The Open Carry Argument

[conw]

Mainsail wrote:

he’s [the common street criminal] no more willing to risk death for a few bucks than you are.

What? This is backwards. Criminals are risking their life for a few bucks unless they're Enron types, in which case it's more than a few bucks and their life isn't at as much risk...

Your argument (in part) seems to be:
a) Criminals assume there is little or no risk in attacking someone who is apparently unarmed
b) Criminals assume there is great risk in attacking or even approaching someone who open carries
c) All criminals weigh risk vs. benefit

All three presuppositions appear to be very, very shaky.

Re: a) At least some criminals realize there is risk in attacking and mugging to make a living or get a cheap thrill. There is no empirical proof that open carrying deters attackers in any way, shape, or form. Further, there is a good chance that in a dark area a criminal might not notice the sidearm until engagement occurs.

b) Again, no proof. I have some anecdotal proof against this. I was "interviewed" face-to-face at least three times while open carrying in North Carolina. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, binary-coded creatures. These guys seemed to realize, through my demeanor or even the fact that I carried a gun openly, that I was going to adhere to the rules of engagement. Last I checked, mild harassment and "interviewing" do not warrant lethal force. In this case, I am sure that my OC sidearm attracted attention when I would have blended in. I was more at risk because of the sidearm in this case.

c) Criminals clearly do not weigh risk vs. benefit. This can be summed up in criminal psychology by the discovery that criminals are generally undeterred by punishment because they believe they will get away with the crime. There is a decision-making disconnect in the average person, let alone in criminals!

Assumption c) is simply outdated by research in the general population, let alone in criminals. There is a book out now about irrationality in decision-making. Economists and sociologists and psychologists used to assume that people would always weigh risks and benefits before making a decision, but in terms of national policy as well as research this has been disproven. Why would a rational person be a common criminal anyway?

The best arguments for open carry:
-It's a right that needs maintaining.
-It can be positive PR.
-It is a reminder for some of us to be more vigilant (maybe).
-Individual choice is a beautiful thing.

The best (individual) arguments against open carry:
-Unwanted attention.
-Somewhat limited ability to blend in in certain risky areas if they are inavoidable.
-Questionable deterrent value.
-Additional information for an unstable and irrational criminal to use as he so chooses.
-Constant attention from non-criminals, both good and bad, gets annoying (for me). If I had to guess, this is a "plus" for some open carriers. There are a lot of posts on opencarry.org about a "GREAT experience in the checkout line" when an older woman said "My grandfather used to have a gun like that." Frankly that kind of thing is pretty insignificant to me, but other people really seem to like positive comments about their guns.
-Individual choice is a beautiful thing.

 

[Mainsail]

There is no empirical proof that open carrying deters attackers in any way, shape, or form.

Proof of something that might have but didn’t happen? Seriously?

 

[JesseL]

Criminals do (by their own admissions) make some risk/reward calculations based on the potential of encountering an armed victim.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

 

[XD_fan]

Excellent post. Extremely well thought out and concise. Deserving of being made a sticky.

I have OC'ed many times. Both for comfort and when I've had to. It does take a little getting used to, but so does CC. I have OC'ed in Oregon, New Mexico and Washington. In Washington and Oregon it has always been in the mountains or rural areas. We had a campsite up by Gold Bar, WA and I've OC'ed in Gold Bar and Monroe many, many times without any issues. I have gotten a second look a time or two but it always seemed to be more of a yes I did see a gun look rather than alarm.

New Mexico was traveling through on vacation. OC was my only option as NM did not have recip with anyone at the time. When stopped pumping gas I apparently scared a California couple at the next pump badly. The wife went into the store to ask the clerk to call the police. My wife who was in the store at the time said the clerk looked out the window and asked if it was the man pumping gas in the red jeep. When she said yes he told it was perfectly legal and refused to call the police. We went on our way. No fuss, no bother. This is the way OC should be treated.

My question to the OP concerns OC in Seattle. Have you OC'ed in Seattle?

I know about the outcome of the case of the gentleman in Eastern Washington that many now point to as making OC okay in WA. I used to go to Seattle often and call tell you I would not under any circumstances OC in Seattle. RCW 9.41.270 has not changed and I can guarantee an arrest in Seattle. Precedence aside, I'd also be very, very surprised if you didn't find yourself making a defense in court. I can certainly see things turning out very differently in a Seattle courtroom than they did in Eastern WA. Even with the existing precedence.

Your thoughts?

 

[Igloodude]

Actually, your assertions are proven incorrect. You rely on apples to oranges comparisons and make broad sweeping suppositions based on single examples.

Camouflage has both an offensive and defensive purposes; however, its purpose is not to defensively ‘surprise’ the enemy, it’s to prevent detection. They don’t go out on patrol hoping their cammo fatigues will allow them to surprise their opponents. You’re also skewing the timeline. Once ambushed, their cammo uniforms are moot. Surprise is not a defensive tactic.

Comparing a walk down the street or in a commercial building to an infantry patrol smacks of apples-to-oranges too.

And as previously noted, there is value in misleading an attacking enemy as to friendly force capabilities. Use of land mines are one example of that.

 

[Tom Servo]

Arguments aside, Ive always wanted to have a guy with a knife tell me to give him my wallet so I could reach to give it to him and draw a 357 and then demand that the silly ******* give me his wallet

Funny, but I've never wanted that at all. Trust me, it's not fun; it's unsettling and sickening. Interestingly, in all three cases I've had to draw, they didn't immediately notice the gun in my hand. I doubt they'd have noticed a gun on my hip, so I'm not so sure about "deterrent."

Besides, it's not my job to "deter" criminals. There are folks who have that in their job description, but they're braver men than I. I carry a gun to protect myself, and my loved ones if necessary. It's a weapon, designed to do very unpleasant things, and I have no reason to show it off.

You become a stare magnet

Then there's that. I had to run to the gas station late one night, and all I was wearing was a t-shirt (edit: and pants), so I just threw my gun on and went. I didn't bother concealing.

Sure enough, I happened to walk in at the same time some sort of suburban soccer-mom convention did, and suddenly a simple run for caffeine and tobacco became an awkward staring/pointing/yelling fest at my expense. No thanks.

Things I did not hear:

• "Wow, nice gun!"
• "My father had one like that."
• "I'm so glad you're here to protect me!"

In urban/suburban areas, I've seen very little open carry, but when I do, it's usually the Glock in the cheap nylon holster. Bear in mind, law enforcement carry in level 3 retention holsters (and they've had retention training), and all too many police officers are shot with their own weapons.

Sidebar: I had to go to Virginia last week. My state's permit was not honored there, but after checking, I found I could legally open carry. I still wasn't keen on the idea. When I got to Herndon (near Dulles), I asked a police officer. He was actually very nice, and what he told me was:

"Yes, it's legal, and we won't detain you for it. But I want you to look over there. That's the District of Columbia, a few miles away. Most of the people in this part of the state are visitors who think they're still in DC. Someone is going to give you a really hard time if they see it."

Granted, my sample of Virginia was somewhat limited, but I didn't see anyone open-carrying while I was there.

 

[Sistema1927]

I missed this thread earlier due to being offline in the boonies when it first surfaced but agree 100% that this needs to be a sticky.

Open carry will only become more common if it is practiced more commonly. I normally carry concealed, but have been known, on occasion, to strap one on out in the open.

On July 4th I strapped on a S&W N frame and a double moon-clip loader, and went about my business. I don't remember getting one funny look, and it was only after I had been at my parents house for over an hour that anyone even noticed that I was carrying openly. That is the way it should be, open carry should be more common than hat wearing.

 

[conw]

I've written two lengthy replies that have been poofed by "thanks for logging in conwict" (after I was already logged in) so I will keep this short.

Mainsail, you are speaking in your last post of anecdotal evidence, observer bias intact, not empirical evidence.

As for the NRA-ILA article on the study: it's deeply flawed. Those surveyed are in prison, and as part of the rehabilitation are encouraged to weigh risks and benefits. Whether it's effective is debatable, but I guarantee you it slants answers to a survey like that.

Finally, the questions are leading, provocative, and often even convincing. And to beat all, in "yes/no" format. Sorry, that study doesn't prove much of anything about anything. If they threw in a few questions like "Do you plan to commit crimes when you are released" and such, you'd be able to see the study for what it is...an exercise in futility.

No one has really responded point-by-point to my main post, which is okay, but there's no need to use eye-rolling emoticons either.

 

[MinnMooney]

How about those winter outings in Washington???

from the original poster :

Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed.

You just can't make blanket statements like this and not expect to be taken to task. B.G.s have to at least wonder if you're armed when you have your shirt untucked or wearing a jacket or coat. The ONLY way they'd know for sure is if you were naked or in a swimsuit.

What do you do in the winter in Washington? Do you wear your holster on a very big belt on the outside of your parka? I doubt it.

Some of your arguments are valid but to make blanket statements shows un-thought-out ideas.

 

[Regen]

Majic -

Unfortunately, while it may be legal, there are many venues where you will get hassled for "brandishing" just by open carrying. Thus, the need to CCW.
There is a distinct definition to brandishing.
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly 2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
So please explain how you can be hassled for merely having a holstered handgun on your side?

Being from Virginia, you should know the legal definition of brandishing in Virginia.

In Virginia, where OC is legal, brandishing is defined and putting the fear of the use of a gun into the mind of another.

Virginia Code
18.2-282.

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

Typically, this applies when you put your hand on a holstered gun to intimidate someone, but technically, if a jury decides that the "victim" had a reasonable fear of of being shot or injured, you could be convicted of brandishing.

 

[Mainsail]

Comparing a walk down the street or in a commercial building to an infantry patrol smacks of apples-to-oranges too.

Please show me where I made such a comparison. I was pointing out that surprise, one of the main tenets of the anti-OC folks, is not used defensively by anyone. Like a previous poster, you are skewing the timeline. Your so-called surprise comes after the attack has already begun, so it has nowhere near the value you want to give it. Landmines are not ‘surprise’ defensive tactics; they are used for area denial. Again, surprise is not and has never been a defensive tactic.

Spend a little time reading someone more authoritive than either of us.

There is a big difference between self-defense
and personal safety. Self defense is predicated
on the fact that you are in a very bad place
to begin with. Things have already gone to
hell in a hand basket. As such, self defenses
is making sure the situation doesn't
get any worse -- it is damage control,
pure and simple. However, no damage control
is EVER as good as preventing the problem
in the first place. That's personal safety...
Marc MacYoung

B.G.s have to at least wonder if you're armed when you have your shirt untucked or wearing a jacket or coat.

Yes, I point that out twice in the essay, did you miss it?

What do you do in the winter in Washington? Do you wear your holster on a very big belt on the outside of your parka? I doubt it.

Parka? This ain’t Alaska. I wear my sidearm on my belt, it’s not concealed because the jacket is behind it.

 

[Mainsail]

I used to go to Seattle often and call tell you I would not under any circumstances OC in Seattle. RCW 9.41.270 has not changed and I can guarantee an arrest in Seattle. Precedence aside, I'd also be very, very surprised if you didn't find yourself making a defense in court. I can certainly see things turning out very differently in a Seattle courtroom than they did in Eastern WA. Even with the existing precedence.

First, here’s the applicable portion of the RCW:

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, …, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

Read the words. A firearm on my belt (or even two rifles cradled in my arms) does not ‘manifest an intent to intimidate’ or ‘warrant alarm for the safety of other persons’. Put simply, my firearm in a holster on my belt does not fall into either of these conditions.

You can guarantee an arrest? I think not. In fact, some members of another board challenged some OCers to walk through Pikes Place Market in Seattle predicting the same thing you do. Several OCers took them up on the bet and won; no arrests, no screaming panic, no incidents whatsoever. I’ve carried several times myself in Seattle, walked past Seattle PD in fact, ate at Cheesecake Factory, walked up to REI, shopped at one of the malls, all without incident. I OC daily in Tacoma without incident. I’ve been inside SeaTac International airport twice last month seeing someone off and on another day picking up someone. I hung around waiting for the plane to land and then waited around the baggage carousel for the bags to arrive. Guess what? No incidents at all. Why? Because it’s legal and the police cannot seize you for legal behavior, much less arrest you for it.

 

[XD_fan]

First, here’s the applicable portion of the RCW:

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, …, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrnts alarm for the safety of other persons.

Read the words. A firearm on my belt (or even two rifles cradled in my arms) does not ‘manifest an intent to intimidate’ or ‘warrant alarm for the safety of other persons’. Put simply, my firearm in a holster on my belt does not fall into either of these conditions.

You can guarantee an arrest? I think not. In fact, some members of another board challenged some OCers to walk through Pikes Place Market in Seattle predicting the same thing you do. Several OCers took them up on the bet and won; no arrests, no screaming panic, no incidents whatsoever. I’ve carried several times myself in Seattle, walked past Seattle PD in fact, ate at Cheesecake Factory, walked up to REI, shopped at one of the malls, all without incident. I OC daily in Tacoma without incident. I’ve been inside SeaTac International airport twice last month seeing someone off and on another day picking up someone. I hung around waiting for the plane to land and then waited around the baggage carousel for the bags to arrive. Guess what? No incidents at all. Why? Because it’s legal and the police cannot seize you for legal behavior, much less arrest you for it.

Wow, I have to say I am shocked. The "warrants alarm" part was always what was problematic. I know the fellow in Eastern Washington used the fact that a firearm in sight does not automatically warrant alarm as his defense.

I am very surprised on a couple of levels and very happy for another. One, that common sense made it over the hill and, two, that SPD actually is willing to abide by this. What great news!

I'm very happy to hear this as I still have a couple of family members in WA and now don't have to worry about getting a Non-resident. I probably will anyway, but just being able to get off the plane and carry from the get go will be nice. Now I have another reason to miss Washington besides the trees, the weather, the "rain", the...

 

[junyo]

Would you attack a stranger on the street knowing he or she was armed? No. So what makes you think a robber has any less sense of self preservation than you?

Because they're a robber. They've chosen a lifestyle that's inherently more risky than most legitimate professions. Criminals assault people that they know are armed all the time, unless you're about to tell me that bank robbers don't realized that banks have had armed security for the last couple hundred years.

Camouflage has both an offensive and defensive purposes; however, its purpose is not to defensively ‘surprise’ the enemy, it’s to prevent detection.

And what, pray tell, is the point of avoiding detection if not to preserve the manpower/weapon until it can best be brought into play?

But here’s the clincher, I don’t want to ever have to shoot anyone. There seems to be some in the firearms community that are either hoping to shoot someone or behaving as if they are. I’m not. Regardless of the justification, I do not want to shoot anyone. If I feel my life, or a life for which I’m responsible is threatened, I will shoot to stop the threat. I’m prepared to do so, but I forever hope that I don’t have to. Only open carry can help me realize both goals.

Newsflash, neither does anyone else! The problem with that is your theory sets up an all or nothing scenario, where if deterrence fails, you will, in all likelihood, be in a shootout. It's the equivalent of going all in from early position with a pair of fives; mathematically you should win without a fight, but realistically you're fully committed early and there's an awful lot of ways to lose. You're assuming that having a gun will deter people enough that the tactical advantage you lose by having all your cards on the table is adequately compensated for. You're welcome to that viewpoint, but presenting it as empirically and demonstrably the "only" choice is nonsensical. I don't ever plan to shoot anyone either. To that end I do my level best to fly under the radar by transmitting as little data in the open as possible; I don't broadcast what/if I'm carrying, how much money I have, whether it's worth your time to accost me in the first place. But here's the thing, OC means that the criminal who who is not deterred and still decides to accost you goes into the experience knowing how you're armed, and thus prepared. Perhaps he shoots you, perhaps he simply disarms you first, hopefully you get the drop on him. But these all represent various degrees of failure conditions from your stated point of view, so when deterrence fails, it fails completely. OTOH, the criminal who accosts me, who is prepared to deal with an unarmed man, suddenly has the new data point of a large caliber handgun added to the equation. Maybe the criminal has the ability to process that new data and emerge victorious, but I'm thinking a far percentage choose to turn that info into shoe leather running the opposite direction. Concealed carry gives me an additional layer of immediate deterrence, a fallback option to potentially end the situation non-violently if the overall deterrence of an armed society fails.

It's functionally a difference of philosophy, do you like blue or red. But you seem to be making it a case of if you disagree you're not just wrong, but stupid.

 

[JohnKSa]

You make the dangerous assumption that a common street thug is willing to ‘throw himself on a grenade’ so to speak.

First of all, this is also a strawman. I said nothing about "common street thugs". Second, I'm not making any assumptions. We know from documented cases that not all criminals will be deterred by armed defenders and we further know that not all criminals are rational. Therefore it's worthwhile to consider what will happen if a criminal decides to attack in spite of the deterrent.

If there's a dangerous assumption, it's the assumption that an openly carried handgun will automatically deter criminals. Sometimes it does, sometimes it clearly doesn't

I’m not a gun store and I’m not at a fixed location, your example doesn’t fit.

The example demonstrates a situation where it was unquestionably advantageous for the defender to be able to respond at a time of the defender's choosing rather than being forced to respond at the beginning of the confrontation. It wasn't intended to (nor could any example) perfectly fit your situation. That's the nature of examples.

The point is that you, or someone else who reads this post might find themselves in a generally similar situation. While you (or the other readers) may not work at a gun shop, it's certainly possible that you (or another reader) might be visiting a business someday when an something like this occurs.

Your attempt to dismiss this is a red herring. It would be as if you asserted "No bucket can ever be white". When someone points out a bucket that is clearly white, you then respond by saying: "That is not my bucket and I can prove it."

Whether or not the situation is perfectly applicable to you is irrelevant to the point. It is a situation where a defender made use of a concealed weapon to surprise his attacker and saved lives as a result. That directly contradicts your assertion which states that surprise is exclusively offensive.

I wasn’t able to find anything using that search term. Regardless, there are thousands of examples of someone using a concealed carry weapon to save their lives...

I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. Here's a brief summary:

Eizember ... allegedly kidnapped a doctor, Samuel Peebles, and his wife, Suzanne, near Waldron, Ark., O'Keefe said. They were forced to drive in their van about 300 miles south to East Texas, he said.

At that point, Samuel Peebles managed to grab a pistol he had concealed in his van and shot Eizember, O'Keefe said.​

The point is not that they used a concealed handgun to save their lives, the point is that they were able to wait until the time was right to respond. There is no way they could have waited 300 miles to make their move had the gun been openly displayed.

No, there are far too many unknowns in that story to call it credible.

It's a police report. If you're willing to completely dismiss evidence because it doesn't support your ideas then what's the point of debating? Besides, it's common knowledge that criminals will, on occasion, brave armed defenders to commit crimes (e.g. bank and gun store robberies). It shouldn't even be necessary to find specific instances to prove this fact, but I was being accomodating.

Again, I’m not a security guard at a bank and I’m not at a fixed location.

Either disengenous, missing the point or both. If you (or someone else openly carrying) were in a location and a determined criminal (e.g. the type of criminal that has been known to rob banks with armed security guards) entered to rob the location then dealing with you, an armed threat, would clearly be high on his priority list.

If a criminal would dare to enter a bank to rob it and shoot an armed security guard to clear the way then what would make him run from a citizen's openly carried gun? Why wouldn't he deal with them in exactly the same manner? Clearly, it doesn't take much reasoning skill to see that he would.

Again, this is a case of trying to dismiss a situation for no other reason than that it contradicts your views. The fact that it doesn't perfectly match your current situation is not any evidence that it is invalid.

First of all, the idea that the example must be perfectly applicable to you is only meaningful if your post was meant to show that OC is a good choice for you but not for anyone who's not in your exact situation.

Second, it hinges upon the idea that you will never be in any situation that is generally similar to the one described.

Finally, the idea that it must be applicable to you is a red herring. Your original assertion was that "open carriers are not the first ones shot". Your new assertion that you aren't a security guard and don't work in a bank is completely irrelevant to whether or not security guards get shot in bank robberies because they pose an armed threat to the robber.

Bank security guards are often open carriers and they are often the first ones shot because the criminal knows that armed persons have the best chance of thwarting the robbery. It follows that open carriers in other similar situations (whether or not those situations are directly applicable to you) are also likely to be the first ones shot and for exactly the same reason.

You’re reading that where exactly? I neither said nor implied such a thing.

The first sentence under deterrence says:

When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value.

Your next sentence follows along the same lines:

If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber...

Studies have shown that enacting CC laws leads to criminals being more cautious about committing violent crimes because they can not tell who is armed. Thus, instead of everyone who appears unarmed actually being considered unarmed by the robber, it turns out that robbers tend to consider that everyone COULD be armed and therefore violent crime falls as a result of CC. At this point in time the deterrent value of CC is well-documented and not in question.

Actually, your assertions are proven incorrect. You rely on apples to oranges comparisons and make broad sweeping suppositions based on single examples.

I rely on straightforward reasoning and provide real-world examples to demonstrate the validity of that reasoning.

I was pointing out that surprise, one of the main tenets of the anti-OC folks, is not used defensively by anyone.

This statement is false, and at least 3 real world examples have been provided for those who do not follow (or who reject) the explanation of why it is false. It is unquestionably true that there can be a benefit to being armed when a criminal believes you are not, and also unquestionably true that citizens have made use of this fact to save their lives and the lives of others. Links to documented cases have been provided.

Again, as always, I will point out that I believe open carry should be legal. What I've posted should not be construed as arguments against the legality of OC, but rather counters to incorrect assertions or flawed arguments.

 

[loneviking]

OC and CC both have their places. I don't think that OC is a good idea in town, around lots of folks and in stores. It's too provocative; it tends to attract attention from all sorts of loonies and it does put a dent in your ability to defend yourself in some situations. Here's a real life robbery that happened last night in Reno with four men, at least one armed with a gun and another with a knife:

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/25670204.html

I'd want to be carrying concealed so that I can 'fade' and hunt for cover just like all the rest of the sheep. The BG's will think I'm just another sheep, while in reality I'm hunting cover and getting in position to shoot them. With four opponents, I would want at least one and preferably two of them to head after me to round me up, as they are going to close the distance between us without expecting any danger. By the time they figure out that the sheep has teeth, they are going to be in a world of hurt.

Similar situation happened this last week at another QuickStop where two armed robbers forced the customers to the floor and robbed them along with the stores cash register. I'd want to retain the element of surprise and choose to confront them when I'm in a position that benefits me!

 

[zxcvbob]

So please explain how you can be hassled for merely having a holstered handgun on your side?

That's an easy one. The cop just arrests you (illegally, knowing his dept will back him up) and says "tell it to the judge". He confiscates your gun (illegally, see above.) You spend a couple of hours or maybe even overnight in a urine-soaked concrete cell, then they release you without any charges. It takes you months and endless trips to the police station to get your gun back (it could take years if they claim it is evidence in an ongoing investigation) and then hopefully they haven't ruined it for you and it hasn't mysteriously dissappeared from the property room.

The chance of this actually happening varies quite a bit, depending on what state or city you are in.

Studies have shown that enacting CC laws leads to criminals being more cautious about committing violent crimes because they can not tell who is armed. Thus, instead of everyone who appears unarmed actually being considered unarmed by the robber, it turns out that robbers tend to consider that everyone COULD be armed and therefore violent crime falls as a result of CC. At this point in time the deterrent value of CC is well-documented and not in question.

I have no evidence to support it, but I suspect the highest level of deterence is from a mix of OC and CC.

 

[JohnKSa]

I have no evidence to support it, but I suspect the highest level of deterence is from a mix of OC and CC.

Dunno...

Probably the highest level of deterrence occurs when everyone is OCing.

 

[Don Lu]

im not a fan of open carry but I like the ideas expressed by the OP

 

[Stephen21B]

I open carry all the time, the few people who notice just assume I'm an undercover LEO.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Excellent post and analysis; thank you.

 

[conw]

I think the whole thing of "surprise" vs "deterrence" is misframed.

Think of it this way. When concealed-carrying, you hope that the criminal will make the first move AND THEN MAKE A MISTAKE TO ALLOW YOU TO SHOOT.

Just because he makes a mistake that allows you to shoot does not mean that he stopped presenting a lethal threat. It seems to me that this "open carry debate" seems to be framed around the assumption that if there is a lethal threat, you must shoot immediately or you aren't justified in shooting at all. If someone gets the draw on you (and doesn't know you have a weapon), or there is a hostage situation, or a crowded room in which a gun is drawn, it isn't this clear-cut. That is why surprise is advantageous defensively.

On the other hand, how is a criminal going to let his guard down if he sees your armed, deems you a worthy target, and proceeds from there?

Clearly the main reason criminals have guns is intimidation, but they are often intending on using them and ALWAYS PREPARED TO. If they assumed everyone who is apparently unarmed was unarmed, they would simply use "strongarm" tactics.

Ever see hostage surveillance, or a criminal pointing a gun at an honest person? There's a reason they don't always just present the gun by lifting their shirt up. There's a reason they point it. They can't tell who is armed, and they are prepared for a deadly confrontation. If your weapon is concealed, they may make a mistake and allow you an opening.

 

[Defensory]

I agree with those who believe concealed carry is strategically and tactically better in virtually all situations.

That being said, I have no problem with open carry being legal. If it's legal in your area and you want to do it, go for it.

 

[bogie]

Ask yourself this...

Are you open carrying because it is more comfortable, or easier, or because it's a good way to get in the face of folks who are uncomfortable with it?

Campers, we've just won several major things. Some of you weren't even in diapers when the whole mess started.

Chill.

Be nice. Be polite. Show the folks who are still sittin' on the fence that we're not gonna have blood-crazy NRA folks out there, drenching the gutters in blood. Okay?

DO NOT GET AN ATTITUDE. Because like most attitudes do, it will turn around and bite us on our asses.

And remember. All it takes is one numbnuts who thinks that he's being a hero, and we're all gonna be reading the headlines for a week. So make damn sure it's a retention holster. Because somewhere out there is the misguided SOB who thinks that he's gonna save the whole damn Starbucks by grabbing the Glock out of your holster.

 

[conw]

I am in no way speaking for the OC camp but I did enjoy "sticking it to the man" with my OC'd gun, occasionally. The whole idea of "it's my right, screw off" is somehow appealing to me. I didn't say screw off, and there were some people who were perhaps pulled off the fence to our side (the side of gun owners in general, not OC or CC specifically) by seeing me and talking with me.

It's a double-edged sword. One conclusion I can conclusively conclude is that people who OC have a much higher tolerance for constant attention than I do. I mean constant attention, like being the guy in the room everyone pays attention to...