Question for Open Carry Proponents
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
ScrapMetal
- Junior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:22 pm
Re: Question for Open Carry Proponents
Interesting debate.
Re: Question for Open Carry Proponents
I saw a good post on OCDO today, about OC versus CC, and the oft-cited "element of surprise". I like what the writer said.
The original question was about how LEOs are supposed to know that OCers are the good guys.
Edit to add URL:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13874
How do LEO identify citizens in the bank for lawful purposes versus those there to rob? How do LEO identify guys walking through a park, versus guys looking to kidnap or rape? How do LEO identify people picking up their kids from school versus people looking to abuse children?
Obviously, there is no reason for a citizen engaging in lawful activities to somehow prove that to LEOs. Cops are primarily about investigating crimes and arresting offenders. Preemptive tactics are great when they don't trample the rights of citizens. This is not a police state.
Gun grabs are certainly a possibility, but given criminals' propensity to avoid conflict with armed citizens (and police) it's hardly much of a real concern.
Your "hidden" gun lets criminals know that you are statistically as likely to be armed as any other joe walking the street. Judging by the CCW statistics, that chance is less than 1%.
A concealed weapon is certainly better than not being armed at all, but there are many situations (I'd argue *most* situations on the street) where the bad guy is most definitely going to have the drop on you. Do you have the confidence in your skills to be able to draw from concealment and fire to stop a bad guy who has his finger on the trigger and his gun already pointed at you? Or his knife already at your throat? Deterrence seems a much better "tactic" to me.
The "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic. Unless your mission is that of an assassin, the defensive value of "surprise" is nearly zero. Remember, your goal as a citizen (hopefully) is to avoid being a victim, not to kill criminals. Anything you can do to make it clear that you are not an easy target increases your odds of being left alone. The best we can hope for is that the gun we carry never has to be drawn.
The original question was about how LEOs are supposed to know that OCers are the good guys.
Edit to add URL:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13874
How do LEO identify citizens in the bank for lawful purposes versus those there to rob? How do LEO identify guys walking through a park, versus guys looking to kidnap or rape? How do LEO identify people picking up their kids from school versus people looking to abuse children?
Obviously, there is no reason for a citizen engaging in lawful activities to somehow prove that to LEOs. Cops are primarily about investigating crimes and arresting offenders. Preemptive tactics are great when they don't trample the rights of citizens. This is not a police state.
Gun grabs are certainly a possibility, but given criminals' propensity to avoid conflict with armed citizens (and police) it's hardly much of a real concern.
Your "hidden" gun lets criminals know that you are statistically as likely to be armed as any other joe walking the street. Judging by the CCW statistics, that chance is less than 1%.
A concealed weapon is certainly better than not being armed at all, but there are many situations (I'd argue *most* situations on the street) where the bad guy is most definitely going to have the drop on you. Do you have the confidence in your skills to be able to draw from concealment and fire to stop a bad guy who has his finger on the trigger and his gun already pointed at you? Or his knife already at your throat? Deterrence seems a much better "tactic" to me.
The "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic. Unless your mission is that of an assassin, the defensive value of "surprise" is nearly zero. Remember, your goal as a citizen (hopefully) is to avoid being a victim, not to kill criminals. Anything you can do to make it clear that you are not an easy target increases your odds of being left alone. The best we can hope for is that the gun we carry never has to be drawn.
-
Right2Carry
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area
Re: Question for Open Carry Proponents
KBCraig wrote:I saw a good post on OCDO today, about OC versus CC, and the oft-cited "element of surprise". I like what the writer said.
The original question was about how LEOs are supposed to know that OCers are the good guys.
Edit to add URL:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=13874
How do LEO identify citizens in the bank for lawful purposes versus those there to rob? How do LEO identify guys walking through a park, versus guys looking to kidnap or rape? How do LEO identify people picking up their kids from school versus people looking to abuse children?
Obviously, there is no reason for a citizen engaging in lawful activities to somehow prove that to LEOs. Cops are primarily about investigating crimes and arresting offenders. Preemptive tactics are great when they don't trample the rights of citizens. This is not a police state.
Gun grabs are certainly a possibility, but given criminals' propensity to avoid conflict with armed citizens (and police) it's hardly much of a real concern.
Your "hidden" gun lets criminals know that you are statistically as likely to be armed as any other joe walking the street. Judging by the CCW statistics, that chance is less than 1%.
A concealed weapon is certainly better than not being armed at all, but there are many situations (I'd argue *most* situations on the street) where the bad guy is most definitely going to have the drop on you. Do you have the confidence in your skills to be able to draw from concealment and fire to stop a bad guy who has his finger on the trigger and his gun already pointed at you? Or his knife already at your throat? Deterrence seems a much better "tactic" to me.
The "element of surprise" is an offensive tactic. Unless your mission is that of an assassin, the defensive value of "surprise" is nearly zero. Remember, your goal as a citizen (hopefully) is to avoid being a victim, not to kill criminals. Anything you can do to make it clear that you are not an easy target increases your odds of being left alone. The best we can hope for is that the gun we carry never has to be drawn.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
-
casingpoint
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm
Re: Question for Open Carry Proponents
When the Louisiana Legislature was considering the current concealed carry law, then Governor Edwin Edwards opposed the bill, stating if one was going to carry a handgun, it should be in the open where it would be a deterrent. Open carry, of course, has always been the law in the Bayou State, and assumably has deterred a lot of criminal acts*. And Governor Edwards, once an accomplished attorney, has had his share of problems with the law, which are still ongoing. But really, folks, who is going to hit a convenience store (a typical target) where the clerk and many customers are know to carry in the open?Deterrence seems a much better "tactic"
*I am unable to find the link, but on the net somewhere is a news article about two Shreveport, LA barbers who open carry in their shop. Seems the suspects came in one day to clip the barbers instead, saw the guns, and promptly left, only to rob a hardware store down the street.
Re: Question for Open Carry Proponents
This is absolutely right on.
I think the "element of surprise" argument is just a feel-good, seemingly logical reason that opponents of OC adopt in order to distract from the real usefulness of open carry.
Are police officers victims of street crime (while not in the process of investigating or stopping such crime) more frequently than regular citizens? No? Maybe that's because they are clearly and obviously armed.
Draw from open-carry position is undoubtedly faster. Your selection of the appropriate weapon to handle whatever circumstance might come up is far and away less limited if you do not have to also conceal such a weapon. I think human nature and basic logic argues that one who is openly and obviously carrying a weapon is going to be at much lower risk of becoming a target of a criminal. Criminals do not want to get shot any more than the rest of us do. If they can see that you are armed, they are more likely to choose another target. If you only carry concealed, then the BG is only made aware that you are a poor target after you have already been targeted, and by this point the whole situation has escalated tremendously.
I understand that politically it may not be feasible to accept OC in TX. I also understand the "out of sight, out of mind" argument that presumes that if normal people are unaware of those who might be carrying around them, they are much less likely to oppose civilian carrying of firearms at all than they would be if they saw guns on the hips of people all over the place. But I find the arguments that there is some tactical advantage to concealed carry vs. open carry for self-defense to be very shaky at best.
I think the "element of surprise" argument is just a feel-good, seemingly logical reason that opponents of OC adopt in order to distract from the real usefulness of open carry.
Are police officers victims of street crime (while not in the process of investigating or stopping such crime) more frequently than regular citizens? No? Maybe that's because they are clearly and obviously armed.
Draw from open-carry position is undoubtedly faster. Your selection of the appropriate weapon to handle whatever circumstance might come up is far and away less limited if you do not have to also conceal such a weapon. I think human nature and basic logic argues that one who is openly and obviously carrying a weapon is going to be at much lower risk of becoming a target of a criminal. Criminals do not want to get shot any more than the rest of us do. If they can see that you are armed, they are more likely to choose another target. If you only carry concealed, then the BG is only made aware that you are a poor target after you have already been targeted, and by this point the whole situation has escalated tremendously.
I understand that politically it may not be feasible to accept OC in TX. I also understand the "out of sight, out of mind" argument that presumes that if normal people are unaware of those who might be carrying around them, they are much less likely to oppose civilian carrying of firearms at all than they would be if they saw guns on the hips of people all over the place. But I find the arguments that there is some tactical advantage to concealed carry vs. open carry for self-defense to be very shaky at best.
non-conformist CHL holder