What do to about bad OC?

[printcraft]

Just like the last unsupported wild statement, I'd sure like to look at the material you used to arrive at that conclusion.
............

.

 

[eldirector]

I can see where people would think that OC would deter criminals. Not only would that give them the owner to worry about, but also anyone else who might be carrying.

But, I guess it would also depend on the town you live in. Maybe crime just doesn't seem that bad in Bloomington, but I can see where OC would not deter criminals as much in maybe the east side of Gary or something.

Cops don't even deter criminals in Gary!

I have had a few instances where shady-looking folks have started to approach me, noticed my holstered handgun, and scurried away. Did my OC stop a crime? No way to know. Sure, I've had shady folks approach me while carrying concealed, with no real issue as well. I do feel better when they keep their distance, though.

 

[oldfb]

Socially retarded?

pot kettle teacup!

Someone really needs to have a mirror held to their words.

It sounded so non judgmental when it was typed.
Just like this post.

I stuck my foot in some dark smelly stuff about my 5th post on this very subject and managed to not go ignorant over or about it.

People have free will and their own rationale for their choices but slinging put Downs crouched in that 1st A shadow does nothing but cause discord or animosity.

Case in point would be to ask if the cracked up robber wasn't impaired on drugs would you have walked away from your gun battle or died?

If the Crackhead had serios skills with a firearm would it have mattered OC vs. CC. Flip a coin brother because you got lucky regardless of your training and skill. You faced death and by the luck of the draw of fate you emerging victorious was testimony to the concept of rule number one. In a gunfight, have a gun!

Goodluck from one social retarded brother to another.

 

[Jack Ryan]

What's so wild about thinking it seems obvious?

Either there is a difference in the rate or they are similar.

Exactly, they are different or they are similar. There's no reliable evidence I've seen to statistically support either conclusion.

There is a tactical way of thinking about it and drawing a conclusion, "Which means of carry is most likely to give me an advantage in the type of violent encounters I as a civilian am likely to face as I carry out my normal day?"

There is a political agenda way of thinking and drawing a conclusion. "I want this and I want to encourage this. How make what I want sound logical to the most people and there by encourage them to emulate me?"

One looks for evidence to support and sell a political agenda widely in society.

The other looks for evidence to determine an advantage in a specific violent encounter.

They may or may not come to the same conclusions. They may even both be valid for the true purpose they are promoted but promoting a means of defending your self based on a political agenda could easily get a person killed at the worst or make a valid political position seem ridiculous or possibly actually successfully promote the desired affect.

Judgeing from the numbers I see in the general population each day, the OC movement is not having much of an affect in the percentages of people I see openly carrying firearms in their daily activities so far.

 

[Jack Ryan]

At this point, I just haven't heard of anyone reaching different conclusions.

We must not even be reading the same thread or posting on the same board. Some how our alternative universes have become entwine only at this single point.

Tell me, what time is it where you are at? It's 5:20 pm October 14th here.

 

[Jack Ryan]

.

I WANT one of those. Mine doesn't even light up and all I see is a big number 8 on it.

 

[ATM]

We must not even be reading the same thread or posting on the same board...

Last I knew, you were referencing this quote of mine:

Nor do I need to. How often are non-LEO OCers attacked? How about CCers? Here's a hint: one of those two groups is attacked with exactly the same regularity as the unarmed - the other group, far less.

Maybe you moved on to a different part of the topic.

How could the answer to either of those two questions possibly have a thing to do with one's tactical or political motivations or agenda?

Drawing a conclusion may give them a new motivation or agenda in how they choose to carry but won't change the answer to those questions.

If you choose to not draw a conclusion from the data you are aware of, that's fine. But short of a nationwide OC victim media coverup, the difference certainly seems more staggering than the ratio of OC to CC should warrant.

I'm fine with being the only one to have drawn a conclusion though.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...

pot kettle teacup! | !quɔɒɘƚ ɘlƚƚɘʞ ƚoq

Someone really needs to have a mirror held to their words.
...

Done.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Maybe you moved on to a different part of the topic.

If I didn't then, I am now. On to a completely different topic and different thread.

 

[oldfb]

Done.

Every one loves a little a but it takes a friend to love a smart a.

 

[troy2198]

Suppose someone saw you carring and decided to call the cops on you because you did nothing wrong. How upset would you be if that happened since the same rights that Mr 38 has are the exact same ones you are provided. Why dont you do yourself a favor and get rid of your firearms and arm yourself with a nice rape whistle. You blow into it, and someone will come.

 

[troy2198]

Now you've heard a logical argument against OC. Just once, I would like to hear a logical argument FOR open carry besides, "It's my right!"

Let me give this a whirl. I personally choose to OC depending on the attire needed to conceal. And generally it changes as the weather and seasons do. So in that aspect it is a matter of comfort.

I too served in Iraq, and as Im sure you may have, I trained with holsters that would in a military setting be considered open carry. So with this method I am more familiar and comfortable in my training. With CC I feel semi confident in my abilities to draw my weapon and get it on target since it is still fairly new to me. So on the days that I do OC I feel it is an educated risk that I am taking just as much as carring a firearm in any manner is. Yes I am advertizing that i have a weapon, but so is someone who CC's and prints. I feel that in some cases it is a deterant for someone planning to do something harmful but also understand that some completely disregard it. I do also understand that if the situation like you were in would happen that I may be thrown into it before I knew what was occuring. That is where I take my educated risk. If that situation did occur I would feel more competent with my muscle memory with dealing with the adrenaline rush that occurs than I would if I was CC'ing. I am training and improving daily with my skills such as the CC draw, but until I feel that my skills are such that I would have the same reaction ability as with my OC, then OC is my perfered method.

Lastly I feel that with OC'ing it in a way educates those who are unfamiliar with anything to do with firearms that they are out there and that there are legal ways of owning and responsibly carring such a huge responsibility. Also I feel, aside from those who freak out at the sight of a gun, that there are good guys out there apart from the police who are willing to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

And with that, theres my basic argument for why I open carry. Hope this proves to be a decent rebuttle to something other than "its my right".

 

[ProLibertate]

Lastly I feel that with OC'ing it in a way educates those who are unfamiliar with anything to do with firearms that they are out there and that there are legal ways of owning and responsibly carring such a huge responsibility. Also I feel, aside from those who freak out at the sight of a gun, that there are good guys out there apart from the police who are willing to protect those who cannot protect themselves. .

I do not dispute this reasoning. For this reason, I fully support open carry events. They can be a great way to educate [and condition] the public.
However, I still believe that a person can carry for self defense effectively, or a person may carry to "educate the sheeple." As a general rule though, one cannot do both at the same time. There is no disputing that you give up the ability to disengage when you open carry.
I understand what you are saying about your comfort level regarding CCW draw. I trained with a leg holster in the Marine Corps. I train with a Blackhawk level 3 SERPA duty holster for my duty weapon. I am confident, fast, and proficient with both.
I also carry CC off duty. I train constantly- for every scenario I can think of. I fully believe that when the sh*t hits the fan, you will not rise to the occasion, rather you will revert to your level of training.
I applaud you for practicing to become proficient at the draw from a CC position. The more proficient you are with weapons, in the most scenarios you can drill yourself in, the higher your odds of survival in a gunfight. Whether that be OC or CC. I think most of us only carry handguns because long guns are just such a pain in the ass to tote around.

 

[ATM]

However, I still believe that a person can carry for self defense effectively, or a person may carry to "educate the sheeple." As a general rule though, one cannot do both at the same time. There is no disputing that you give up the ability to disengage when you open carry.

Some do prefer to feign weakness in order to keep their options open.

I generally don't.

 

[PatriotPride]

However, I still believe that a person can carry for self defense effectively, or a person may carry to "educate the sheeple." As a general rule though, one cannot do both at the same time. There is no disputing that you give up the ability to disengage when you open carry.

Ignorance must be bliss. Of course, OCing a handgun doesn't allow me to defend myself effectively. How stupid of me. It's only good for educating the sheeple. God-forbid I ever have to use my weapon. Yes, it makes much more sense to add extra seconds to drawing a firearm in the event that I need it. How foolish of me to have it within easy reach. How idiotic of me to not make the broad and unbased assumption that I automatically give up my ability to disengage when I OC. It's no different in that respect when you OC or CC. If someone's going to cause you a problem, they'll cause you a problem. Let's keep this based in fact shall we?

As far as "no disputing"...wow. Just wow. Here's the reality---carry how you want. CC, OC, strap it to your forehead if you think it gives you a "tactical advantage". It's not worth making yourself look "socially retarded" when you get into a p*ssing match over "my method of carry is better and yours is retarded". I don't have to justify it to you or any other person. No person does. It's an old and worn-out argument. I really don't understand what the issue is with OCers. If you CC, great. Continue what you're doing and be quiet. Noone wants to rehash this argument.

 

[Audie Murphy]

So is he going to call the cops on his friend that was next to him OCing to?

 

[Beau]

Some do prefer to feign weakness in order to keep their options open.

I generally don't.

FIFY

There is no disputing that you give up the ability to [strike]disengage[/strike] (be a coward)when you open carry.

It's an old and worn-out argument. I really don't understand what the issue is with OCers. If you CC, great. Continue what you're doing and be quiet. Noone wants to rehash this argument.

It may be old but it's not worn out. There are those that love to rehash this argument. I can never quite understand those who never want to talk about a topic that has been done before. Pretty much everythign has been done before. That doesn't mean that a new idea won't come up or that an opinion might be swayed.

 

[ProLibertate]

FIFY

It may be old but it's not worn out. There are those that love to rehash this argument. I can never quite understand those who never want to talk about a topic that has been done before. Pretty much everythign has been done before. That doesn't mean that a new idea won't come up or that an opinion might be swayed.

Agreed. Many new ideas are formed from discussion- on both sides of a debate.
That said, I take great offense to your manipulating my quote: "There is no disputing that you give up the ability to disengage (be a coward)when you open carry. "
Part of the awesome responsibility of carrying a firearm as a way of life is knowing when to engage and pull the trigger, and when to NOT engage. For example, a scenario:
A bank robbery during the lunch rush on a weekday afternoon. There are women and children present in the line and throughout the lobby. The robbers have their attention trained on the tellers and are demanding money at gunpoint, but have not yet fired a shot. We could "what-if" this scenario to death, but are you really telling me that it is COWARDICE to opt not to engage in the close proximity of innocent bystanders?

Carrying a weapon puts ALL of us in the position where we may have to make the decision to END ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE. I have been in that situation. I know I am not alone on this site. While I do not regret doing what I had to do in order to stay alive, there is not a day that goes by that I do not think about that night. The night that I looked another man in the eyes and violently ended his life.
That said, I have been in situations as a police officer where I would have been perfectly justified in using lethal force on more than one occasion and opted not to. Sometimes because there were innocent bystanders in close proximity, sometimes because I saw another way to resolve a conflict.
If choosing to disengage in those situations makes me a coward in your eyes, then I pray you never find yourself in a situation where life or death decisions have to be made.

 

[Hammerhead]

For example, a scenario:
A bank robbery during the lunch rush on a weekday afternoon. There are women and children present in the line and throughout the lobby. The robbers have their attention trained on the tellers and are demanding money at gunpoint, but have not yet fired a shot. We could "what-if" this scenario to death, but are you really telling me that it is COWARDICE to opt not to engage in the close proximity of innocent bystanders?

I think your scenario is flawed here. You're saying that the robbers are holding at gunpoint, having not fired yet, but there are people who are still in line behind them and throughout the lobby. I'm not a studied expert, but I believe I know human nature enough to realize that most people being sheeple are going to retreat if possible at the first sign of a gun. Now there may be people still in the lobby, but staying as far away as they can to avoid injury or becoming victims themselves.

You've also said that they're fully engaged with the tellers, allowing the people to escape without notice or care.

That being said, if there are still people in the lobby or in the line of fire, sure, you don't take the shot, but you still can present your weapon and attempt to relieve them of theirs.

The one thing I seem to see on a regular basis is the idea that one must take a shot if they're presenting a weapon. I don't think that it's cowardice to not take a shot, but I think it's wiser to recognize when a shot is or isn't required. But if you're going to present a weapon, you should be prepared to take that shot when it comes to it.

 

[ProLibertate]

I think your scenario is flawed here. You're saying that the robbers are holding at gunpoint, having not fired yet, but there are people who are still in line behind them and throughout the lobby. I'm not a studied expert, but I believe I know human nature enough to realize that most people being sheeple are going to retreat if possible at the first sign of a gun.

Fair enough. But many robberies occur without screaming and gun waving. Many times, a robber wants to get in and out, drawing as little attention to himself as possible. There have been many cases where people in the bank were completely unaware of a robbery in progress.

[/quote] That being said, if there are still people in the lobby or in the line of fire, sure, you don't take the shot, but you still can present your weapon and attempt to relieve them of theirs. [/quote]

Again, many criminals are simply not afraid of guns being pointed at them. You can take your chances that the sight of your weapon being presented will scare him into submission, but there are other lives at stake here as well...

[/quote] But if you're going to present a weapon, you should be prepared to take that shot when it comes to it.[/quote]

If you're going to present a weapon, you MUST be prepared to take the shot, or you have no business running a gun. Period. If someone carries a gun with the hopes that it's intimidation value is enough to protect them, that person is a liability to society as a whole.