I would see the problem with OC as not so much being the "PR" issues, per se. If it's legal it's legal, and they just have to deal with it.

The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

If you CCWing, you have more options, you can blend into the crowd, and appear to be just one more passive bystander, until/if you decide to take action. If you OCing, you're almost forced to take action immediately, or at best be looking right down the barrel of one of the robbers guns, and at worst shot. You essentially give up all element of surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

Or they see you armed and decide to go elsewhere to seek an easier mark. There is no reliable data either way. Your scenario is certainly possible. Mine is at least equally possible. Jailed violent criminals have been interviewed many times and they all say the same thing; the knowledge that a target was armed was enough to deter them and cause them to go find someone else to prey upon.

That's is quite possible.

quote:

Originally posted by nathab2:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

Or they see you armed and decide to go elsewhere to seek an easier mark. There is no reliable data either way. Your scenario is certainly possible. Mine is at least equally possible. Jailed violent criminals have been interviewed many times and they all say the same thing; the knowledge that a target was armed was enough to deter them and cause them to go find someone else to prey upon.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

Well, except that never happens except in some lame Hollywood movie. It's probably not best to develop a self defense plan based on that type of scenario.

quote:

If you CCWing, you have more options, you can blend into the crowd, and appear to be just one more passive bystander, until/if you decide to take action.

Yes, you have the cowardly option available.

quote:

If you OCing, you're almost forced to take action immediately, or at best be looking right down the barrel of one of the robbers guns, and at worst shot. You essentially give up all element of surprise.

If I lived in Hollywood, I would definitely take that course of action. Sadly, there is no such thing as defensive 'surprise'. What you're talking about is 'damage control', not surprise. Thanks for playing.

So you want to play John Wayne and force yourself to be the target? Be my guest.

Personally I think that is straight up and down stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Mainsail:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

Well, except that never happens except in some lame Hollywood movie. It's probably not best to develop a self defense plan based on that type of scenario.

quote:

If you CCWing, you have more options, you can blend into the crowd, and appear to be just one more passive bystander, until/if you decide to take action.

Yes, you have the cowardly option available.

quote:

If you OCing, you're almost forced to take action immediately, or at best be looking right down the barrel of one of the robbers guns, and at worst shot. You essentially give up all element of surprise.

If I lived in Hollywood, I would definitely take that course of action. Sadly, there is no such thing as defensive 'surprise'. What you're talking about is 'damage control', not surprise. Thanks for playing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mainsail:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The biggest problem is it makes you stand out as a target in the case of a violent situation (meaning most likely and armed robbery). You essentially become the equivalent an armed guard, a known target that the robbers need to take out to succeed.

Well, except that never happens except in some lame Hollywood movie. It's probably not best to develop a self defense plan based on that type of scenario.

quote:

If you CCWing, you have more options, you can blend into the crowd, and appear to be just one more passive bystander, until/if you decide to take action.

Yes, you have the cowardly option available.

quote:

If you OCing, you're almost forced to take action immediately, or at best be looking right down the barrel of one of the robbers guns, and at worst shot. You essentially give up all element of surprise.

If I lived in Hollywood, I would definitely take that course of action. Sadly, there is no such thing as defensive 'surprise'. What you're talking about is 'damage control', not surprise. Thanks for playing.

With you having written what I consider to be the most definitive argument for the advantages of open carry over concealed carry that I've yet come across, your response to BBMW falls a bit short, if not completely out of character. Dare I say 'rude'? (A bad day perhaps... )

BBMW's thoughts are shared by a great many folks who carry. While I don't agree with all of them, I certainly understand them.

You can do better. You have done better.

~Tom

quote:

Originally posted by Rickins:
With you having written what I consider to be the most definitive argument for the advantages of open carry over concealed carry that I've yet come across, your response to BBMW falls a bit short, if not completely out of character. Dare I say 'rude'? (A bad day perhaps... )

BBMW's thoughts are shared by a great many folks who carry. While I don't agree with all of them, I certainly understand them.

You can do better. You have done better.

~Tom

I didn’t at all mean to sound rude, I simply want people to apply a little critical thinking to the subject instead of baseless conjecture. BBMW contends open carry will make me a “target” (of what he doesn’t say) and yet he doesn’t, and apparently cannot, provide any intelligent reasoning behind this belief. Likewise his comment that it’s “stupid”, again, nothing more than his own unsupported opinion.

This is the very same sort of argument the anti-gunners use: hyperbole, knee-jerk thinking, and unsubstantiated supposition. I think we can do better than that, even if he personally cannot. My position, based on my experience and objective thinking (I wasn’t always supportive of open carry) is there for anyone to read. If he, or anyone else, has an opposing view based on intellectually honest thought, all they have to do is write it up! So far, no one has accepted the challenge. So all we get is nonsensical blather whenever the subject comes up.

Mainsail, you make some very good points in your link above and the Pikes Place pic. is classic.

I agree there is no data whatsoever to back up the assertion a criminal would just target someone open carrying 1st vs. abandoning the whole endeavor. Furthermore, if someone could show me a story where someone was killed while open carrying, the 1st thing (having a Crim. Just. Degree) I would look for is a personal connection. Odds are the murder was personal which would negate the "target the OC guy 1st" argument...

I do disagree that OC is the best way to avoid being a crime victim or avoid having to use a gun. I avoid violence (all over the world from Baghdad to Beaverton, armed or not) by staying alert and observant to my surroundings, doing my homework on where not to go and by realizing my mind and body are the weapon, not some tool. Confidence and body language go a loooong way, esp. with other predators. Add that to situational awareness and preparation and any firearm you may have is ancillary.

Not discounting firearms...they are great, esp. when you absolutely, positively have to injure someone at a distance. At bad breath range...guns aren't necessarily the best (read most efficient), and certainly not the only, choice.

quote:

I do disagree that OC is the best way to avoid being a crime victim or avoid having to use a gun.

Well, I don't actually make that point, so you're not in disagreement with me after all!

The opening lines:

quote:

My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation.

The essay is about firearms carry, open carry specifically, not overall self defense strategies. (Yeesh, it's so long already most people won't read it!) Those are all excellent points and would be good additions to an essay on that subject.

quote:

I do disagree that OC is the best way to avoid being a crime victim or avoid having to use a gun. I avoid violence (all over the world from Baghdad to Beaverton, armed or not) by staying alert and observant to my surroundings, doing my homework on where not to go and by realizing my mind and body are the weapon, not some tool. Confidence and body language go a loooong way, esp. with other predators. Add that to situational awareness and preparation and any firearm you may have is ancillary.

Not discounting firearms...they are great, esp. when you absolutely, positively have to injure someone at a distance. At bad breath range...guns aren't necessarily the best (read most efficient), and certainly not the only, choice.

To add to your point, if i were a criminal and had intentions of doing something nefarious, an OC'd gun wouldn't stop me. I'd simply sneak up and shoot the OC'er in the head first. The OC'er saved me the trouble of having to imagine who out there could possibly have a weapon.

I don't really understand the allure of OC. Tactically, i think it is inferior to CC.

Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
I don't really understand the allure of OC. Tactically, i think it is inferior to CC.

Kevin

You've hit the issue on the head. Every time the subject of open carry comes up it degrades to pointless comments where people express opinions without anything intellectual to back them up. Any meathead can tell you what they think, the question that never gets answered is why they think it. I wrote an entire essay about why I prefer open carry. If you (collective you, not you in particular) can provide an argument against it based on rational thought, PLEASE let me hear it! I'm not trying to be confrontational, I would just like to hear a healthy intellectual debate on the issue instead of unsupported opinion.

quote:

To add to your point, if i were a criminal and had intentions of doing something nefarious, an OC'd gun wouldn't stop me. I'd simply sneak up and shoot the OC'er in the head first.

The problem is you're not a criminal. On one of the forums a prison guard posted that he'd asked his hardcore charges if they would target an OCer and they unanimously said no, that it was far easier and safer to just buy a gun on the corner for $50. Right now in Tacoma the biggest threat, based on listening to the scanner, is getting mugged in a parking lot or walking down the street. The robbers drive by, see an iPhone or Ipod, pull over and either strong-arm or use a knife (sometimes a gun) and steal the item. Occasionally a victim gets hurt in the process.

My experience, from daily open carry in Tacoma and the surrounding areas, is much different than your unsupported opinion. Again, please don't take this is me attacking you, but I would like to hear some reasonable argument to support your position.

Mainsail, I read the whole thing. I was keying on the 2 sentences that followed the intro you posted, then the next 3 paragraphs in which the thrust was it would be difficult to go through life w/out having to shoot someone if you carried a concealed gun as it has no deterrent value i.e makes the criminal think you are unarmed, thus free game.

Statistically, most people can just wonder around totally clueless and lost in space...and still never be a violent crime victim. So, a dash of awareness and confidence (and staying out of bad places) makes the odds almost zero at which point the presence of a gun (concealed or not) is pretty moot.

A confident, trained, alert CC-er wouldn't look like an easy victim...for reasons having nothing to do with the gun.

We can't really know though...how can one tell how many times they weren't selected to be a crime victim and why?

I like both CC and OC and applaud anyone who does either. I don't personally like to draw attention to myself and that is a big part of my strategy. The guy who looks like nothing special (but noticed you scoping him out already and acts like he doesn't care either way).

If I get jumped by surprise, well nobody can be switched on all the time, if I can think and move, I'll injure them until they are no longer a threat. If they do that to me 1st...I won't be around to know it! Would an open gun have mattered? Who knows, interesting discussion though.

I like all flavors of RKBA exercise!

I don't have a problem with OC... in fact I do it some when visiting Dem/Lib in-laws in Virginia... though I CC more often (some restaurants sell alcohol by the drink and thus I have to OC there.)

My only objection to OC vis-a-vis CC is tactical... I think open carry gives away some tactical advantage if you encounter EDs....

Other than that I don't see anything wrong with OC... sure wish we could in Florida.

FWIW

Chuck

quote:

Originally posted by cxm:
My only objection to OC vis-a-vis CC is tactical...

Please read this and get back to us on your thoughts about the "tactical" nature of CC.

Thank you.

Criminals target open-carriers all the time: cops get attacked, bank guards / ATM service guys / armored car crews gets ambushed, gun stores get robbed, military armories are looted, it is by no means rare.

Maybe if the criminals interviewed were tax evaders or cable TV thieves they wouldn't attack a person open carrying, but violent hoods do it pretty frequently. Besides, were aren't talking about folks with highly developed critical think skills or a history of well-thought out decisions.

Calling it a deterrent is a great tactic, but ultimately spurious. Proving that something didn't happen because a gun was present and visible is essentially impossible.

As for blending into the crowd being "cowardly," well paint me a pussy. The norm, at least in my piece of heaven, is for the inside cops on a robbery stakeout to do nothing but observe and act only if they have reason to believe that a life is at risk right then. They are to wait until the badguy(s) leave, and hold long enough to make sure that there are no lay-off bad guys present, leaving the "escaping" miscreants to be chased/shot/killed as appropriate by the outside cops from behind cover and away from normal humans. This I know from my specialty of pushing a grocery cart containing a long gun around stores thought to be targeted for robbery, picking up stuff like cases of tampons, adult diapers, gallons of prune juice, toilet paper in 48 count packs, Cosmo magazines, anything I think will help me blend in.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Criminals target open-carriers all the time: cops get attacked, bank guards / ATM service guys / armored car crews gets ambushed, gun stores get robbed, military armories are looted, it is by no means rare.

Hmmm, let’s see. I’m not a bank guard, or a ATM Tech, or an armored car driver, etc etc. This is a foolish argument to make and seems demonstrative of how silly you are willing to appear just to try to discredit open carry. All those people are not targeted because they are carrying firearms, but despite it. They are targeted because they have access to or are carrying large sums of cash. As for cops being attacked, it isn’t because they are carrying a firearm but because they tend to grapple with some unruly people; the gun becomes a target of opportunity to facilitate an escape. A private citizen does not have the value as a target than any of the inapt examples you present and I haven’t grappled with anyone since the 7th grade. The examples you cite in your last paragraph are equally inapt. I’m never going to push a long gun around in a shopping cart; this example is downright inane. All this example presents is that in that situation concealing a long gun is tactically better than carrying openly. How many private citizens will EVER be in that situation? Sheesh.

quote:

Maybe if the criminals interviewed were tax evaders or cable TV thieves they wouldn't attack a person open carrying, but violent hoods do it pretty frequently. Besides, were aren't talking about folks with highly developed critical think skills or a history of well-thought out decisions.

No, these were hardcore violent criminals if I recall correctly. While you may think they are intellectually challenged, they still have the same sense of self-preservation you have.

quote:

Calling it a deterrent is a great tactic, but ultimately spurious. Proving that something didn't happen because a gun was present and visible is essentially impossible.

Uh, well, except for the time I experienced the deterrent effect for myself. Even an openly carried firearm is sometimes overlooked, and in my case, it was right up until the last moment when the would-be crook had a sudden change of heart about attacking. I will admit, however, that you have a point here; we can never know how many crimes are deterred by openly carried firearms. We do know how many are deterred by concealed carry, none. (I’m referring to ‘direct deterrent’ not the indirect deterrent concealed carry affords everyone whether they carry or not.) If the firearm is truly concealed the criminal can assume you are unarmed.

After our last go-round I ran your thoughts about OC, and wantonly detaining people for doing so, by a friend who is an experienced LEO here. He was adamant that you wouldn’t last long as a police officer here (or in any other free state) because you’d be a legal liability. His opinion: While he may get away with such assclown ideas there in CA, they would get him quickly fired in most other states. Several officers in NM could lose their homes after detaining an OCer recently; the judge ruled that they had no qualified immunity because they should have known the law and likely did. Without qualified immunity the man detained can (and I believe is) bringing suit against them individually.

Well, I've lasted since the mid 80s, and have never been sued and only had two complaints filed on me, one of which I was exonerated on, and the second involved me being mistaken for another Deputy, so your friend is wrong. You clearly are set in your position, so do what you need to do, but giving the impression that open carrying covers the carrier with a Cloak of Deterrence is less than wise.

So, someone who will take on a cop despite the fact that the cop is trained and armed and equipped with a radio and has 600,000 other cops willing to back him or her up, will not target a civilian, just because the civilian is open carrying? So because you don't carry large amounts of cash or pharmaceuticals, or grapple with unruly people, apparently you don't think you have any value as a target, so why are you carrying at all? What exactly are you deterring if you don't think you are at risk for robbery or assault?

Really, you think I'm silly and "inapt" (sic)?

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Well, I've lasted since the mid 80s, and have never been sued and only had two complaints filed on me, one of which I was exonerated on, and the second involved me being mistaken for another Deputy, so your friend is wrong. You clearly are set in your position, so do what you need to do, but giving the impression that open carrying covers the carrier with a Cloak of Deterrence is less than wise.

So, someone who will take on a cop despite the fact that the cop is trained and armed and equipped with a radio and has 600,000 other cops willing to back him or her up, will not target a civilian, just because the civilian is open carrying? So because you don't carry large amounts of cash or pharmaceuticals, or grapple with unruly people, apparently you don't think you have any value as a target, so why are you carrying at all? What exactly are you deterring if you don't think you are at risk for robbery or assault?

Really, you think I'm silly and "inapt" (sic)?

Again, your actions may work in CA, but would get you fired pretty quickly here in WA. The officers in NM argued much the same as you, and the judge dismissed their argument on summary judgment. IOW, their argument was so without merit it didn’t even warrant a jury trial. The judge also denied their qualified immunity. So please, next time you’re in WA let me know so you can arrest or detain me for open carry, I could use the extra cash.

Inapt = unsuitable, inappropriate, unfit. Maybe some night school would help.

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Well, I've lasted since the mid 80s...

In California. While I don't get on board with some of the ridiculous CA bashing that goes on in gun forums, holding that state up as a standard of normalcy is ludicrous.

There are still free States in the U.S. Places where you'd get fired and could be exposed to federal charges for detaining a person without reasonable articulable suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity. The case in New Mexico clearly determined that there is no qualified immunity for an officer where that officer should know the law.

quote:

Originally posted by nathab2:

quote:

Originally posted by sendec:
Well, I've lasted since the mid 80s...

In California. While I don't get on board with some of the ridiculous CA bashing that goes on in gun forums, holding that state up as a standard of normalcy is ludicrous.

There are still free States in the U.S. Places where you'd get fired and could be exposed to federal charges for detaining a person without reasonable articulable suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity. The case in New Mexico clearly determined that there is no qualified immunity for an officer where that officer should know the law.

Uh, no. Being mistaken about so many things, Mainsail seems to think I live and work in California. I don't. I'm not even in the same time zone.

I think he has a balloon to catch.