The Open Carry Argument

[wtburnette]

Exactly, both methods have their pros and cons. Hard to measure deterrence when the bad guys choose to pass you by. If we could measure that I'd bet concealed carriers talking about the "tactical advantage" would stop using that

 

[ATM]

So... Concealed Carriers are terrorists?

Some, but the point was only that concealment is a tactic they commonly share. Their goals may be quite different.

Normally, goals determine tactics, not the other way around.

 

[lonehoosier]

So... Concealed Carriers are terrorists?

Only criminals hide their guns

 

[eldirector]

I have often commented the criminals and conceal-carriers (of which I occasionally am) both conceal for the same reasons:
- they want to enter areas that do not allow firearms
- they want to be around people that they know would not like to see them armed
- they want the "element of surprise" when something goes down

Not all CC-ers are crooks, but the vast majority of crooks CC.

Of course, at the end of the day, JFC. The only person you have to justify your reasoning to is yourself.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have often commented the criminals and conceal-carriers (of which I occasionally am both) conceal for the same reasons:
- they want to enter areas that do not allow firearms
- they want to be around people that they know would not like to see them armed
- they want the "element of surprise" when something goes down

Not all CC-ers are crooks, but the vast majority of crooks CC.

Of course, at the end of the day, JFC. The only person you have to justify your reasoning to is yourself.

FIFY

BTW that is in grape scented purple crayon.

 

[protias]

I have often commented the criminals and conceal-carriers (of which I occasionally am) both conceal for the same reasons:
- they want to enter areas that do not allow firearms
- they want to be around people that they know would not like to see them armed
- they want the "element of surprise" when something goes down

Not all CC-ers are crooks, but the vast majority of crooks CC.

Of course, at the end of the day, JFC. The only person you have to justify your reasoning to is yourself.

How many criminals have you ever heard of OCing?

 

[eldirector]

How many criminals have you ever heard of OCing?

I don't deal with the criminal element enough to really put a number on it. So, it would be more anecdotal. The very, very few felons I have known, that carried (illegally) anyway, did so concealed when out and about in public. They DID carry openly, in an effort to show off, when around their "crew". OC was for intimidation, only. CC was for "business".

 

[chipbennett]

1) https://www.google.com/amp/koin.com...en-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/amp/?client=safari

2) This Concealed Carrier In Texas Got Robbed Of His Gun By The World's Dumbest Criminal

3) Clueless Open Carrier Robbed Of His Gun In Arizona

4) Oregon Man Openly Carrying Gun Has It Stolen at Gunpoint

5) https://www.google.com/amp/www.dail...bed-newport-news-story,amp.html?client=safari

6) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyR-

7) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p2_ehp_pOQ0

this really wasn't difficult to find. What makes a Terrorist so hard to find and kill? He doesn't advertise as a target.

A few points:

1. You included a *concealed* carrier in your list?
2. So, your claim is that the "tactical advantage" of concealed carry is "not getting your firearm stolen"?
3. Where is the evidence that the manner of carry (concealed vs open) factored into the decisions/actions of the perpetrator in each of these cases?

 

[obijohn]

I read this thread from time to time to see what has transpired and for entertainment purposes. Also, I have great respect for ATM, the originator of the thread. He and I have discussed this and have agreed to disagree but to defend the others point of view.

What I see is that a little new information has come up. However, most of what I read here seems to be intended to provoke an argument. Tsk, tsk. Be nice, boys and girls. This is an age old discussion and will not be decided to suit everyone involved. Be civil, be polite.

For the record: IF I am entering an area with the intent of causing mischief and mayhem, visible firearms get shot first, then the shoot me vests, then I will assess. NOTE: this is a thought exercise only and not a statement of intent.

Question: Those of us that open carry, do you use a holster of any level of security? Or an open holster and count on your SA to save the day?

 

[wtburnette]

Question: Those of us that open carry, do you use a holster of any level of security? Or an open holster and count on your SA to save the day?

Personally, I use an open holster with a mix of situational awareness and gun placement. A lot of times my right arm is covering the gun, which is right around 3 o'clock. If my spidey senses are tingling, I tend to clamp my arm down over the gun until I know things are safe. If I go into a bathroom, I go in a locked stall and not at an open urinal. I don't allow people too close, especially if they're behind me. If I'm standing in line, my arm is clamped over the gun.

I'm sure none of that is full proof, but then, nothing is.

 

[hog slayer]

Do you have any TRAINING in weapons retention?

I don't care about your habits so much. I mean this in all sincerity and believe me, no disrespect (there's a time and place for everything). Do you have any formal training in weapons retention?

If you openly carry, do you consider weapons retention training to be as valuable as shooting? SA?

 

[chipbennett]

I read this thread from time to time to see what has transpired and for entertainment purposes. Also, I have great respect for ATM, the originator of the thread. He and I have discussed this and have agreed to disagree but to defend the others point of view.

What I see is that a little new information has come up. However, most of what I read here seems to be intended to provoke an argument. Tsk, tsk. Be nice, boys and girls. This is an age old discussion and will not be decided to suit everyone involved. Be civil, be polite.

For the record: IF I am entering an area with the intent of causing mischief and mayhem, visible firearms get shot first, then the shoot me vests, then I will assess. NOTE: this is a thought exercise only and not a statement of intent.

It is also irrelevant, because it is the thought process of a rational, moral, law-abiding person - which in no way represents the thought processes of the common criminal, psychopath, or terrorist.

Question: Those of us that open carry, do you use a holster of any level of security? Or an open holster and count on your SA to save the day?

I keep my holster (am I supposed to call it a rig? kit? gear? I'll never be tacticool...) concealed; even so, the one I currently prefer is an OWB: the Safariland GLS, which is level-two retention. Especially when I'm working around kids at church, I prefer to take no chances.

 

[hog slayer]

Tacti-cool?

I'm going to guess that training is a "no" from Mr Bennett.

 

[ATM]

I read this thread from time to time to see what has transpired and for entertainment purposes. Also, I have great respect for ATM, the originator of the thread. He and I have discussed this and have agreed to disagree but to defend the others point of view.

Absolutely, the respect is mutual. You and your brother have taught me a great deal over the years and we've certainly had some lively discussions.

What I see is that a little new information has come up. However, most of what I read here seems to be intended to provoke an argument. Tsk, tsk. Be nice, boys and girls. This is an age old discussion and will not be decided to suit everyone involved. Be civil, be polite.

...and have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Argument is right there in the title, so no remorse on my end.

For the record: IF I am entering an area with the intent of causing mischief and mayhem, visible firearms get shot first, then the shoot me vests, then I will assess. NOTE: this is a thought exercise only and not a statement of intent.

Chip beat me to addressing this one and did it well, nothing to add.

Question: Those of us that open carry, do you use a holster of any level of security?

My preferred holster maintains the gun well enough to do a cartwheel, but no formal retention mechanisms.

Or an open holster and count on your SA to save the day?

Save which day? Do you have info I should be aware of? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!?!?

Take care, buddy.

 

[ATM]

Tacti-cool?

I'm going to guess that training is a "no" from Mr Bennett.

I'm fairly tacti-cool, and I have received some training.

 

[chipbennett]

Tacti-cool?

I'm going to guess that training is a "no" from Mr Bennett.

And your guess would be wrong. But thanks for playing.

 

[wtburnette]

I've had some training, but not a lot. I think it's a good idea, but not mandatory. That said, I am planning to get more training this summer and the class I'm attending does cover defensive pistol use and part of that is weapon retention training.

 

[obijohn]

Replies imbedded.

It is also irrelevant, because it is the thought process of a rational, moral, law-abiding person - which in no way represents the thought processes of the common criminal, psychopath, or terrorist.

You assume too much. Is it too much of a stretch that visible guns will get shot (at) first? You seem to fail to consider the training (prison) that bad guys get. You also seem to assume that I am a rational, moral and law-abiding person. And have little idea of my own level of training and experience.



I keep my holster (am I supposed to call it a rig? kit? gear? I'll never be tacticool...) concealed; even so, the one I currently prefer is an OWB: the Safariland GLS, which is level-two retention. Especially when I'm working around kids at church, I prefer to take no chances.

Good on you for your holster choice.

 

[chipbennett]

Quote-embedded replies make it difficult to respond...

Replies imbedded.

You assume too much. Is it too much of a stretch that visible guns will get shot (at) first? You seem to fail to consider the training (prison) that bad guys get. You also seem to assume that I am a rational, moral and law-abiding person. And have little idea of my own level of training and experience.

I assume very little.* Criminal psychology isn't exactly a mystery. Historically, they have been very open about their actions and mindset. See the myriad felon/convict surveys and studies that have been conducted. Criminals tend to look for the path of least resistance, easy marks, and inconspicuousness. They also tend to have tunnel vision, once they have selected a mark. And the thing they fear the most - even more than LEO - are armed (potential/would-be) victims. A criminal is far more likely to desist, and to try to find an easier mark, than to take on an armed citizen.

* Well, you have me on the latter point: I am indeed assuming that you are a rational, moral, law-abiding person. I feel fairly safe in that assumption, though.

 

[wtburnette]

Quote-embedded replies make it difficult to respond...



I assume very little.* Criminal psychology isn't exactly a mystery. Historically, they have been very open about their actions and mindset. See the myriad felon/convict surveys and studies that have been conducted. Criminals tend to look for the path of least resistance, easy marks, and inconspicuousness. They also tend to have tunnel vision, once they have selected a mark. And the thing they fear the most - even more than LEO - are armed (potential/would-be) victims. A criminal is far more likely to desist, and to try to find an easier mark, than to take on an armed citizen.

* Well, you have me on the latter point: I am indeed assuming that you are a rational, moral, law-abiding person. I feel fairly safe in that assumption, though.

Exactly my understanding. While there is always the possibility of exceptions to the rule, by and large most criminals likely look for easier prey when spotting an open carrier.