I'll be your huckleberry...
I guess I chalk it up to the fact that I am one of the "lucky" percentage of People that are irritated and not incompacitated by pepper spray and mace, as I stomp their head into the curb...
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Open Carry Argument
- Thread starter ATM
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I guess I chalk it up to the fact that I am one of the "lucky" percentage of People that are irritated and not incompacitated by pepper spray and mace, as I stomp their head into the curb...
I'll be your huckleberry...
I guess I chalk it up to the fact that I am one of the "lucky" percentage of People that are irritated and not incompacitated by pepper spray and mace, as I stomp their head into the curb...
Secret ninja?
I read the whole post, there is some good points about OC.
I dont think its bad to OC and that the only wise way to carry is concealed like some people think.I like concealed carry better but that's just a personnal opinion, nothing against OC.
It really depends on the situation and on the person.We are lucky that we can both OC and CC so we can have the best of both worlds.
If you look at the same scenario both with OC and CC there is no bad and good way to carry.It really depends on the situation.
Lets say you are in a restaurant OCing, a guy enters the restaurant with a knife hidden under his jacket to rob the place.He will see your gun, change his plan and just leave.Good point for OC.
Same scenario with OC in a restaurant but this time a guy really determined to kill people (he just got fired and is obvioulsy nuts) enters the place with a shotgun.
You will be the first person to get shot as soon as he sees the gun.
In this case it would have been better to CC to have a chance to draw your weapon and stop the masacre.
Do what you feel is the best for YOU and the current situation.
The question that both OC and CC supporters can answers both with the same answer is: Should I carry or leave my gun at home?
I dont think its bad to OC and that the only wise way to carry is concealed like some people think.I like concealed carry better but that's just a personnal opinion, nothing against OC.
It really depends on the situation and on the person.We are lucky that we can both OC and CC so we can have the best of both worlds.
If you look at the same scenario both with OC and CC there is no bad and good way to carry.It really depends on the situation.
Lets say you are in a restaurant OCing, a guy enters the restaurant with a knife hidden under his jacket to rob the place.He will see your gun, change his plan and just leave.Good point for OC.
Same scenario with OC in a restaurant but this time a guy really determined to kill people (he just got fired and is obvioulsy nuts) enters the place with a shotgun.
You will be the first person to get shot as soon as he sees the gun.
In this case it would have been better to CC to have a chance to draw your weapon and stop the masacre.
Do what you feel is the best for YOU and the current situation.
The question that both OC and CC supporters can answers both with the same answer is: Should I carry or leave my gun at home?
OK, for my real response and questions to George:
I figured that was just to placate the easily alarmed folks who fear guns but already meant you no harm.
B) don't hide the fact that you are a harder target before they make their selection.
Situational, of course, but I favor B.
Officers attempting to apprehend criminals may be a different story, but that is a completely different scenario.
I respect your training but this is rather pointless to the debate. I can take anything of yours without any training if I'm willing to kill you to get it. Most anyone could.
But most criminals don't want to kill to get it. They may be prepared to do so if something goes wrong, but it's not their preference or primary intent. It's pretty common knowledge that manhunts and associated penalties for murderers are much greater than those for common thieves and robbers.
Risk vs. reward and all that.
The same as someone who was carrying concealed or not carrying, I suppose. Fight for survival based on the actual circumstances. What does open carry have to do with that?
Why exactly are safety or survival given as general reasons to conceal?
How does the addition of a badge make a difference to safety or survival?
I figured that was just to placate the easily alarmed folks who fear guns but already meant you no harm.
A) Play the odds by blending with the majority who are relatively harmless and easy targets or
B) don't hide the fact that you are a harder target before they make their selection.
Situational, of course, but I favor B.
Does this hypothetical happen much at all or moreso to officers and open carriers? No.
Officers attempting to apprehend criminals may be a different story, but that is a completely different scenario.
I respect your training but this is rather pointless to the debate. I can take anything of yours without any training if I'm willing to kill you to get it. Most anyone could.
But most criminals don't want to kill to get it. They may be prepared to do so if something goes wrong, but it's not their preference or primary intent. It's pretty common knowledge that manhunts and associated penalties for murderers are much greater than those for common thieves and robbers.
Risk vs. reward and all that.
The same as someone who was carrying concealed or not carrying, I suppose. Fight for survival based on the actual circumstances. What does open carry have to do with that?
The badge is another way for officer to identify you if you have a pistol in your hand, in addition to what you say. Even with those safeties, there are several cases of police fratricide every year in the US. The idea of you concealing your weapon is that nobody sees it until you present it.
Criminals like police too often underestimate the intelligence and willingness to act of criminals. Not to mention EDPs or Emotionally Disturbed Persons. When some crazy person jumps on you like a spider monkey to get your gun, you will have to ask yourself "is this really happening".
As far as taking the gun. I am talking about things that most people have not considered.
The bottom line, as someone who teaches this stuff for a living, with my mindset based on my experience, expertise, and research, I do not endorse open carry for off duty police officers or armed citizens. - George
Criminals like police too often underestimate the intelligence and willingness to act of criminals. Not to mention EDPs or Emotionally Disturbed Persons. When some crazy person jumps on you like a spider monkey to get your gun, you will have to ask yourself "is this really happening".
As far as taking the gun. I am talking about things that most people have not considered.
The bottom line, as someone who teaches this stuff for a living, with my mindset based on my experience, expertise, and research, I do not endorse open carry for off duty police officers or armed citizens. - George
OK, one final question:
Does any of the info from The Five Stages of Violent Crime link in the OP essay conflict with any of the reasons for the mindset you have developed?
Does any of the info from The Five Stages of Violent Crime link in the OP essay conflict with any of the reasons for the mindset you have developed?
kingnereli
Master
I love how anti-OC arguments are always untested hypotheticals. Ooo, and we have an expert this time. Very entertaining.
I do esteem mercop's opinion and experience in many areas.
On this one I simply disagree. It would take a reasoned refutation of some of the points and principles presented to sway me.
I don't think anyone can do that.
On this one I simply disagree. It would take a reasoned refutation of some of the points and principles presented to sway me.
I don't think anyone can do that.
kingnereli
Master
That is my point in a way. Even with all his experience his arguments are the same old list of bad things that could possibly happen to you if you OC even though the real world evidence is sparse at best. All it takes to support OC is to admit these bad thing are rare and to understand risk management.
+1 ^^^^^
This is a personal decision. The question shouldn't be "Which method of carry is correct?", I think the question should be "Which method of carry is correct for me?" Situation may dictate. I OC 95% of the time, but have been known to CC every once in a while. The important thing is that I carry.
Fellow formites, I am not trying to persuade you, only explain my position and why I take it. What is nice to see for a change on forums is both sides being able to have an intelligent discussion without picking up marbles and going home. One of the reasons I live in PA and post here.- George
Wow! LOTS of talk. I read every word of the article, including the "Blue Letter" segments then re-read the entire thing a few days later. While I generally CC, I'm not married to it and have OC'd on occassion. I will add though that I have only been hassled ONCE for open carry, ONCE!! and that was by Metro Police Department Officers at the City Market. I will not bash our LEOs, but it was a very frustrating ordeal.
Last edited:
Great Article
Without doubt this is the most reasoned if slightly slanted analysis of open carry v. cc I have read. It is also the best argument for open carry I have seen to date.
My only exception comes in the part about the bg selecting his victim. Generally anyone carrying cc or oc has a confidence about them that in itself is a deterent to criminals types. As mentioned by the arthor most criminal types are themselves not self confident, not overly intellengent and not likely to take on a target that they aren't 90% certain they can overcome.
I like and agree with the logic. but for myself I'll continue to CC most of the time.
Without doubt this is the most reasoned if slightly slanted analysis of open carry v. cc I have read. It is also the best argument for open carry I have seen to date.
My only exception comes in the part about the bg selecting his victim. Generally anyone carrying cc or oc has a confidence about them that in itself is a deterent to criminals types. As mentioned by the arthor most criminal types are themselves not self confident, not overly intellengent and not likely to take on a target that they aren't 90% certain they can overcome.
I like and agree with the logic. but for myself I'll continue to CC most of the time.
Excellent essay. Very good reading for anyone that carries. Situational awareness is critical and some form of training is important. Have never heard any instructor say while CC or OC to look for trouble. Avoid trouble and use a gun as the absolute last resort.
Not calling specific individuals out, just seems there is a bit of a cowboy attitude in several posts. Just owning and carrying does not make you the baddest SOB that a bad guy would never mess with. Criminals are not very smart. Avoiding a test of their intelligence is the best course of action.
Not calling specific individuals out, just seems there is a bit of a cowboy attitude in several posts. Just owning and carrying does not make you the baddest SOB that a bad guy would never mess with. Criminals are not very smart. Avoiding a test of their intelligence is the best course of action.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,419
- 149
This seems sorta relevant. I just got back from walking my dog, he is large but friendly. A neighbor who had her very small dog out, retreated back into her doorway and said, "I'm scared of your dog". Now my dog has never hurt anyone, same as any of my firearms. Should I conceal carry a giant mutt to prevent from scaring my neighbor? If so I'm going to need to get a much larger overcoat.
I read this article with interest and immediately noticed what I believe to be several critical failures of logic and reasoning. These are just my thoughts on the problems as I see them and are in no way authoritative. I apologize for the length but found it necessary to take each point separately.
The Open Carry Argument
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. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.
Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.
I doubt anyone would disagree with this sentiment. I personally don’t know anyone who wants to be a victim nor do I know anyone who wants to take the life of another person. We have yet to see if these goals are more or less difficult with concealed carry versus open carry. Anyone who has ever been in a deadly force encounter knows that their life is changed forever. I doubt also anyone would disagree with the notion that those who are on the defensive are basically behind the power curve, always a second slower than those on the offensive with a caveat that I will get to later.
Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
The author states that there are studies that back his claims yet posts no links to those studies so there’s no way to validate or refute them. His very premise though appears to be false, that carrying concealed presents to a criminal that one is unarmed. The criminal can’t know either way whether one is armed or not therefore taking the chance that one isn’t.
Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
There is no logical argument here, simply matters of opinion, personal feelings, and snide comments. He remarks that there “…are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity.” That’s not an argument but a personal opinion and shows us the authors’ bias, especially in light of the fact that he refuses to acknowledge that there are those who brazenly open carry for the express purpose of showing how tough they are or are trying to make a political statement. The author “feels” his teeth are hidden when carrying concealed. He thinks he’s unarmed and “feels” unarmed (his teeth are hidden) because he has a concealed handgun beneath his shirt. The author fails to address other methods of concealed carry that would allow faster access to the firearm. He also dismisses his own argument in the second paragraph that he who is on the defensive, regardless of method of carry, has already lost.
Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.
While it may be clear and obvious to the thug that one is armed through open carry it is still not a given that said thug will not attack. Is the deterrent level higher than one who carries concealed? Perhaps, but open carry in and of itself is only one factor and it could be argued that even with a gun present the thug may attack if he believes surprise is on his side.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction
I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.
I will not argue the five stages of violent crime, only say that the author could have chosen a better word than “theology.” That word imparts a sense of permanence and we all know that the only thing permanent is change itself. Perhaps doctrine would have been a better descriptor. The author draws invalid assumptions of concealed carry that those who CC are waiting for a weapon to appear before reacting to a violent encounter. This presumes facts not in evidence and is simply further example of the authors’ bias. It also appears that the author should do as he implores others to do, read the information he’s linked to. If he had he would recognize that the various types of interviews allow for variances in timing of an attack or a withdrawal by the assailant dependent on ones reaction to the encounter. For example in the “hot” interview the assailant pops out of nowhere and launches a fast and brutal attack. It little matters in this scenario whether one is OC or CC. Mindset is key to survival here.
First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
The author draws a scenario as fact, a strawman, while giving no studies, reports, or statistics to back his claim. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2009 shows that there were almost 1,000 murders committed during property crimes (burglary, larceny, theft, etc.). While a very small portion of the whole it shows that murders do happen and we have no way of knowing whether any of the victims or those in proximity were armed.
Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.
The authors scenario in this paragraph is the most egregious example yet of a straw man argument and is fallacious on its very face. He enlists name calling to further demonize his critics referring to critics of open carry as “armchair tacticians” who’s arguments should be dismissed out of hand as incompetent and amateurish. He further belittles those who disagree as “internet commandos.” He further dismisses out of hand surprise as a defensive posture not realizing or deliberately ignoring its use in hand to hand combat. He also attempts to demean his opponents by his fallacious use of military tactics being ignorant of the fact that the defensive ruse or surprise has been used in the past as is the case with the Parthian Shot and the use of such tactics as the feigned withdrawal by William the Conqueror at Hastings in 1066 and Napoleon at Austerlitz in 1805.
It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
The author actually makes a valid criticism here. I do not believe anyone in his right mind would deliberately attack an armed person with the intent solely be to steal the gun.
It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.
A persons’ fear of firearms may not be a valid reason to not carry openly, but it should be a consideration when one should carry thusly dependent on time, circumstance, and place. Some people simply have a visceral fear of guns and can turn a good day out into a horrible mess simply by calling a police officers’ attention to the “offending” weapon. This forum alone is ample proof of that. Appealing to ones emotions through logic doesn’t work in most cases. Humans are emotional creatures with fear being the strongest of those emotions. Some people see a police officer with a gun and think nothing of it. That same person sees a civilian with a gun and automatically goes into fear mode. To deny that is to deny reality itself.
I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.
While the author actually lends credence to the comfort level of some people who carry, he again goes back to what he believes is the driving factor for open carry; time. In doing so he again completely dismisses his own reference, the five stages of violent crime and in particular the interview stage in which time is not nearly the factor he would have us believe.
Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
The reason for my critique of this essay is not to espouse concealed carry or denounce open carry. I employ both methods depending on my own consideration of place, time, and circumstance. I merely attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments that I see present in it. The one huge mistake that the author made was in not addressing ones mindset. Being aware of ones surroundings and the potential threats and being ready and willing to counter them is much more important than the method of carry. Whether that was deliberate to promote his argument or merely an oversight I do not know. I do know however that the person who is trained and ready both mentally and physically for a forceful encounter, regardless of method of carry, will stand a better chance of surviving such an encounter than the person who isn’t ready. I saw this in action during my deployment to Iraq in 2004. The unit that was heavily armed but complacent was much more likely to get hit than the unit that was equally armed and was alert, aggressive, and had the appearance of being ready to take on any comers. In the end whether one chooses to CC or OC is immaterial to the training and practice one should have to gain the physical and mental toughness required to survive a violent encounter.
The Open Carry Argument
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. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.
Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.
I doubt anyone would disagree with this sentiment. I personally don’t know anyone who wants to be a victim nor do I know anyone who wants to take the life of another person. We have yet to see if these goals are more or less difficult with concealed carry versus open carry. Anyone who has ever been in a deadly force encounter knows that their life is changed forever. I doubt also anyone would disagree with the notion that those who are on the defensive are basically behind the power curve, always a second slower than those on the offensive with a caveat that I will get to later.
Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
The author states that there are studies that back his claims yet posts no links to those studies so there’s no way to validate or refute them. His very premise though appears to be false, that carrying concealed presents to a criminal that one is unarmed. The criminal can’t know either way whether one is armed or not therefore taking the chance that one isn’t.
Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
There is no logical argument here, simply matters of opinion, personal feelings, and snide comments. He remarks that there “…are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity.” That’s not an argument but a personal opinion and shows us the authors’ bias, especially in light of the fact that he refuses to acknowledge that there are those who brazenly open carry for the express purpose of showing how tough they are or are trying to make a political statement. The author “feels” his teeth are hidden when carrying concealed. He thinks he’s unarmed and “feels” unarmed (his teeth are hidden) because he has a concealed handgun beneath his shirt. The author fails to address other methods of concealed carry that would allow faster access to the firearm. He also dismisses his own argument in the second paragraph that he who is on the defensive, regardless of method of carry, has already lost.
Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.
While it may be clear and obvious to the thug that one is armed through open carry it is still not a given that said thug will not attack. Is the deterrent level higher than one who carries concealed? Perhaps, but open carry in and of itself is only one factor and it could be argued that even with a gun present the thug may attack if he believes surprise is on his side.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction
I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.
I will not argue the five stages of violent crime, only say that the author could have chosen a better word than “theology.” That word imparts a sense of permanence and we all know that the only thing permanent is change itself. Perhaps doctrine would have been a better descriptor. The author draws invalid assumptions of concealed carry that those who CC are waiting for a weapon to appear before reacting to a violent encounter. This presumes facts not in evidence and is simply further example of the authors’ bias. It also appears that the author should do as he implores others to do, read the information he’s linked to. If he had he would recognize that the various types of interviews allow for variances in timing of an attack or a withdrawal by the assailant dependent on ones reaction to the encounter. For example in the “hot” interview the assailant pops out of nowhere and launches a fast and brutal attack. It little matters in this scenario whether one is OC or CC. Mindset is key to survival here.
First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
The author draws a scenario as fact, a strawman, while giving no studies, reports, or statistics to back his claim. The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2009 shows that there were almost 1,000 murders committed during property crimes (burglary, larceny, theft, etc.). While a very small portion of the whole it shows that murders do happen and we have no way of knowing whether any of the victims or those in proximity were armed.
Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.
The authors scenario in this paragraph is the most egregious example yet of a straw man argument and is fallacious on its very face. He enlists name calling to further demonize his critics referring to critics of open carry as “armchair tacticians” who’s arguments should be dismissed out of hand as incompetent and amateurish. He further belittles those who disagree as “internet commandos.” He further dismisses out of hand surprise as a defensive posture not realizing or deliberately ignoring its use in hand to hand combat. He also attempts to demean his opponents by his fallacious use of military tactics being ignorant of the fact that the defensive ruse or surprise has been used in the past as is the case with the Parthian Shot and the use of such tactics as the feigned withdrawal by William the Conqueror at Hastings in 1066 and Napoleon at Austerlitz in 1805.
It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
The author actually makes a valid criticism here. I do not believe anyone in his right mind would deliberately attack an armed person with the intent solely be to steal the gun.
It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.
A persons’ fear of firearms may not be a valid reason to not carry openly, but it should be a consideration when one should carry thusly dependent on time, circumstance, and place. Some people simply have a visceral fear of guns and can turn a good day out into a horrible mess simply by calling a police officers’ attention to the “offending” weapon. This forum alone is ample proof of that. Appealing to ones emotions through logic doesn’t work in most cases. Humans are emotional creatures with fear being the strongest of those emotions. Some people see a police officer with a gun and think nothing of it. That same person sees a civilian with a gun and automatically goes into fear mode. To deny that is to deny reality itself.
I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.
While the author actually lends credence to the comfort level of some people who carry, he again goes back to what he believes is the driving factor for open carry; time. In doing so he again completely dismisses his own reference, the five stages of violent crime and in particular the interview stage in which time is not nearly the factor he would have us believe.
Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
The reason for my critique of this essay is not to espouse concealed carry or denounce open carry. I employ both methods depending on my own consideration of place, time, and circumstance. I merely attempt to point out the fallacious reasoning, ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments that I see present in it. The one huge mistake that the author made was in not addressing ones mindset. Being aware of ones surroundings and the potential threats and being ready and willing to counter them is much more important than the method of carry. Whether that was deliberate to promote his argument or merely an oversight I do not know. I do know however that the person who is trained and ready both mentally and physically for a forceful encounter, regardless of method of carry, will stand a better chance of surviving such an encounter than the person who isn’t ready. I saw this in action during my deployment to Iraq in 2004. The unit that was heavily armed but complacent was much more likely to get hit than the unit that was equally armed and was alert, aggressive, and had the appearance of being ready to take on any comers. In the end whether one chooses to CC or OC is immaterial to the training and practice one should have to gain the physical and mental toughness required to survive a violent encounter.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- imagreaser
- FreeLand
- Andyccw
- Mhostetter45
- Reverin0ats27
- Zdub720
- Wolfhound
- DDadams
- Bluehazemay
- acd1010
- jt1975
- casselmb
- jzwhts
- PTinbound
- db308
- Cameramonkey
- tradertator
- ws6guy
- Jojo_2000
- jy951
- Scutter01
- 63PGP
- PowderApe
- sadclownwp
- TheGrumpyGuy
- lance
- citizenkane
- shibumiseeker
- indygncc
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- Bartman
- SEH0521
- Armchair Operator
- 7920drew
- gunrunner0
- gregr
- KLB
- partyboy6686
- macolesby
- Lee11b
- ChristianPatriot
- HHollow
- sparkmanrl
- Quiet Observer
- profjeremy
- 2tonic
- patience0830
- cakndsn
- Zero_ek
- BigMoose
