A combat vets argument for concealed carry not open

[CPT Nervous]

CPT, that was my thought too.

Wonder if there's a relationship between being rabidly pro-training (to the point where you start to pass judgment on those who don't train to your expectations) and being rabidly anti-OC.

Both seem to demand certain behaviors from others.

Seems to be. Pinkus? Yeager? mongoose1.1? They pass judgement on us, and deem us inferior. How can they pass such a blanket statement off as reality? They do not understand the mindset of an OCer, so they set out with false claims and bogus stats to prove a preconceived notion that OC is dangerous or foolish.

Again, I point out that CCers are statistically at a higher risk of being attacked, but all I hear is the, "If someone comes into the convenience store to rob it, you'll be the first one shot," joke.

I point out poll results from felons and other incarcerated persons where over 60% stated that knowing a victim has a firearm would keep them from targeting them.

Humans are programmed to value our own life. Why would anyone, criminals included, risk it over my wallet?

Human life is precious, but when a human targets other humans, he loses his humanity and becomes a wild animal that requires extermination. No hard feelings. It's our lives, or theirs. Their lives are of no value.

I can prove the validity of open carry with facts, statistics, data, and research. Can the same be said of concealed carry?

Criminals who carry guns, do so concealed. I prefer not to associate myself with criminal activity.

 

[indyjoe]

No, I didn't. I applaud the OP for having the 'nads to buck what is obviously considered "politically correct" on this forum.

So my attitude of OC? CC? I don't give a damn, pass the bacon is "politically correct" now? First time I've ever been call that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Seems to be. Pinkus? Yeager? mongoose1.1? They pass judgement on us, and deem us inferior. How can they pass such a blanket statement off as reality? They do not understand the mindset of an OCer, so they set out with false claims and bogus stats to prove a preconceived notion that OC is dangerous or foolish.

Again, I point out that CCers are statistically at a higher risk of being attacked, but all I hear is the, "If someone comes into the convenience store to rob it, you'll be the first one shot," joke.

I point out poll results from felons and other incarcerated persons where over 60% stated that knowing a victim has a firearm would keep them from targeting them.

Humans are programmed to value our own life. Why would anyone, criminals included, risk it over my wallet?

Human life is precious, but when a human targets other humans, he loses his humanity and becomes a wild animal that requires extermination. No hard feelings. It's our lives, or theirs. Their lives are of no value.

I can prove the validity of open carry with facts, statistics, data, and research. Can the same be said of concealed carry?

Criminals who carry guns, do so concealed. I prefer not to associate myself with criminal activity.

You have some statistical data for this assertion? Just askin'.

 

[88GT]

Meh, OP's thoughts on carry in general strike me as someone who would also post, "I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but (he should have formal training that meets my standard for acceptability).

Yep. That sounds about right.

 

[rhino]

Heh heh heh <--- quality post

 

[CPT Nervous]

Read some posts and an essay supporting open-carry. Insightful, but they missed some important details so I thought I'd throw my hat into the arena.

A CONCEALED CARRY ARGUMENT

This is the real question I feel that should be addressed: How many of us are honestly trained for combat to the point that we would advertise we are ready for it? Most of us that carry are definitely not trained for it. Why risk escalation where things can go bad, fast? Combat shooting is a serious skill set radically different from range shooting. Carrying openly suggests to someone that you are ready for trouble and that someone looking for trouble will find it. To a criminal, you are also advertising that you are trouble. To bystanders and responding police, you are advertising that you MIGHT be trouble. Bystanders don't know the difference until you part ways.

I'm very well-trained in close quarters combat shooting and in most (not all) situations as a citizen if faced with armed perpetrators, say robbing a store, I would not pull the gun unless there was no other choice. A few important reasons why:

1) rule number four of combat shooting - know your target and what's behind it. Chances are people are behind the perp so you have to look for a shot or create one. The criminal might not have any such reservations. I have a high degree of confidence I'll hit what I'm aiming at. The criminal probably will not under that much stress. Collateral damage is common in urban gunbattles.

2) money and material possessions, whether insured or not, are not worth the life of SOMEONE ELSE. Innocent people can get hurt. Bullets very often travel through barriers and can still wound if not kill. Why take the chance unless absolutely necessary? Better to get the plate # and description of a car or of the suspect for law enforcement.

3) Taking a life is not something to be taken lightly. Now if it's between you/innocent person and a criminal shooter, it's two in the chest, one in the head of the shooter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But make no mistake, there is a price to pay. You'll never be the same after something like that.

4) If things go badly, and I think we can all agree they can, you might save the day, and still wind up sued or worse, charged with a crime if things aren't clean. The broader issue: threat assessment and the application of force. If you wear a gun for the world to see, you better be prepared to use it. But is it even justifiable? Unless it's life or death, is it really worth it?

I'm not sure about where everybody lives, but people around here that open carry have a tendency to get questioned by police, sometimes with the cuffs on, until their identity is verified. This is a regional matter obviously. But why do they do this in a suburb? Because we're not in Tombstone or Dodge City we're in the suburbs. It has nothing to do with Second Amendment violations and open-carry laws. It's because in this day and age, guns carried openly in the hands of a stranger scares the bejezzuz out of most law-abiding citizens. That's the media's fault to some degree, but the reality is we have mass shootings happening all over the world. It has undeniably had a psychological effect on the populace.

Even as a combat veteran who carries concealed, when I see someone carrying openly, my first thought is, why the hell are they carrying the gun? Should I feel at ease that a complete stranger is openly armed in public? And most importantly, this thought always crosses my mind: Is this person responsible enough with that gun not to get us all killed getting involved in something they might not be trained for, i.e. COMBAT.

Some things to consider about open-carry: Do you really want to make an armed robber even more nervous when they see your weapon carried openly after barging into a store? They're unlikely to see it until they are in the place. Gauging or rather "gambling" on how a criminal is going to react is dangerous and it could be fatal. They come in and see your gun, you see them, maybe you instinctively reach for the gun, maybe even hesitate...there's more than a few things that can go wrong here. That kind of stress leads people to do things you would not always expect.
Stats teach us nothing about deterrant because you can't track crimes that don't take place because of open-carry. While most criminals are unlikely to break into a house of a gun-owner, how many criminals really avoid actual crimes because of open-carry? No way to track that info realistically.

If a perp runs into the store armed and sees your gun, you have now become priority number one. Is that safer for you and the others around you? The money the perp wants is insured. Unless he's shooting people, he most likely wants the money and to leave. Everybody else wants to survive. Consider whether it's worth the trouble that can potentially be caused. It could escalate the situation into a fatal encounter in what otherwise would have been survivable. Your decision to openly carry, or even use your gun is one that is made for every person in the area.

I concede carrying concealed is not useful if the gun is not readily accessible. Mine can be reached and effectively used in seconds (Combat reflexive shooting). A lot of practice and training went into it. I respect everyone's opinion who wants to carry openly but I think it's selfish to just say, well the housewife with her four kids at the grocery store needs to get used to seeing guns on our hips. Carrying is a way of life and a tremendous responsibility. Gunfights are rarely ever clean, and somebody almost always gets hurt. Most rounds fired in combat, even by trained professionals, are not on target. That's an absolute fact. Mostly because people are almost always moving and because of stress. Moving and shooting is a skill well-beyond what even experienced range shooters are capable of. Especially if bystanders are involved.

Personally, I think someone that wants to carry should do what the U.S. military teaches it's operators to do when in plain clothes: Carry concealed where you can access the gun rapidly if you ever needed to. Train harder and more effectively rather than trust your life and everyone else's to the presumption that a criminal will respond the way you want them to.

Obviously, someone is taking the 50 quality post rule to an extreme. Long does not equal quality.

 

[Rookie]

Welcome back Jake!

 

[indyjoe]

Heh heh heh <--- quality post

That doesn't work.

<--- smells like roses.

See.

 

[rhino]

Thought he could get away with it <--- what he did there? I saw it.

 

[the1kidd03]

Welcome back Jake!

 

[CPT Nervous]

Welcome back Jake!

 

[ViperJock]

The less your enemy knows about you, the better. OC has two advantages speed and deterrence. CC takes every other advantage including surprise. What this is really about is people exercising rights. Not necessarily The effectiveness of their methods.

 

[jeremy]

The less your enemy knows about you, the better. OC has two advantages speed and deterrence. CC takes every other advantage including surprise. What this is really about is people exercising rights. Not necessarily The effectiveness of their methods.

I'll counter you butchered quote with this un-butchered one...

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

 

[ViperJock]

I'll counter you butchered quote with this un-butchered one...

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

It was a paraphrase

And I'm not sure how you are arguing. Are you saying CC are defeated? IMO the mindset of the warrior is not based on their theory of combat. A victorious warrior puts the odds in his favor as much as humanly possible before the fighting starts.

I think the tactical decision to OC creates victory in situations in which the bad guy has been defeated in his mind. CC may be more effective against a determined and intelligent enemy who may seek to eliminate resistance as their first objective.

The decision to either OC or CC could be better depending on the enemy and the situation.

 

[Kagnew]

CC may be more effective against a determined and intelligent enemy

Exactly. That's why you should refuse to engage in a fight with anyone whose heart is not in it or who appears to be stupid.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The less your enemy knows about you, the better. OC has two advantages speed and deterrence. CC takes every other advantage including surprise. What this is really about is people exercising rights. Not necessarily The effectiveness of their methods.

It took a lot longer to get to this myth than I thought it would.

 

[cobber]

No, I didn't. I applaud the OP for having the 'nads to buck what is obviously considered "politically correct" on this forum.

There is no PC on INGO. All of the PC in America comes from the Left...

 

[AndersonIN]

Kagnew: No, I didn't. I applaud the OP for having the 'nads to buck what is obviously considered "politically correct" on this forum.

Might of had the 'nads' to post but me thinks more of a troll! Where are his 'nads' now? Do you have them???

 

[357 Terms]

There should be a dedicated OC/CC sub-forum to put this crap. It's SOOO old. Nothing new is ever said...just the same old garbage from both sides.

+1

 

[ViperJock]

It took a lot longer to get to this myth than I thought it would.

Myth, huh? Its pretty basic logic actually. If someone can't see the cc they are unaware of its presence. Thus, gaining the CC-er the element of suprise or ambush depending on the situation. Not sure how that is a "myth." The superstition surrounding the concept arises in the fact that there are those who doubt this would provide a tactical advantage in a real life situation. None the less one only has to read real life encounters to see that most of the persons that successfully defended themselves produced a weapon that had been concealed either by clothing or by the person with the weapon being out of the line of site which accomplishes the same thing ie providing the defender with the element of suprise or ambush (see for example the old guy at the internet cafe).

The counter argument of course being that the situation might not have occurred at all had the perp seen the weapon and decided against engaging. This, however, is the myth--since the engagement never occurs. Then the OC-er automatically assumes that he is scaring bad guys away with every macho step.

As I said before, I think there is a time for show of force and a time for keeping your advantages to yourself. Too bad you can't know in advance which it will be.

I have pretty much ignored the cc vs oc argument in the past but I thought it might be fun to jump in on this one. Thanks for helping to make my experience enjoyable.