TexasCHLforum.com

ShootDontTalk wrote:

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.

. . . I remain curious as to the existence of any studies, or evidence, that support the expression "more guns = less crime" when you restrict that expression as to mode of carry. I am beginning to understand how nearly impossible such a study would be.

It's been a long time since I've read John Lott's books, but unless I'm mistaken, his research focused on both the estimated per capita gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws. I know he compared crime rates before and after a state enacted concealed-carry laws, as well as a state-to-state crime comparison also based upon concealed-carry laws. Open-carry in any state is so rare as to be statistically nonexistent, therefore it would be impossible to estimate it's impact on crime.

If the U.S. or any state was like Israel was 25 or 30 years ago when the majority of Israelis were openly carrying rifles and/or pistols, then open-carry would deter crime. But that would be a matter of numbers more than anything.


Chas.

ShootDontTalk wrote:Am I reading what was written wrong? I thought his assertion was that more guns = less crime.
More open carry = less crime.
More concealed carry = less crime.
More of both means less crime than either one alone by simple math. More guns (concealed and open) = less crime.

Now that I say it that way, it presents more questions than answers. Maybe I need a cup of coffee.

Edit: It is not a difficult tradecraft to learn to detect a tail by amateurs.

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.

While it is likely true that no evidence exists to support the statement that open-carry makes one a target, it is more likely true than the claim that open-carry reduces crime. There's absolutely no evidence of crime reduction, but that hasn't stopped OCT and others from making that false claim.

Open-carry is so rarely done in any states, that the lack of evidence is not the end of the inquiry. I think whether a person openly carrying a handgun will be a target will likely depend upon the location, the number of attackers and/or their mental state, and the apparent capability of the gun owner. If a hijacker goes into Wal-Mart and sees someone openly carrying a handgun, I doubt the gun owner will be targeted simply due to numbers, but that's no guarantee. However, if one is carrying openly in a IHOP when a 6-man hijack team hits, then the gun owner will either be summarily shot or disarmed. If one open-carries in a high crime area of town where every thug is armed and I could see the same thing happening.

One thing people need to consider is that firearms, especially handguns, are highly valued by violent criminals. The "big three" burglars want are guns, money and jewelry, in that order. Advertising you have this prized booty could well mean you are attacked or burglarized, if the thug follows you home. So even if you aren't attacked as soon as your handgun is seen, you may make yourself and your family a target at some later point in time.

It's a risk benefit analysis everyone must evaluate based upon their circumstances. I choose to stay incognito.

Chas.