A friendly discussion of OC vs CC

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can give you 20 reasons why OC is better than CC. I can also give you 20 reasons CC is better than OC. I carry CC. I carry OC. Sometimes I do both at the same time. In the end both are legal. Who cares? Carry the way you want to. Or don't.

 

[clgustaveson]

This thread isn't about arguing over the merits of either (at least I didn't think so).

So these posts of dogooders coming in telling us to stop fighting are pointless and are less constructive than anything else.

 

[ATM]

Dang.



Those who "don't care" just couldn't leave this one alone...

Why stifle friendly discussion/debate threads?

Just moving along to the next thread is always an option.

 

[gunwh]

It's a personal choice. Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Carry OC, carry CC, do both, who cares, just carry.

I agree 100%
I choose to CC myself for personal reasons but OC when in the shop along with CC. There for what does it really matter as long as you are the Good Guy and carry.

 

[clgustaveson]

I agree 100%
I choose to CC myself for personal reasons but OC when in the shop along with CC. There for what does it really matter as long as you are the Good Guy and carry.

It's less about why at this point than why not.

Those who suggest that open carry is dangerous and causes a situation to escalate are arguing less the merits of concealed carry and more the negative aspects of open carry.

I think it's clear there is some contempt for open carry... But there has yet to be any evidence that it adversely effects a situation.

 

[StandingReady]

I appreciate all of your responses, and I definitely appreciate a lively debate! Like I said, we are all on the same side, and regardless of the difference of opinion in this matter are all exercising our rights and promoting the cause. I wanted to elicit some response on why you think it's better, and vice versa.

It does break down into a preference issue on many levels, and it's the thinking process behind your choices that inspired this thread. I do see some advantages to OC, for sure, and I definitely agree with those of you who mentioned that the stigma of being seen with a gun should not be. And that the general public should have a better understanding/education of the subject.

I do strongly disagree with some points (especially the feigning weakness BS, as opposed to what CC truly is and that is blending in and not attracting attention. You do not need to have a gun to not be weak, and there are those with guns who are weak, OC or CC.), but mostly I just have a different opinion, not saying that it is better or worse, just my preference.

I also like to provoke thought, as I have met many people who are well intended, but not well thought out. I like to put information out, to get and give, so that people who have not thought this issue out as well might come away better prepared to make a good decision about what suits them.

 

[ATM]

...I do strongly disagree with some points (especially the feigning weakness BS, as opposed to what CC truly is and that is blending in and not attracting attention...

Maybe for you, but I hear over and over about the poker analogy of "not showing your cards" from many who are against OC.

Where does this mindset come from?

Simply blending in with the other players at the table? I think not.

Luring people to bet against them so they can capitalize on what they believe to be a superior hand? More likely.
Sounds badazz to drop aces on some poor fool who went all in with queen king, right?

I'm not saying it's a good analogy, just a common one which shows the lack of thought process by those applying it in a carry context.

So why do most wish to blend in with the unarmed? Just because there's currently more of them?
Would that change if someday being unarmed started to draw more attention?

Good friendly discussion.

 

[StandingReady]

Yeah, IF being unarmed was the exception, and it brought attention to you... I don't see that as likely to happen soon. You are right about one thing, the poker analogy sucks, especially considering that you are comparing a game to real life situations.

Let me put it to you this way. Do you remember a few years ago, there were a few guys driving around Southlake (Westfield) Mall and other stores in that area robbing people at gunpoint (shotgun). From what I remember, they would pull up near the people, slide open the door and collect the people's wallets, purses, etc (I think it was a cell phone in a purse that got them caught). What would you prefer to be the case, having these guys pull up to rob you and not having seen your gun (maybe because they approached from the opposite side, or because of the time of evening they occurred) until they are right on top of you pointing a shotgun at you? Unless you are psychic, I doubt you would have any time to respond to that properly, especially when you consider that this was going on around Christmas time when there is a lot of traffic moving up there.
I don't know about you, but when I am up in that area, which is rare, I usually have friends or family with, usually of the variety that don't carry (or have a suitable mindset for such situations). Considering that no one was hurt, I think that this would be a good example of CC being advantageous, especially considering the potential for collateral damage. Even if you were carrying, either way, based on the reports given, you most likely would not have had time to draw a weapon from either condition.
Do you not think that carrying open, especially with the high likelihood of not spotting this before it happened would have given the bad guy that "pucker factor" and escalated what turned out to be an otherwise non-injury involved crime? Would you be as willing to chance getting your firearm unholstered in an attempt to beat someone who already has a gun pointed at you, even if you had loved ones (or other bystanders) nearby?

Sure, OC can be a deterrent. I tend to think that if these robberies that had occurred had happened with someone carrying open, they may have ended differently. As it is, we don't know if any of the victims were carrying concealed, as it never came into play.

My point is that there are situations that come into play in each standpoint. Perhaps if the bad guys were able to see an OC firearm, they wouldn't have picked that person, or maybe they would have. We don't know. On the other side, even if they saw it, they may have perceived an advantage in the manner in which they committed these crimes and tried it anyways.

On a side note, how many people here, on either side of this discussion, have been directly involved in a situation necessitating the use of your firearm? You don't have to put details if you don't like, however indicating that you have or haven't been in some situation would be preferred. If you have, and want to articulate how your carry method came into play/benefited you, have at it.

 

[clgustaveson]

Yeah, IF being unarmed was the exception, and it brought attention to you... I don't see that as likely to happen soon. You are right about one thing, the poker analogy sucks, especially considering that you are comparing a game to real life situations.

Let me put it to you this way. Do you remember a few years ago, there were a few guys driving around Southlake (Westfield) Mall and other stores in that area robbing people at gunpoint (shotgun). From what I remember, they would pull up near the people, slide open the door and collect the people's wallets, purses, etc (I think it was a cell phone in a purse that got them caught). What would you prefer to be the case, having these guys pull up to rob you and not having seen your gun (maybe because they approached from the opposite side, or because of the time of evening they occurred) until they are right on top of you pointing a shotgun at you? Unless you are psychic, I doubt you would have any time to respond to that properly, especially when you consider that this was going on around Christmas time when there is a lot of traffic moving up there.
I don't know about you, but when I am up in that area, which is rare, I usually have friends or family with, usually of the variety that don't carry (or have a suitable mindset for such situations). Considering that no one was hurt, I think that this would be a good example of CC being advantageous, especially considering the potential for collateral damage. Even if you were carrying, either way, based on the reports given, you most likely would not have had time to draw a weapon from either condition.
Do you not think that carrying open, especially with the high likelihood of not spotting this before it happened would have given the bad guy that "pucker factor" and escalated what turned out to be an otherwise non-injury involved crime? Would you be as willing to chance getting your firearm unholstered in an attempt to beat someone who already has a gun pointed at you, even if you had loved ones (or other bystanders) nearby?

Sure, OC can be a deterrent. I tend to think that if these robberies that had occurred had happened with someone carrying open, they may have ended differently. As it is, we don't know if any of the victims were carrying concealed, as it never came into play.

My point is that there are situations that come into play in each standpoint. Perhaps if the bad guys were able to see an OC firearm, they wouldn't have picked that person, or maybe they would have. We don't know. On the other side, even if they saw it, they may have perceived an advantage in the manner in which they committed these crimes and tried it anyways.

On a side note, how many people here, on either side of this discussion, have been directly involved in a situation necessitating the use of your firearm? You don't have to put details if you don't like, however indicating that you have or haven't been in some situation would be preferred. If you have, and want to articulate how your carry method came into play/benefited you, have at it.

Alluding to your story, why then? Why are you carrying a weapon? If the intent is to protect yourself, which it should be, and not to give the illusion you are protected why do you even carry?

If one of those victims was concealing a weapon and they were robbed, what good did that gun do?

The bottom line is that a weapon is designed to provide protection, by either the use or threat of use... what you are saying is it did neither.

A concealed weapon does have it's pros and it also had it's cons.

The crux of the entire situation is that a concealed gun must be realized to serve it's purpose, and that alone will escalate a situation.

IMHO a concealed gun, brought into a situation will escalate a situation far more than an open gun not being touched... If I draw my .45 it is likely someone will be dead. In order for a concealed gun to express a potential threat it HAS to be drawn and thus should be lethal.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel warm inside, I carry a .45 to keep me safe. If one of those victims did have a gun, that gun sure did them some good... It is statistically likely if they were open carrying the robber would have passed. It's possible some of the victims were concealing, it is known that none were open carrying.

If you have read any of my posts you know I like analogies....

An analogy worth making would be the story of the man with the gun the robbers targeted... Wait that story is only hypothetical...

No mugger is going to risk their life knowingly, a criminal will always attempt to take the path of least resistance and that path is never a person with a gun... Unless they didn't know.

 

[farva118]

I swore up and down that I was not going to get involved in this, until I read this:

Maybe the Colts could take some lessons?

Bravo sir, bravo.

My opinion, carry a gun, practice drawing from where you keep that gun, shoot who needs to be shot. Period.

GO BEARS!!!

 

[StandingReady]

The bottom line is that a weapon is designed to provide protection, by either the use or threat of use... what you are saying is it did neither.

I'm saying that it was not needed to fulfill that capacity, and was up to the discretion of the carrier. The point is that no physical harm was done, which is really the point at which it necessitates getting involved, not necessarily over the loss of property (is even the bad guy's life worth taking over a few dollars or a cell phone?). My point is that the CC'er had the discretion to present or not present his firearm, based on 1) opportunity, and 2) the belief that the perpetrator(s) will cause harm to the victim(s) or will be on their way after getting the _________ (usually money).
OC would have removed both the opportunity (unless you are going to push your luck, which at this point you may not have a choice to not to try it), and it removes your ability to decide if you want to employ your weapon at all. If you think that OC would not have altered the situation at all, either in the bad guy obtaining/neutralizing it (either through orders or having shot you), or by causing you to find it necessary to try to access and use it before being engaged, I think you are completely wrong. On the other side, nobody was hurt, so when all is said and done, it may have not been (and I would argue would not have been) a good idea to escalate the situation by drawing your firearm.
The point of carrying is to defend the safety on one's self or that of another, not just property. Could you articulate a fear for one's safety in that situation? Absolutely, especially being there when it occurred. When all was said and done, property was all that was removed. Isn't it said, "Discretion is the bettor part of valor."?

 

[clgustaveson]

I'm saying that it was not needed to fulfill that capacity, and was up to the discretion of the carrier. The point is that no physical harm was done, which is really the point at which it necessitates getting involved, not necessarily over the loss of property (is even the bad guy's life worth taking over a few dollars or a cell phone?). My point is that the CC'er had the discretion to present or not present his firearm, based on 1) opportunity, and 2) the belief that the perpetrator(s) will cause harm to the victim(s) or will be on their way after getting the _________ (usually money).
OC would have removed both the opportunity (unless you are going to push your luck, which at this point you may not have a choice to not to try it), and it removes your ability to decide if you want to employ your weapon at all. If you think that OC would not have altered the situation at all, either in the bad guy obtaining/neutralizing it (either through orders or having shot you), or by causing you to find it necessary to try to access and use it before being engaged, I think you are completely wrong. On the other side, nobody was hurt, so when all is said and done, it may have not been (and I would argue would not have been) a good idea to escalate the situation by drawing your firearm.
The point of carrying is to defend the safety on one's self or that of another, not just property. Could you articulate a fear for one's safety in that situation? Absolutely, especially being there when it occurred. When all was said and done, property was all that was removed. Isn't it said, "Discretion is the bettor part of valor."?

Maybe the fact they were robbed at gun point, if that is not a threat to ones safety than what is?

 

[clgustaveson]

I find it funny, out of everything I said you only respond to say "Wait it's still useful".

Sure, it served a purpose, or you can just buy a smaller belt.

 

[StandingReady]

Everything you said? I replied to everything you said, and if you had read my post you would have seen that. Armed robbery does indeed qualify as a situation that would put one in fear for his safety. Being able to decide to act, or being able to not act based on your discretion is the issue. Are you suggesting that there should be a shooting every time someone is justified in using force? Or that there should be an automatic response to shoot someone whenever it would be justified? What if the police shot everyone they were technically justified to shoot? I'll tell you that as many police shootings that there are, there are many that would have been justified that do not happen.

Can vs. Should. I can choose to escalate any situation I am in, or I can choose to try to de-escalate it, at least until I do not believe that a safe outcome is possible otherwise.

You're conclusion that my argument comes down to "wait, it's still useful" is ridiculous at best. I don't know what part of being able to have more control of your decision to act (if/when/then) you don't understand. Are you also suggesting that OC would be better in this situation? Please indulge me as to why OC would have been advantageous in this scenario.

Perhaps you did not read my post, as your response did not address the difference of the loss of property vs. the loss of life, or the part about whether or not your decision to act would be affected by the presence of bystanders or loved ones. I'm certain it's not my rebuttal that is lacking here...

 

[clgustaveson]

Everything you said? I replied to everything you said, and if you had read my post you would have seen that. Armed robbery does indeed qualify as a situation that would put one in fear for his safety. Being able to decide to act, or being able to not act based on your discretion is the issue. Are you suggesting that there should be a shooting every time someone is justified in using force? Or that there should be an automatic response to shoot someone whenever it would be justified? What if the police shot everyone they were technically justified to shoot? I'll tell you that as many police shootings that there are, there are many that would have been justified that do not happen.

Can vs. Should. I can choose to escalate any situation I am in, or I can choose to try to de-escalate it, at least until I do not believe that a safe outcome is possible otherwise.

You're conclusion that my argument comes down to "wait, it's still useful" is ridiculous at best. I don't know what part of being able to have more control of your decision to act (if/when/then) you don't understand. Are you also suggesting that OC would be better in this situation? Please indulge me as to why OC would have been advantageous in this scenario.

Perhaps you did not read my post, as your response did not address the difference of the loss of property vs. the loss of life, or the part about whether or not your decision to act would be affected by the presence of bystanders or loved ones. I'm certain it's not my rebuttal that is lacking here...

Clearly you must be missing the biggest point I made... We KNOW that nobody involved was open carrying a gun. Probability is 0; however, the probability that someone was concealing a firearm is much closer to 1.

The fact that you are saying -- "There is still the option" is where I am determining you are still placing a level of value on the object.

I have a rainy day fund, this fund is money to use when its raining. The same concept goes for my firearm. When someone has a 12 guage pointing at me, it's raining.

The scenario you gave was not that a force was justified, but force was used. What I am suggesting is that this discussion is over the merits of concealing versus open carrying, your argument is that you don't HAVE to use the weapon, my argument is open carrying presents the same option because the situation will likely not manifest.

The point you are making is the equivelant of an argument I read somewhere- if someone is to rob you there is always a cost benefit analysis, and sometimes it is better to just pay the assailant to leave.

Again, a weapon can only protect you in two ways - the use of that weapon or the threat of that use.

You are trying to suggest that there is a third option, that not using it is just as useful. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WEAPON.

Pardon me by asking this, how do you guage a criminal's likelyhood to shoot you? When there is a 12 guage pointed at you, I think it is likely you would assume at any point.

When a criminal approaches you with a weapon to take property, there is a threat to you and your property. If there was no threat to you, your property would not be threatened as well. No individual in their right mind would render valuable property without justifiable cognitions. If you are saying that at no point during an armed robbery would it be likely you would die-- you are nutz.

 

[dom1104]

Someone asked what the chances of OC deterring a crime, which I have no idea, but I have always liked this list so I will share it for the giggle-factor.

Odds of injury from fireworks: 19,556 to 1
Odds of injury from shaving: 6,585 to 1
Odds of injury from using a chain saw: 4,464 to 1
Odds of injury from mowing the lawn: 3,623 to 1
Odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1
Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1
Odds of being killed on a 5-mile bus trip: 500,000,000 to 1
Odds of being killed sometime in the next year in any sort of transportation accident: 77 to 1
Odds of being killed in any sort of non-transportation accident: 69 to 1
Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1
Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1
Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1
Odds of getting away with murder: 2 to 1
Odds of being the victim of serious crime in your lifetime: 20 to 1
Odds of being considered possessed by Satan: 7,000 to 1
Odds that a first marriage will survive without separation or divorce for 15 years: 1.3 to 1
Odds that a celebrity marriage will last a lifetime: 3 to 1
Odds of getting hemorrhoids: 25 to 1
Odds of striking it rich on Antiques Roadshow: 60,000 to 1
Odds of spotting a UFO today: 3,000,000 to 1
Odds of a meteor landing on your house: 182,138,880,000,000 to 1
Chance of an American home having at least one container of ice cream in the freezer: 9 in 10.
Chance of dying from any kind of injury during the next year: 1 in 1,820
Chance of dying from intentional self-harm: 1 in 9,380
Chance of dying from an assault: 1 in 16,421
Chance of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585
Chance of dying from any kind of fall: 1 in 20,666
Chance of dying from accidental drowning: 1 in 79,065
Chance of dying from exposure to smoke, fire, and flames: 1 in 81,524
Chance of dying in an explosion: 1 in 107,787
Chance that Earth will experience a catastrophic collision with an asteroid in the next 100 years: 1 in 5,000
Chance of dying in such a collision: 1 in 20,000
Chance of dying from exposure to forces of nature (heat, cold, lightning, earthquake, flood): 1 in 225,107
Chance of dying in an airplane accident: 1 in 354,319
Chance of dying from choking on food: 1 in 370,035
Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000
Chance of dying in a fireworks accident: 1 in 1,000,000
Chance of dying from overexertion, travel or privation: 1 in 1,428,377
Chance of dying from food poisoning: 1 in 3,000,000
Chance of dying from legal execution: 1 in 3,441,325
Chance of dying from contact with hot tap water: 1 in 5,005,564
Chance of dying from parts falling off an airplane: 1 in 10,000,000
Chance of dying from ignition or melting of nightwear: 1 in 30,589,556
Chance of dying from being bitten by a dog: 1 in 700,000
Chance of dying from contact with a venomous animal or plant: 1 in 3,441,325
Chance of dying from being bitten or struck by mammals (other than dogs or humans): 1 in 4,235,477
Chance of winning a bingo game where 100 players manage four cards each: 1 in 100
Chance of dying from a mountain lion attack in California: 1 in 32,000,000
Chance of dying from a shark attack: 1 in 300,000,000
Chance of having a stroke: 1 in 6
Chance of dying from heart disease: 1 in 3

 

[ATM]

With OC, you have the ounce of prevention and the pound of cure.

With CC, you only have concealed access to the cure.

With OC, the premeditated intent of the attacker to risk all has generally been determined for you by their prodeeding to act against an armed mark (after intent, interview and positioning phases of the crime.)

With CC, you get to gaze into the crystal ball of intent once the act is upon you and guess at what the outcome may be.
Once again, good luck - hindsight only favors the survivors.

 

[clgustaveson]

With OC, you have the ounce of prevention and the pound of cure.

With CC, you only have concealed access to the cure.

With OC, the premeditated intent of the attacker to risk all has generally been determined for you by their prodeeding to act against an armed mark (after intent, interview and positioning phases of the crime.)

With CC, you get to gaze into the crystal ball of intent once the act is upon you and guess at what the outcome may be.
Once again, good luck - hindsight only favors the survivors.

Your wrong, my cure is a little more than 2 pounds....

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Too funny,

Now I both OC and CC depending on the situation (I don't OC at church as I think it is inappropriate,) as I type this however I am OCing at a McDonald's restaurant with my back against a wall and my gun side visible to anyone who passes by.

Sounds like a real safe situational awareness there...typing on your phone while looking down at it and OC'ing. You already lost...

 

[dom1104]

With OC, you have the ounce of prevention and the pound of cure.

With CC, you only have concealed access to the cure.

With OC, the premeditated intent of the attacker to risk all has generally been determined for you by their prodeeding to act against an armed mark (after intent, interview and positioning phases of the crime.)

With CC, you get to gaze into the crystal ball of intent once the act is upon you and guess at what the outcome may be.
Once again, good luck - hindsight only favors the survivors.

Interesting. I think I get it... but am not smurt enough to fully understand.

Ok so I am a criminal, with a knife. I see a guy with a nice 1911 on his hip, walking past me.

Do I

A: stab him in the neck, and take his 1000 dollar gun to use to commit more crimes, or sell for drugs etc.

B: pass him over because he might shoot me, and wait for an unarmed man who might have 50 bucks in his wallet.

I think while you OC, the importance put on being EXTREMLY aware and vigilant is high, you are basically advertising that you have a 500 to 1500 dollar prize clipped to your hip, one that is highly usefull in a life of crime, and is more difficult to obtain once a felon.

When I OC, I am MORE aware of whats going on, since I know I am advertising, that I have more than 50 bucks and a few credit cards to steal.