The Open Carry Argument

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Did I say "all" CCers? No.
Did I say "danileson"? No.
My only point is, you don't find OCers bashing people because they CC. It IS a one way street in that respect.
Oh and I don't call them names for doing so, nor should you.

 

[MikeDVB]

I OC, I CC... I straddle the fence.

Just depends on what I'm doing . Mowing the yard or riding the motorcycle, for example, here lately I've CC'd. Business meetings I CC.

Normal day-to-day activities where I am not wearing a motorcycle jacket, regular jacket, or yard work I OC.

Meh, I don't see why so many people care so much about what others choose to do or not to do.

 

[esrice]

My only point is, you don't find OCers bashing people because they CC. It IS a one way street in that respect.

Gotta disagree with you there.

Many times when the subject comes up I've read where OC advocates call CCers "cowards" and "unwilling to stand up for the 2A", etc. They talk about them "hiding" their guns and being "scared" to display their rights.

Not all of them are like that, mind you, but I've heard it said before.

 

[JLL101]

I have not read any others posters to this thread but I could not help but to respond to a few of the many amazing rationalizations made by the author of this article and cited by the individual who started the thread. All the verbiage in the article but no cites to credible authorities on the subject. Open carry or concealed carry is ones personal choice but, come on, do not base your thinking on the subject based on this article and certainly not for many of the rationals (rationalizations) put forth by this author. Do your homework. There are several articles in respected publications on the subject over the years that address this issue. The following are a few of the authors comments that I take exception with.

"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."

I have not met a person in my 66 years on this earth who wants to be victimized. Someone wanting to be victimized - that position standing on its own is amazingly irrational. But then wanting the act to happen so they can then whip out their defensive weapon to surprise the assailant simply makes no sense. How can an article with this premise embedded in the text be considered creditable?


"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."

Exactly how do you know this? Is this based on credible documented studies by industry recognized professionals? Please provide documentation to substantiate this claim. I am not at all sure some assailants would be deterred. Please see the next response.


"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."

There are a lot of assumptions that go into this claim. We had a neighbor out our way a few months ago who had an unknown individual beating on his back door. The neighbor retrieved his defensive weapon, then warned the potential intruder that he was armed and ready to use deadly force if necessary. These warnings did not deter the drugged up individual . When the bad guy further attempted to enter our neighbor's home, the intruder was shot. Self preservation was not an option that this guy considered as he was much too much under the influence to rationally analyze the situation and recognize the threat to his life. Do you really think open carry would have changed this outcome?



"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"

Where did this BS come from? Do you really think all/most violent crimes are this structured? This sounds like something from a high school (junior high?) psychology book written by a self-proclaimed expert in criminal behavior.


"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."

I think it is foolish to assume there are five steps that happen with violent crime. I find it very difficult to belive that all the bad guys out there goes through these steps consciously or sub-consciously prior to committing a violent crime. Is there any research to prove this process occurs?


"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?"

Wrong! See the previous comments about the drugged up guy breaking into my neighbor's house. How many professional analysis based on case evidence support this claim?


"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."

Do you have any credible evidence to prove or disprove this point? This just suggest one should not go into a 7-11 so one will not get shot.


"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."

I have never considered surprise to be a viable rational for my chosen method of carry. If I feel uncomfortable in a certain environment, I do not draw my weapon. I do, however, ready myself for a quick reaction if a situation were to arise. So far in my several years of carry, I have done this 3 or 4 times. I have been fortunate to have never had to engage in a defensive action.


"The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one."

Certainly the thought process by the author is simple and I totally disagree. That is in incredibly stupid opinion not based in fact. Surprise, in the tactical sense, can be used to great advantage in either the offensive or defensive position. There are many military and civilian case studies to this point. The author needs to do some serious reading.


"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."

Why do you think it is only some who fear open carry and that the majority are OK with it? Where did you acquire this knowledge? Please educate me.


"This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual."

Really? I think this is the most amazing statement in this otherwise mostly outrageous article.


These are just some of this author's comments that I take exception with. The whole open carry vs concealed carry debate area is so much more complex that this author's attempt to justify his position. This article is just one individuals simplistic rationalizations for open carry and should not be taken in its totality as a serious analysis. Do your own homework.

 

[mloney2]

No disrespect to anyone

I believe we should be able to carry how ever we want

 

[jmb1031]

Great article. I will be sharing with my brothers who both think that by me open carrying I am making myself a target. I have tried sharing the exact logic and reasoning you did, but they never listen to me. Coming from someone else, might make them wake up to reality.

 

[ATM]

I have not read any others posters to this thread but I could not help but to respond to a few of the many amazing rationalizations made by the author of this article and cited by the individual who started the thread.

Perhaps if you'd read a bit further, you'd have found that many of the individual points have been hashed out quite a bit already rather than putting all this in one huge post.

All the verbiage in the article but no cites to credible authorities on the subject.

Who are the credible authorities he should cite in his own opinion essay?

Open carry or concealed carry is ones personal choice but, come on, do not base your thinking on the subject based on this article and certainly not for many of the rationals (rationalizations) put forth by this author.

As the author stated, don't base it on the popular myths or hypothetical notions he challenges, either.

Do your homework. There are several articles in respected publications on the subject over the years that address this issue.

I noticed you didn't burden yourself with citing to any credible authorities here.

The following are a few of the authors comments that I take exception with.

This is going to be long and dragged out but I'll try to catch most of them.

"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."

I have not met a person in my 66 years on this earth who wants to be victimized. Someone wanting to be victimized - that position standing on its own is amazingly irrational. But then wanting the act to happen so they can then whip out their defensive weapon to surprise the assailant simply makes no sense. How can an article with this premise embedded in the text be considered creditable?

Heck no, they won't admit it when you state it plainly like that, but their fantasy bravado comes out (especially on internet forums) with common comments like "not showing your hold cards" or "they won't know I'm armed until my bullets are hitting their chest", etc.

Many of these comments can be found in this very thread discussion.

"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."

Exactly how do you know this? Is this based on credible documented studies by industry recognized professionals?

Yes, surveys of industry recognized professional criminals.

Please provide documentation to substantiate this claim.

It is cited elsewhere in this thread's further discussion.

I am not at all sure some assailants would be deterred.

Of course not, just many. No deterrent works on everyone - also discussed in greater detail in this thread discussion.

Please see the next response.

Why don't I skip it since you are obviously confusing "deter" with "prevent" which is not the argument at all.

"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"

Where did this BS come from?

You did click the BLUE link, right? (I reminded the readers to do so at the end of the post.)

Do you really think all/most violent crimes are this structured?

Do you really think they're not? Sounds like you should make an attempt at refuting their conclusions ...or at least deride them with no stated basis.

This sounds like something from a high school (junior high?) psychology book written by a self-proclaimed expert in criminal behavior.

I see you took the easier path.

"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."

I think it is foolish to assume there are five steps that happen with violent crime. I find it very difficult to belive that all the bad guys out there goes through these steps consciously or sub-consciously prior to committing a violent crime. Is there any research to prove this process occurs?

You're the one who doesn't seem to have read the link.

Go do that and then start a new process of refuting it if you like.

"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?"

Wrong! See the previous comments about the drugged up guy breaking into my neighbor's house. How many professional analysis based on case evidence support this claim?

I skipped that one earlier because nobody claims that open carry will prevent every violent attack, it is simply a deterrent factor. No, not if they can't see it (as through a door in the case you chose), any more than having a concealed gun would.

However, in many situations, the visibility of the openly carried gun would become known before the actual attack and could certainly impact the decision of victim selection.

"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."

Do you have any credible evidence to prove or disprove this point?

Yes, the 'first one shot' criticism is still claimed frequently. Everyone who has read this thread has seen it multiple times with their own eyes.

This just suggest one should not go into a 7-11 so one will not get shot.

No, it's simply a generic and often claimed hypothetical with very little merit or real world 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."

I have never considered surprise to be a viable rational for my chosen method of carry.

Then the author was not challenging something you claim, yet the claim is quite common so it found a place of mention in his essay.

If I feel uncomfortable in a certain environment, I do not draw my weapon. I do, however, ready myself for a quick reaction if a situation were to arise. So far in my several years of carry, I have done this 3 or 4 times. I have been fortunate to have never had to engage in a defensive action.

Sounds about normal regardless of carry method.

"The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one."

Certainly the thought process by the author is simple and I totally disagree. That is in incredibly stupid opinion not based in fact. Surprise, in the tactical sense, can be used to great advantage in either the offensive or defensive position. There are many military and civilian case studies to this point. The author needs to do some serious reading.

Wait. Now you disagree? You just said that defensive surprise wasn't a viable rationale for your carry method.

Whatever. You're making a counter-claim and appealing to studies without cites again. Guess that makes it just another opinion, huh?

"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."

Why do you think it is only some who fear open carry and that the majority are OK with it? Where did you acquire this knowledge? Please educate me.

He said, "a genuine fear of firearms", not open carry or even of the general right to carry. Most people are not at that level of irrational fear of the object even if they have strong anti-carry sentiments.

"This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual."

Really? I think this is the most amazing statement in this otherwise mostly outrageous article.

OK, why? Did you think the other common reasons he challenged are more reasonable arguments than this or do you have some other reasoning against open carry which wasn't addressed?

These are just some of this author's comments that I take exception with. The whole open carry vs concealed carry debate area is so much more complex that this author's attempt to justify his position. This article is just one individuals simplistic rationalizations for open carry and should not be taken in its totality as a serious analysis.

How much serious analysis does it truly require to decide if you want to cover your gun or just leave it uncovered?

I mean, that's all it boils down to.

I honestly don't care how you choose to carry (and I don't think the author of the essay does, either), I just enjoy arguing.

Wow that was long!

Do your own homework.

Interesting. I guess you meant that for everyone else, right?

Welcome to INGO.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I believe we should be able to carry how ever we want

Okay.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I have not read any others posters to this thread but I could not help but to respond to a few of the many amazing rationalizations made by the author of this article and cited by the individual who started the thread.

For myself, and quite possibly many others that engage in this debate regularly, that statement is pretty much all we need to know about you.

This thread has hundreds and hundreds of posts and you read the OP and skip to the end?

Really?

You would be wise to read a little further.

I also welcome you to INGO.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Perhaps if you'd read a bit further, you'd have found that many of the individual points have been hashed out quite a bit already rather than putting all this in one huge post.

So, you go ahead and make a post twice as long as his after criticizing the length of his post

 

[ATM]

So, you go ahead and make a post twice as long as his after criticizing the length of his post

May God have mercy on my soul - war is hell.

 

[churchmouse]

Lately we (my son and I) are going into some areas that are at best unsafe and truthfully hostile at times. Today we both OC'd for the first time while working and found that the local zombies left us alone for the most part. It was very refreshing for a change not to be bothered endlessly. Well, a few wanted to but our side arms. Everyone else gave us a wide birth.

 

[JLL101]

"Perhaps if you'd read a bit further, you'd have found that many of the individual points have been hashed out quite a bit already rather than putting all this in one huge post.

Who are the credible authorities he should cite in his own opinion essay?

As the author stated, don't base it on the popular myths or hypothetical notions he challenges, either.

I noticed you didn't burden yourself with citing to any credible authorities here. "

So you judge me based on the fact I chose not to read other posters comments before I voiced my thoughts on the authors original writings. I think that says a lot about you.

And you think that because I chose to respond to the original document as written infers that I have something less than reasonable knowledge about a subject? Why is it necessary to read the other posts prior to responding to the original document as posted? I see no reason why I should be limited in my opinions or requests for authoritative cites for positions that seem questionable to me. I still have not seen credible documentation supporting many of the authors questionable positions on open carry.


I still think the article is BS. It reads like it is a semi structured compilation of many other posts I read on this site last month. I read through several other threads on this subject last month when I joined INGO because I was interested why others chose to carry as they carry.

By the way, I also read numerous other INDO threads including all the introductory articles - There are many very good postings and I learned a lot). I regret not being aware of this site sooner. It is overall a great resource and I commend the individuals who have obviously put many long hours into such a quality WEB Site. Thanks for your welcoming comments in spite of the fireballs sent my way.

However, this particular article seems so off, to me, that I just could not help but comment even knowing I was going to get flamed. I could have easily doubled my comments but I just got wore out.

I did not cite sources because, in general, I was not making assertions that required cites. I mostly was asking for cites from the author for some of the positions put forth where there were no cites in the article (except the one on the 5 stages of violent crime - see later comments) and I am still in disagreement with many of the conclusions put forth by the author and the flame thrower.

However, I did make an assertion about the subject of surprise that I probable should have spent some time properly defending. My knowledge base relative to surprise is based on 7 years in the military in the early to mid 70s where I received training (classroom and field) on various ways to trap, out flank, conceal and numerous other tactics that could be considered surprise tactical maneuvers to gain an advantage over an opponent. Otherwise, my real point was to ask why the author did not provide relevant cites.

And I am not sure why my personal opinion " I have never considered surprise (to clarify - to me) to be a viable rational for my chosen method of carry" is relevant to you. To further clarify my surprise position - Surprise plays no role in reasons for how I carry. Never has, period. Never ever thought about that tactic relative to carry, ever.

Further, I have no knowledge of how many people CC based on the element of surprise. Do you really know? Are your comments based on posts form this WEB Site? If so, is that anything close to a proper gauge of how many people CC based on the rational of using surprise as a defensive (or in the author's opinion, an offensive maneuver) in a confrontational situation. It would be an interesting poll to see how many people CC so they can surprise their opponent, if the poll was conducted by a reputable polling organization.

Additional comments about Five Stages of Violent Crime

I went back and re-read this brief discussion of the stages of crime by whoever these authors are. It still reads like a non-college psychology chapter with many nu-substantiated assertions and then an attempt to label very complex behavior of humans who commit violent crimes followed by justifying the labels through their rationales. I just do not think (my personal opinion) that this happens in this manner as often as the authors portray in their narrative. The daily news of the crimes as detailed on our local channels seems to be often times crimes of opportunity or gang related that appears planned and other times seems to be spontaneous. Domestic violence sometimes seems to fit their little 5 word box but other times the acts seem totally unplanned. To me it seems like these crimes may have some elements of the labels (the 5 word box) the author so stress but several several of these crimes seem so inept or random as to defy, to me, consistent labeling. Just my take on the daily crime news.

I have only read the condensed version of information from the author's book, Safe in the City and the video/DVD Street Safe/Safe in the Streets. I would hope the book and DVD provide real documentation including raw data for their views. It is amazing how raw data can be interpreted so differently by alleged professionals.

I have taken several Psychology courses in undergraduate and graduate school at IU and Butler and found that in the courses I took, the psychology authors attempted to literally label every human behavior and then verbalize the meaning of these behaviors after testing selected subjects. I can still remember one assertion by these experts in an undergraduate class that the most important factor in the intelligence of an adult was his or her upbringing environment. The professionals had all kinds of studies justifying this conclusion. However, by the time I took my last course in Psychology, the whole discussion about intelligence had shifted, and now these experts and their tests concluded inherited factors were the most important factor in projecting adult intelligence. Amazing. The most obvious of reasons for ones adult intelligence was mis-trumped for many years by the professionals. Obviously upbringing can substantially enhance those who already have good family roots.

I was a paid subject (easy money for a very poor college student) for several several study sessions and from personal experience, the questions asked or the actions required were of dubious quality relative to the human behavior being "analyzed". It seemed to me at the time that the professors or their assistants at times were predisposed to how the test results should be and somewhat tailored their protocols to arrive at their desired results. It really would be interesting to see the raw data used in writing Safe in the City.

Anyway, we will never agree so flame away with your less than accurate subjective views about my personal observations.

 

[dans4420]

Now weather you agree with him or not this is one ****ing quality post

 

[88GT]

Thank you for supporting the RIGHT to carry whatever and however one chooses. Even if your support comes with strings attached.

I am afraid you may be confusing "open carry for a cause" with those of us who simply carry openly as a matter of course.

Like any other activist, those that open carry "for a cause" are specifically trying to expose injustices and raise awareness. They toe (and cross) the line to bring attention to "the cause", whatever that may be. It is no different than a "Moms for Breastfeeding" group letting it all hang out to raise awareness and invite commentary. Does that somehow make EVERY women who breastfeeds in public a bad person?

I am wondering, do you (or others that frown upon open carry) also lump those that conceal for deception in with those that conceal for personal safety? I mean, they are both concealing for pretty much the same reason, so they they should all be frowned upon, yes?

What about that those of us who OC as a matter of course for the sake of the cause?

I'm only partially kidding, since my OC choice pre-dates my "for a cause" justification. But when given the choice to OC or CC, I will always choose OC now specifically for the purpose of exposing the public to the concept of legal carry. CC is reserved solely for those times when OC is just impossible or really, really ill-advised.

 

[David Rose]

What about that those of us who OC as a matter of course for the sake of the cause?

I'm only partially kidding, since my OC choice pre-dates my "for a cause" justification. But when given the choice to OC or CC, I will always choose OC now specifically for the purpose of exposing the public to the concept of legal carry. CC is reserved solely for those times when OC is just impossible or really, really ill-advised.

Under what circumstances is OC impossible, or ill-advised?

 

[actaeon277]

Under what circumstances is OC impossible, or ill-advised?

At a convention of 5 year old girls that are pistol kleptomaniacs

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Under what circumstances is OC impossible, or ill-advised?

I have a recent example of my own. Commencement ceremonies at IU Assembly Hall.

If I had been asked to leave, my wife and graduating daughter would have had my nads.

 

[churchmouse]

I have a recent example of my own. Commencement ceremonies at IU Assembly Hall.

If I had been asked to leave, my wife and graduating daughter would have had my nads.

Boy howdy you know they would.
There are many times that for the sake of sanity and family harmony that OC/CC decisions need to be made over and above the cause. JMHO

 

[CPT Nervous]

I have a recent example of my own. Commencement ceremonies at IU Assembly Hall.

If I had been asked to leave, my wife and graduating daughter would have had my nads.

I OC at IUSB, Ivy Tech, and Notre Dame.