intersection is likely a high risk location. He suggest driving around the lot once before going in, and he said that a car pointed outwards near the door was a sign of danger.

When I went to a high-end grocery store not far from my home the other day, I noticed an unkempt man in a rather ratty sedan parked the wrong way in the lot. The man seemed most uneasy about my having noticed him.

I looked into the store through the windows and glass doors before entering, and when I got inside I quickly stepped into a place of relative concealment. I saw another very nervous-looking man in similar attire buying one soft drink and shifting his glance furtively back and forth between the manager's counter and the man in the car.

I moved to where I could be seen clearly by the man in the car and from where I could fire without hitting anyone else, and I pulled out my cellphone in a manner meant to be noticed. Make no mistake about it, I was ready to draw.

The driver waved his arms and hands outside his window, and his accomplice bolted for the other door. They drove away quickly, going the wrong way.

I was so shaken that I could not give a description.

I was no where near as unnerved, however, as was the manager on duty when I told him what had happened!
 
Well we can add one more downside to open carry.

After OC "events" at coffee shops in CA got our cause a lot of publicity--and even a tip of the hat from Starbucks--CA has now banned open carry.

Not sure if public sentiment could be swayed that way anywhere else by the simple act of obeying the law--but now we know it can happen.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Loosedhorse: Not sure if public sentiment could be swayed that way anywhere else bu the simple act of obeying the law--but now we know it can happen.
Activists in Missouri have been open carrying in municipalities in which they have discovered that there is no prohibition, and ordinances against open carry have been enacted with amazing speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top