Using the data supplied by Lott, it is easy to conclude that law abiding citizens carrying firearms deters crime. It probably doesn't matter the manner in which the firearm is carried. The entire premise had nothing to do with concealed or open, his research used concealed carry because that was (and is) the predominant method by which citizens carry weapons.Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.ShootDontTalk wrote:. . . 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.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.
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.
As to the OP, it would be disingenuous for anyone to answer the title of your post with an absolute yes or no. Common sense dictates that a perpetrator bent on acquiring the weapon, or one who is intent on shooting up a particular location will target the open carrier. However, those types of perpetrators area very small percentage of would be criminals. The "normal" criminal is lazy, that's why they chose taking from others instead of earning something for themselves. The average criminal wants to take whatever he/she wants without effort or resistance. A mugger who has staked out an ATM will likely bypass the OC'er and wait for easier prey. There is absolutely no way to prove this because a crime that was thwarted because the perpetrator changed his/her mind will not be reported.
Debating the merits of OC versus CC is completely pointless and pits responsible, gun owning citizens against other responsible, gun owning citizens. (I do not count Grisham, Watkins, et al among the responsible citizens) As gun owners, we have plenty of anti's to fight with, no need to fight amongst ourselves.
Open carry CAN be a deterrent to crime, and open carry CAN cause you to be the target. I would venture to say that the passage of OC did nothing to help protect Texas citizens, nor did it do anything to put Texans at greater risk. It was still legislation that was worth pursuing because it expanded liberty and stopped the government from telling me exactly HOW I have to exercise my right. Laws against the open carry of handguns served no purpose other than to exact control over the citizenry.