The Open Carry Argument

[protias]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Those are two instances that you have found. I'm not saying "absolutely" that there are more but chances are if you can point to these two instances then there have to be at least a few more that you don't know about.

Besides, the simple fact that it happened once (or twice according to you) means that it can happen again. The next time it happens it MAY be you (if you OC, that is).

I think that is the point he was making; that it happens. And if it does happen then why unecessarily increase your odds of it happening to you by OC'ing?

If it happens more often, then please show how often it happens. To me, there has only been one "gun grab," but it was an armed robbery. The guy had to even help the criminal get it out of the holster.

As for the second one, the perps decided to gamble on jumping my friend and they paid for it. The sad thing is, my friend is charged with murder 1.

Man charged in John murder. Jesus Gonzalez, 23, accused of killing Danny John

Legal Defense Fund For Jesus Gonzalez

Anything new with Jesus Gonzales case?

 

[finity]

For me, OC or CC would not change whether or not I would be involved. Its just my personality. ...

If I saw someone being hurt or threatened I would help whether I was armed or not.

Always? Every single time no matter what the situation is? What if you had your wife & newborn with you? Would you still jump in head first without a thought to their safety?

I know I wouldn't. I want the option of intervening on my own terms. I'm not saying I wouldn't help (I see myself as being helpful, too) but I want to make the choice, not have it thrust upon me.

I survived 23 years without needing a gun and most people don't carry and are perfectly fine living their lives that way. I carry for every reason I can think of:

1. Protection? Check

2. Education? You bet

3. Political statement? Absolutely

4. Because its cool? I think so.

5. Because its the right thing to do? IMO

I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons why someone might want to OC BUT...

The main reason we carry is to protect ourselves & our family. At least I hope that's why. All of those other reasons are only ancillary.

You need to decide if the trade-off is worth the potential additional risk.

I read your article, and while I don't really dissagree with him on many issues I really prefer not imputing my personal decisions into others. That being said I am not an instructor and therefore it is not my job to do so, I think that since he is he feels the ability to tell people his opinion much more freely and expect them to listen.

I didn't see anywhere in the article that he said you shouldn't OC. He said those were the reasons why he doesn’t OC & he tells others those reasons.

I believe that OC IS a deterrent from the likes of people that are afraid of guns- criminals. Of course not every single one of them are but enough that I think that is a very valid reason to OC.

Where is the proof?

Do you know for a fact that the incidence rate of attacks on OC’ers is significantly less than attacks on CC’ers (or no-C’ers)? Is the rarity of attacks on OC’ers, that we hear about, due to the fact that OC’ers are so rare in the first place?

Would you wear expensive jewelry or flash a bunch of cash in a high risk part of town? The OC’ed gun potentially has the same effect. It draws attention to you & that attention MAY be from someone who isn’t afraid to try to take it from you. Those kinds of people do exist as shown in the (at least two) examples just recently given by Protias.

If the act of OC’ing increases your odds of being attacked where you otherwise might not have been then the act of OC’ing runs counter to the basic reason that we should be carrying – protecting ourselves.

I also believe in teaching people their rights.

Isn’t that the same as what the guy was doing in the article? Just teaching people to make the best decision that they can based on his experience?

I see no problem with that.

I also see no problem with you teaching others about their Rights. It’s a laudable goal.

The problem I have is that the impetus behind those “teachable moments” could put you at risk.

I don't really think it is necessary to get as worked up as some people do about it.

I completely agree with that. As I said I’m really not anti-OC at all. If you want to OC then go for it. But just make sure that you do it for the right reasons without putting yourself at more risk than you may be willing to take.

I think it is mostly how you carry yourself and where you go.

That’s funny. The guy in the article used that exact idea to support his contention that it might not be the OC’ing that is the deterrent but how you handle yourself.

So again it goes back to “if the crime will be deterred simply by you carrying yourself well then why OC if there is still a chance in OTHER circumstances that it may increase your risk”?

Hang on. I think you got something backwards.

The extremely rare nature of visibly armed civilians still being selected as the target of a crime would suggest that it isn't an increase in the odds of it happening to you, it's a decrease.

The unarmed and those who conceal to blend in with them are regularly attacked and robbed in staggering numbers.

As I asked above, is it the rarity of OC that is the cause of the rarity in attacks on them?

IOW, it’s kind of like saying that people who don’t carry are attacked in much greater numbers than people who carry CC. Well, duh. There are a much greater percentage of people who don’t carry compared to those that do so they will BOUND to be attacked in greater numbers.

Since that is the case then using your logic one could make the argument that CC is a deterrent to crime, as well.

No, to prove your assertion you would need to know the RATES at which the attacks occur on each group (OC/CC/NC). As far as I know there are no such statistics.

Come to think of it, I must be a huge deterrent to crime since I’ve never been physically attacked or robbed. Even my rate of attack is zero which is even better than the OC’ers. If anyone wants the benefit of my security services, I’m available for the right price.

They are less risk for easier pay in the criminal's mind.

Not in ALL criminal’s minds.

If no one had EVER been attacked for their gun then I could say you would have a stronger argument. Since there have been cases where the OC’er was attacked for their visible weapon then that is an assertion that has been disproven.

Presenting the image of a softer target is what will naturally increase your odds of being selected for a criminal attack.

Possibly…unless the target of the attack is the OC’d gun. Then it will increase your odds since you may not have been attacked without the motive of the OC’d gun.

Not according to the criminals in the article:

"The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave."

Their scout observed the openly carrying individuals and did not want to mess with them. If they were scared of the possibility or an ordinance (if they were even aware of it), they would have planned the robbery in another county.

So let's just say that we are talking about exactly the same thing.

Oops, my bad. I thought he was talking about the Kennesaw ordinance requiring that every household had a gun. I missed the link to the story above.

Although, I never said that guns never deter crime. That wouldn’t make any logical sense.

It’s all the balance of risk to reward. That balance is the point of this discussion.

FTFY. The accounts of civilians being selected for attack specifically due to the presence of their visible gun are wildly popular in hypothetical examples but actually occur roughly never.

Not true. Protias has given two fine examples from his small sphere of knowledge in WI.

We have heard of a couple here in IN, too. One I remember from a couple of years ago was when a guy was walking to the convenience store at night & two guys came up behind him & violently knocked him down then stole his OC’d gun. Sorry I can’t remember the details or find a link but I’m sure you remember of it.

I think I remember another (can’t remember from where) in that a security guard was targeted first & killed before the bank robbers did the actual robbery.

There have been others but, again, the details escape me.

No matter how you do the math that doesn’t equal “never”.

In all those instances, the case can be made that having the OC’d gun INCREASED the odds of them being attacked. Even if you don’t believe that the gun was the target then you must admit that the gun definitely didn’t decrease the odds of them being attacked since they were, in fact, attacked.

The saying goes that all politics is local. I will say that a corollary to that is that all crime is individual. If YOU get attacked because of YOUR gun then YOU don’t give a rat’s behind how much of a deterrent someone else’s gun was for THEM.

To those people in the mentioned examples the gun didn’t deter anything & may have increased the risk to them. Therefore the net effect of the gun was an increase in risk to them INDIVIDUALLY.

Depends on the evidence you trust. Normally, I don't trust criminals, but when the majority claim that they avoid the armed citizen even more than they avoid police... well, I actually think they're telling the truth.

Where is that written? I don’t think I’ve seen that study before.

I have seen the one in which they say that they are more worried about burglaries where guns are allowed because of the UNKNOWN of what’s behind that door when they kick it in. If they KNOW about the gun then they can always plan around it if they decide they want to continue their crime.

Similarly, CC is a deterrent due to that same “unknown”. They don’t really know which ones have the guns if they aren’t carried in the open. The ones that are scared won’t know who to attack so they might not attack at all. The ones who aren’t will attack anyway.

If EVERYBODY who carried guns carried them openly, then the criminals who were afraid would know who to attack without concern. The ones who weren’t afraid would still attack no matter what & the ones who aren’t afraid & needed a gun would attack FOR THE GUN.

In that regard, CC is better for a society than OC.

& I’m better for society than all of those guns combined. Man, it’s too bad everyone isn’t like me. Just think how wonderful the world would be… oh, wait, um, yes, back to the discussion…

If it happens more often, then please show how often it happens.

“More often” than what? Never? I think YOU’VE shown that yourself.

Also, I didn’t say that it absolutely does happen “more often”. I’m just saying that there is the logical possibility that it could happen. & if it happens to you, it sucks.

To me, there has only been one "gun grab," but it was an armed robbery.

Well there’s the funny thing about the argument from the “show me the times that it has happened” side – the phrase “To me”. I’m not a religious guy but to approach that statement from the religious angle (or is it “angel” in that case ) – I thought that god was the only omniscient being.

IOW, you can’t say that just because you only know of two instances in your small area in the world that it hasn’t happened anywhere else or that those two instances you know of are even the only ones in your area. There could be others you never heard about.

If it has happened once, it can happen again. I don’t want it to happen to me.

As for the second one, the perps decided to gamble on jumping my friend and they paid for it. The sad thing is, my friend is charged with murder 1.

Hmm, imagine that. The gun wasn’t actually a magic talisman that prevented the attack.

The point is, AGAIN, that no one knows how many times the gun is a deterrent because you can’t know about crimes that don’t happen. Well, Ok, almost never.

We do know, however, that the gun has been the motive in SOME crimes.

I think I agree that I want the OPTION to decide if I get involved & if something does happen I want the OPTION to decide when to bring the gun into play.

I will say again that I’m not anti-OC. I’ve done it a few times myself. I will not demand anyone’s Right to OC be taken away & will even defend your Right to do it. I’m not going to call anyone a cowboy or anything of the sort. I’m just engaging in interesting discussion on the subject.

(Why do I feel the need to keep saying that anyway? It’s kind of like people saying that they’re not a racist & trying to prove it by saying they have black friends)

Anyway, if you want to OC then carry on!...openly!

 

[chandler10r1]

Concealed only here

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Concealed only here

Chandler, this thread is much more than a role call of who does what, WHY do you restrict yourslef to one type of carry?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Finity,

I didn't qoute you becuase the way it was broken up but I will try to respond:

1. You discount the fact that OC prevents crime based on the very few instances where it can be assumed, yet freely accept that it increases the likelyhood of an attack on the OCer. I don't believe this is right either. I think it would be more fair given the small test pool on the subject that we need to agree the OC has an equal effect given that you cannot control the circumstances i.e. you can't predict criminals. Some it would very likely deter, and some exceptionally stupid/brave wrongdoers might actually attack you for your OCed gun. Just like they may attack you for your jewlry, car, clothes, the way you look, the color of your skin, how desperate THEY are etc.

The point I am making is people can attack for any reason at any time, just like some animals in the wild the bigger and scarier they are the LESS likely it is that they are attacked. An OC gun is like showing your teeth in this instance. My teeth just may be bigger than yours so don't mess with me. this is my OPINION and I treat it as nothing more, everyone is intitled to their own.

2. I never said I would ALWAYS do something. If it would put my family at too great a risk I would not be a very good father/husband IMO. I would help if at all possible given the circumstances.

3. I don't see it as a trade off so to me of course it is worth it. I think about my actions very carefully before I do something as serious as carry a gun in public and I weighed a lot of things when I decided to do it publicly and so far I stand behind that decision 100%.

4. The instructor in the article said he wasn;t anti-OC. That to me is like when Obama was trying to get elected and said he would stand up for our 2nd amendment rights. Sure, what he thought they were.

I saw the article as being very one sided without much beyond opinion to back it up. I don't go around telling people that they should OC and give reasons why the risk of CC is greater. I also said that is probably because he was an instructor in the area and he was expected to give his professional opinion on the subject whereas I myself am not-yet

 

[finity]

1. You discount the fact that OC prevents crime based on the very few instances where it can be assumed, yet freely accept that it increases the likelyhood of an attack on the OCer. I don't believe this is right either. I think it would be more fair given the small test pool on the subject that we need to agree the OC has an equal effect given that you cannot control the circumstances i.e. you can't predict criminals. Some it would very likely deter, and some exceptionally stupid/brave wrongdoers might actually attack you for your OCed gun. Just like they may attack you for your jewlry, car, clothes, the way you look, the color of your skin, how desperate THEY are etc.

The point I am making is people can attack for any reason at any time, just like some animals in the wild the bigger and scarier they are the LESS likely it is that they are attacked. An OC gun is like showing your teeth in this instance. My teeth just may be bigger than yours so don't mess with me. this is my OPINION and I treat it as nothing more, everyone is intitled to their own.

I don't discount the deterrent effect completely. I just say that the deterrent effect may not be as great as is assumed by many OC'ers.

I also propose that the increase in risk may be greater than the OC'ers assume.

I agree that it's very possible that the net effect is ZERO. Which is not a position that many staunch OC supporters would like to admit.

2. I never said I would ALWAYS do something. If it would put my family at too great a risk I would not be a very good father/husband IMO. I would help if at all possible given the circumstances.

If you say you wouldn't ALWAYS intervene then why do you put yourself in a position to have the option to NOT intervene taken away from you by carry in the open when we have no good evidence that there is a significant benefit to your safety carrying that way?

If you conceal you have options as to when or even IF you deploy the gun. If you OC then the BG decides his actions based on the fact that you have a gun right from the very beginning. You may not even know that BG is there yet. At that point the gun is already a factor in the encounter whether you wanted it to be or not. Ask Bill B about that. I think he knows very well the consequences of an OC gun & he wasn't involved in a life or death struggle just a simple domestic dispute.

3. I don't see it as a trade off so to me of course it is worth it. I think about my actions very carefully before I do something as serious as carry a gun in public and I weighed a lot of things when I decided to do it publicly and so far I stand behind that decision 100%.

And I fully support that decision. I just want to throw some things out for thought & discussion.

4. The instructor in the article said he wasn;t anti-OC. That to me is like when Obama was trying to get elected and said he would stand up for our 2nd amendment rights. Sure, what he thought they were.

Sooo...since I'm arguing on the side of the instructor in this case & I've stated that I absolutely support the Right for you to OC, does that mean that I'm lying, as well?
I saw the article as being very one sided without much beyond opinion to back it up. I don't go around telling people that they should OC and give reasons why the risk of CC is greater. I also said that is probably because he was an instructor in the area and he was expected to give his professional opinion on the subject whereas I myself am not-yet [/QUOTE]

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I don't discount the deterrent effect completely. I just say that the deterrent effect may not be as great as is assumed by many OC'ers.

I also propose that the increase in risk may be greater than the OC'ers assume.

I agree that it's very possible that the net effect is ZERO. Which is not a position that many staunch OC supporters would like to admit.

I don't believe personally that the net is zero but since neither side can prove it definitively then I am ok with saying it evens out until someone can prove otherwise.

If you say you wouldn't ALWAYS intervene then why do you put yourself in a position to have the option to NOT intervene taken away from you by carry in the open when we have no good evidence that there is a significant benefit to your safety carrying that way?

If you conceal you have options as to when or even IF you deploy the gun. If you OC then the BG decides his actions based on the fact that you have a gun right from the very beginning. You may not even know that BG is there yet. At that point the gun is already a factor in the encounter whether you wanted it to be or not. Ask Bill B about that. I think he knows very well the consequences of an OC gun & he wasn't involved in a life or death struggle just a simple domestic dispute.

I do not agree that OC means that I must intervene. It is still my decision. Please elaborate on the Bill B episode.

And I fully support that decision. I just want to throw some things out for thought & discussion.

Thanks. I appreciate a good conversation as well.

[/I]

Sooo...since I'm arguing on the side of the instructor in this case & I've stated that I absolutely support the Right for you to OC, does that mean that I'm lying, as well?

Of course not! It was just an image I had in my head and admitedly it was a little harsh.

I saw the article as being very one sided without much beyond opinion to back it up. I don't go around telling people that they should OC and give reasons why the risk of CC is greater. I also said that is probably because he was an instructor in the area and he was expected to give his professional opinion on the subject whereas I myself am not-yet

[/QUOTE]

Finity, I think you know how much I respect your opinions and I know you have had my back on multiple occasions. I enjoy putting my beliefs to the fire to see how pure they are.

 

[ATM]

...

Allow me to start by saying that your huge response to nearly everything ever posted in this thread at once is an affront to succinctness and all that I regard as holy. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

...As I asked above, is it the rarity of OC that is the cause of the rarity in attacks on them?

Possibly. It could also be the rarity of lions that is the cause of the rarity in attacks on them when compared to the number of attacks on gazelles.
But, proportional to population, I doubt either case. There's probably a more compelling reason for the disparity.

Not in ALL criminal’s minds.

If no one had EVER been attacked for their gun then I could say you would have a stronger argument. Since there have been cases where the OC’er was attacked for their visible weapon then that is an assertion that has been disproven.

The general concept will be in most if not all criminals' minds. Some may weigh the odds differently due to any number of reasons, but they will still be weighing, at some level, risk vs. reward.

And I haven't yet seen a case that indicated a civilian had been attacked specifically due to the fact that their gun was visible. The rare cases only suggest that it was in spite of that fact, not that it was the sole impetus.

Possibly…unless the target of the attack is the OC’d gun. Then it will increase your odds since you may not have been attacked without the motive of the OC’d gun.

Here's that roughly never again. Happens to LEO on occasion when confronting or aprehending a criminal places them in close proximity and a desperate grab targeting the weapon is an act of attempted evasion or suicide. For the non-enforcing average citizen, this is not what I consider to be a legitimate concern.

Oops, my bad. I thought...

So your correctness is not absolute after all?

Not true. Protias has given two fine examples from his small sphere of knowledge in WI.

Those examples are far from conclusive that the visible weapon compelled the robbery and attack. In spite of - not due to. I have seen no proof that the armed status of the victim was even noticed.
Many do not notice even a visibly carried weapon, others may not be deterred by it, but drawing an attack due to it remains a hypothetical notion to my knowledge.

We have heard of a couple here in IN, too. One I remember from a couple of years ago was when a guy was walking to the convenience store at night & two guys came up behind him & violently knocked him down then stole his OC’d gun. Sorry I can’t remember the details or find a link but I’m sure you remember of it.

When they take a concealed gun after knocking someone out to rob them, we don't blame the victim selection on the gun, why do you think it was the prime selection motivator here? At night, again, they may have had no idea he was even armed until they searched him for his valuables.

I think I remember another (can’t remember from where) in that a security guard was targeted first & killed before the bank robbers did the actual robbery.

Which is why we normally separate uniformed guards from regular armed patrons - the criminal can avoid the threat of the armed citizen by simply waiting for them to leave. They must deal with the guard if they really want to rob that place. Most criminals will still just pick an easier place.

No matter how you do the math that doesn’t equal “never”.

It's not an issue of math, it's an issue of trying to use examples where criminals were not deterred from selecting visibly armed citizens as examples of those citizens being targeted specifically because they were visibly armed.

My math still says roughly never. (I only say "roughly" because it may have indeed been the case in these very few instances that the visible gun was the primary motivator of selection, but there is no real support for that conclusion to be drawn.)

In all those instances, the case can be made that having the OC’d gun INCREASED the odds of them being attacked.

If that case can be made, you should try to make it. I find that assumption to be ridiculous.

Even if you don’t believe that the gun was the target then you must admit that the gun definitely didn’t decrease the odds of them being attacked since they were, in fact, attacked.

Nope, I don't even admit to that. Please check your logic.
You're suggesting that because an event occurs, the fact that it did occur somehow changes the odds or the methods of manipulating those odds prior to an event? Try again.

Where is that written? I don’t think I’ve seen that study before.

NRA-ILA :: The Armed Criminal In America

...In that regard, CC is better for a society than OC.

I'm glad that some CC so the bad guys are "kept guessing" as a benefit to the unarmed in society. It's a nice gesture to afford them a bit of deterrence for which they are not willing to bear the responsiblity themselves.

However, my primary reason for carrying is my own safety. At this point, I'm not willing to give up the direct deterrence effect (among the other benefits I get from OC) of being visibly armed. Besides, there are plenty of others concealing - certainly enough for the "halo effect" to provide whatever beneficial impact it was going to have for a given area.

Hmm, imagine that. The gun wasn’t actually a magic talisman that prevented the attack.

Not a response to me, but your foray deep into the straw field for this "classic" has been duly noted.

 

[dljx3]

What a well thought out discussion.

What do you think of "too big to fail?"

 

[ATM]

What a well thought out discussion.

What do you think of "too big to fail?"

Not sure how it applies in the context of carry method.

I prefer the phrase "too legit to quit".

 

[mrortega]

There was some surveillance video released today that may be associated with an armed robbery at the east side Wesselmans grocery Sunday night. A guy in a stripped shirt walks in, walks around then back out. They don't say how soon before the robbery that took place but the thought is he was casing the place. I do believe if he had seen an armed citizen in there that the robbery would not have taken place. I don't believe the punks would have had the b**ls to do it if they thought even one armed person was there. So in this case I'd have to vote for OC.

 

[Jubba]

Why wouldn't the robber just wait outside until the armed citizen left?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Why wouldn't the robber just wait outside until the armed citizen left?

They could, and they might. Thats the great hing about free will- we have absolutely no idea or control over what the person next to us is going to do at any given moment.

The best we can do is use previous examples. What has happened before is that criminals do not want to be shot. They also do not want to be caught and they know that they typically look suspicious when they are waiting around for someone to leave. That suspicion leads to someone possibly catching them. History shows us that criminal types will leave if they meet some type of resistance because they are by nature cowards.

COULD they have waited until an OCer left? Sure. But then maybe a cop or someone else with a gun would be there by that time. Thay pick the time and the place, no one id forcing them to rob anywhere ao they just pick a different target or wait.

 

[mrortega]

Why wouldn't the robber just wait outside until the armed citizen left?

If there is one openly armed citizen the punks probably figured the store is carry-friendly. There may be others in there concealed carrying. If there is the slightest chance of a fair fight they will opt out and try the pharmacy down the street or someone at the mall carrying a purse.

And furthermore, even an idiot knows the cops can't just start shooting when they pop into the store. They will probably do something like give them the chance to put their guns down. But guess what? I'm scared and I'll start shooting at them if I feel I or anyone else in the store is in imminent danger of grave harm or death. I'm not trying to make an arrest but just freakin' out. Remember, us civilians aren't trained and we are extremely dangerous.

 

[finity]

I do not agree that OC means that I must intervene. It is still my decision.

If you can agree that a crime COULD be initiated due to the sight of the OC gun then you have to agree that the decision to initiate that crime is made solely by the BG. Once the decision is made to initiate the crime then, at that point, you have NO OTHER RECOURSE except to fight.

I suppose you do have one other option & that is to just give up & submit to their demands. You could do that if you CC, too, but I think you would have a better chance of submitting & coming out uninjured if the BG didn’t know you were armed. If a BG decides to attack due to the OC gun (& for ATM, IN SPITE OF the OC gun) then there is a good chance that the BG will be READY & willing to move to the next level of violence in order to get the gun or other valuables that he wants.

& before those people come in & say "from my cold dead hands" there are, in fact, some times when it may be in your best interest to delay or even not fight back. It's completely situationally dependent. That's why having options is good.

Please elaborate on the Bill B episode.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/92024-saint_john_indiana_not_gun_friendly.html#post1052687

It wasn’t an attack per se due to his OC gun but the OC gun WAS a factor in the incident through no fault of his own (except for the OC) & he had NO control of the legal ramifications for several months afterward. It’s exactly the same situation (but worse) for a crime committed because of the OC gun.

The gun is a factor in the incident well before YOU even have any idea that there IS an incident.

Finity, I think you know how much I respect your opinions and I know you have had my back on multiple occasions. I enjoy putting my beliefs to the fire to see how pure they are.

The general concept will be in most if not all criminals' minds. Some may weigh the odds differently due to any number of reasons, but they will still be weighing, at some level, risk vs. reward.

Agreed.

And I haven't yet seen a case that indicated a civilian had been attacked specifically due to the fact that their gun was visible. The rare cases only suggest that it was in spite of that fact, not that it was the sole impetus.

In addition to the one’s posted before by Protias:

http://www.koat.com/r/26938084/detail.html

I don’t know if this is the incident I remembered before but it is similar:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2006/073106robNewtonPatton.htm

Not to mention all of the gang activity in which criminals attack other criminals who they have a VERY good reason to believe are armed. It may not be EXACTLY like a BG robbing an OC’er…no, it’s worse. The BG is attacking someone who is most likely armed & probably has no problem using deadly force to protect themselves as opposed to your average LAC who isn’t typically in the mind-set to kill another person.

Here's that roughly never again. Happens to LEO on occasion when confronting or aprehending a criminal places them in close proximity and a desperate grab targeting the weapon is an act of attempted evasion or suicide. For the non-enforcing average citizen, this is not what I consider to be a legitimate concern.

If a gun-grab is such a far-fetched idea that you don’t consider it a legitimate concern then why do so many so highly recommend good retention techniques with a good retention holster?

Including you?:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/167467-the_only_reason_i_ever_conceal_is_to_avoid_cops.html#post2150859

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/125745-oc_pllllease_someone_aware_me.html#post1542945

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/83432-oc_rant_at_the_cowboy_forum.html#post1065243

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/59766-one_in_the_chamber-3.html#post653608

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/37307-common_oc_cc_threadjack-2.html#post420960

etc.

Obviously a gun grab isn’t THAT far out of the realm of possibility. If it CAN happen it can happen to YOU.

Those examples are far from conclusive that the visible weapon compelled the robbery and attack. In spite of - not due to. I have seen no proof that the armed status of the victim was even noticed.

Many do not notice even a visibly carried weapon, others may not be deterred by it, but drawing an attack due to it remains a hypothetical notion to my knowledge.

When they take a concealed gun after knocking someone out to rob them, we don't blame the victim selection on the gun, why do you think it was the prime selection motivator here? At night, again, they may have had no idea he was even armed until they searched him for his valuables.

Denying it doesn’t make it not true.

If the ONLY thing they take is the OC gun & flee then what do you think the motivation might be?

If they kill the guard then rob the bank then what do you think the motivation might be?

Which is why we normally separate uniformed guards from regular armed patrons - the criminal can avoid the threat of the armed citizen by simply waiting for them to leave. They must deal with the guard if they really want to rob that place. Most criminals will still just pick an easier place.

Most, yes, but not ALL.

If they could just find some place else to rob then wouldn’t they do that all the time?

No, because there actually are BG’s out there who don’t find the gun to be a deterrent. Some are even crazy enough to see the OC gun as a challenge. Those are the one’s that I’m directing my discussion toward.

It's not an issue of math, it's an issue of trying to use examples where criminals were not deterred from selecting visibly armed citizens as examples of those citizens being targeted specifically because they were visibly armed.

My math still says roughly never. (I only say "roughly" because it may have indeed been the case in these very few instances that the visible gun was the primary motivator of selection, but there is no real support for that conclusion to be drawn.)

I’m not saying definitively that those were the reasons in every instance but if you look at the details with an open mind it seems very plausible, if not likely, that the reason was DUE TO, not IN SPITE OF.

Not a response to me, but your foray deep into the straw field for this "classic" has been duly noted.

Oh come on man. You should know I’m only joshin’ (sorry, Josh) .

 

[cbseniour]

I don't normally open carry but one day this week I was doing claim inspections and had my colt on a belt holster. As the day got warmer I shed my coat and decided not to worry about the gun showing. My next stop I encountered the assistant chief of a local police department. I noticed him checking out my side arm but nothing was said and it was not an issue.
I'm getting much more comfortable with people seeing my weapon.

 

[ATM]

...
http://www.koat.com/r/26938084/detail.html

I don’t know if this is the incident I remembered before but it is similar:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2006/073106robNewtonPatton.htm

You did find a couple of bizarre ones.
The first one was a loony who seemed to think he needed to disarm the guy who might be planning to rob the place. Could have been partly because the guy was carrying illegally, I'm not sure.

The second one may have been a simple robbery or it could have been that they selected him specifically for the gun. Still don't know.

Not to mention all of the gang activity in which criminals attack other criminals who they have a VERY good reason to believe are armed. It may not be EXACTLY like a BG robbing an OC’er…no, it’s worse...

Not at all alike. If a criminal wants to secure their area from other criminals, those criminals will likely be armed as well - no getting around it.
If a criminal just wants to rob someone, they can choose one that is not likely armed over a visibly armed citizen, since they're not protecting anything from the citizen, simply victimizing them for gain.

If a gun-grab is such a far-fetched idea that you don’t consider it a legitimate concern then why do so many so highly recommend good retention techniques with a good retention holster?

Including you?: ...

I've used the word "retention" 5 times in my 3 years on INGO? Huh.

Check to see how many times I've used the word "bacon".

Actually, I'm concerned with the aspect of retention that keeps a gun from falling out of the holster more than I'm worried about active retention against a gun grab. You can see that context in a couple of my posts.

Obviously a gun grab isn’t THAT far out of the realm of possibility. If it CAN happen it can happen to YOU.

Anything CAN happen, that doesn't make EVERYTHING a legitimate concern. Prioritize your concern and efforts, don't treat every possibility with the same probability. I wouldn't have time left to be concerned with more legitimate probabilities.

Denying it doesn’t make it not true.

Making assumptions doesn't make it true, either.

If the ONLY thing they take is the OC gun & flee then what do you think the motivation might be?

Getting away quickly?

If they kill the guard then rob the bank then what do you think the motivation might be?

To get something specifically held at only that bank?

Most, yes, but not ALL.

If they could just find some place else to rob then wouldn’t they do that all the time?

No, because there actually are BG’s out there who don’t find the gun to be a deterrent. Some are even crazy enough to see the OC gun as a challenge. Those are the one’s that I’m directing my discussion toward.

Oh, so you'd like to discuss the rare anomalies rather than the most common. That's not the method I use for making choices regarding my personal safety. Focus first on the common and probable before venturing off into the odd yet still possible scripts.

I’m not saying definitively that those were the reasons in every instance but if you look at the details with an open mind it seems very plausible, if not likely, that the reason was DUE TO, not IN SPITE OF.

Maybe plausible. Extremely infrequent, but still plausible.

Oh come on man. You should know I’m only joshin’ (sorry, Josh) .

Good to hear, and yes, I thought it odd for you to do so.
Maybe a smilie would have helped others to know that you weren't really desperate enough to try that.
(Some are.)

 

[Hayseed_40]

finity:

didnt you realize that ATM is like that "bloody mary and the mirror legend"? You quote him enough in one thread and he will come to haunt you.

And yes he probably said "bacon" more times than any word.

 

[finity]

ATM et al,

I really do generally agree with the idea that OC could be a deterrent to MOST typical crimes.

The only real problem that I have with OC is the one that TF & I discussed upthread - options.

Since we know that BG's can (& HAVE) attacked IN SPITE OF the gun (even putting aside the "due to" possibility) I don't like the idea that OCing removes some of my options in dealing with that attack.

We can't quantify the deterrent effect. As was stated in the article, the REAL deterrent could simply be the way you carry yourself while OCing & not the presence of the gun.

We can't quantify the "due to" effect except to agree that it's probably very small. But I think that also depends on where you live, too. I think your probability of the "due to" effect goes up dramatically living in parts of LA, Miami, NYC, Detroit, etc. compared to Crawfordsville or Auburn, IN.

We know that the chances of the average person being attacked is so small that if we used the most "common and probable" theory of self-defense preparations then the great majority of us don't even need to be carrying at all, let alone OCing. (No, I'm not saying that to carry there has to be a need - so don't start on that - I fully support your Right to carry for absolutely no reason at all )

The bottom line is that I carry to defend myself & family and I LIKE having options if the worst ever does come to pass. It also seems TO ME that the possible benefits that I may get for OCing are significantly outweighed by the almost definite hassles caused by OCing. FOR ME that means carrying concealed the majority of the time. That doesn't mean I'll NEVER do it. It's just not going to be my normal mode of carry.

To those that do OC -

Keep up the good fight.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

 

[ATM]

...Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Likewise.