TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:I think that the apparent paradox is just a problem of not understanding two separate correlations. In general, people being able to defend themselves will lower crime rates. It should start with a lowering of successful crimes as the crimes are interrupted by the self-defense, followed by a decrease as the criminals become aware of the self-defense attitudes.

By the same token, open carry will deter crime in your personal area. Criminals will generally look for an easier target. But there are times when criminals have decided to commit a crime and you happen to be there carrying openly. In those cases, you may become a target as they realize your potential to interfere with their plans. As evidence of the potential for open carry to make you a target, I will point out how many bank guards were targeted by robbery teams because they knew they would be there and armed. I do not have numbers to cite for this, because violent bank robbery is a rare event to begin with and shootings of guards was even more rare.

This is how openly carrying a pistol may reduce crime and make you a target at the same time. As with most other paradoxes, it is really a matter of confusing two or more separate issues or events.

mojo84 wrote:I would say open carry made this guy a target.

http://2ndamendmentfight.com/felony-cha ... y-citizen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We all have to remember, there are exceptions to everything and nothing is 100% one way or the other.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The title of the thread you started is "Open Carry = Target?" I was responding to that question.

The post you quoted used John Lott's statement/book title "More Guns Less Crime" then erroneously took Prof. Lott's work to unjustified ends. Lott's work proves two things; an armed society suffers less crime than an unarmed society and the more citizens carrying handguns concealed the lower the crime rate. Crime reduction comes from the uncertainty in a criminal's mind as to whether an intended victim or potential rescuers are armed. Open-carry does not further that end. As for the author of the question, yes I believe "more guns means less crime" but I don't believe for one second that more open-carry means less crime. There is certainly no evidence it does. Again, it is the combination of the knowledge that some citizens are armed and not knowing which ones that reduces crime.

As for looking out for a tail all I can say is most people don't pay attention and it isn't difficult to tail anyone other than the most experienced.

Chas.

ScottDLS wrote:It's easy to detect and lose a "tail". You run SDR's (surveillance detection routes). They teach this technique at "the Farm" (CIA clandestine training in Virginia) or you can learn it like I did by reading Tom Clancy and Brad Thor novels and watching the Jason Bourne movies.

Just like I learned to shoot by watching Spike Lee films. You know...hold gun sideways parallel to the ground and pull trigger as fast as possible. That and shoot a MAC10 in full auto with one hand. For this it helps to practice wrist curls with 10lb dumbbells.

"We gun owners have been chanting the mantra for a long time now that more guns = less crime. Do we believe it, or is it just talk? The reason I cite this saying is simple. Gun owners have repeated the idea that openly carrying a firearm makes the person doing so a more likely target for a criminal attack. Despite the lack of evidence that this statement is true or not, doesn't it contradict our mantra? Is criminal activity enhanced because of the presence of a gun? Are we saying that criminals actually seek out openly armed individuals as opposed to hunting the defenseless? If true, does that make a place safer or more dangerous by knowing an armed individual is present versus the chance that someone with a concealed handgun might be present? Does that notion in reality make gun free zones areas of less crime? I think not."