TexasCHLforum.com

I've spent quite a bit of time (being retired I have a lot of that) on this question:

Does openly carrying a firearm make you a more likely target for criminals?

I read this the other day, wrote it down, but forgot to reference the person who said it.

"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."

Now regardless of conclusions, he makes an interesting point if you really think about it. Is the point valid or not and why? I'm inclined to think he has a valid point.

I asked the question in another thread, but started this one so as not to hijack his thread. I'm pretty sure I found this in a publication, but it might have been a blog.

I question your basic premise:

Gun owners have repeated the idea that openly carrying a firearm makes the person doing so a more likely target for a criminal attack.

Which gun owners have been saying this? Where? Who?
This sounds like something an astroturf "Pro gun" organization would say.
This actually sounds like something Bloomberg would say.

As for the accuracy of the above statement, I disagree.
If, for the sake of argument, Gary Gangbanger is even alert enough to notice an open carrier, I think he would decide to ply his trade elsewhere.
IMHO, those who use guns to rob or terrorize others are not that bright or aware. Witness the large number of stories of dumb criminals who attemt to hold up banks or restaurants full of cops.

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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

A major instructor, I want to say it was Tiger McKee but I'm not 100% sure, stated on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show that he had heard from students about open carrier's being burglarized after being followed home. The amusing thing to me is that there are people who worry to death about the "red dots being put on tires by gangsters at gun ranges so they can identify cars to follow home from other locations" urban myth who will turn around and open carry in public.

The truth of the matter is that we have precisely 1 documented instance that I know of where open carry helped prevent a crime, it would not have prevented it at all had an officer not noticed the robbery gang waiting outside for the two OCer's to leave so they could rob the place. After being arrested they admitted they were waiting for the guys carrying to leave before they continued with their plan. These thugs were a little more intelligent than most and sent a scout in to check the place out to ensure it was safe to rob, their plan would have only been delayed by Open Carry if the officer had not happened by. They may have even planned ambushed the OCers as they were leaving, that was never reported so only God knows what would have happened.

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.

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.

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.

Chemist45 wrote:I question your basic premise:

Gun owners have repeated the idea that openly carrying a firearm makes the person doing so a more likely target for a criminal attack.

Which gun owners have been saying this? Where? Who?
This sounds like something an astroturf "Pro gun" organization would say.
This actually sounds like something Bloomberg would say.

As for the accuracy of the above statement, I disagree.
If, for the sake of argument, Gary Gangbanger is even alert enough to notice an open carrier, I think he would decide to ply his trade elsewhere.
IMHO, those who use guns to rob or terrorize others are not that bright or aware. Witness the large number of stories of dumb criminals who attemt to hold up banks or restaurants full of cops.

Members say it on this forum everytime it comes up.

My thoughts are that OC would have to make you a target in some cases. Some because they might want your gun or for some reason target you because you are carrying. Other times because on person OCing might be considered a danger. Like if an OCer gets noticed in the middle of a robbery. Of course you also have the exact opposite reaction also. People will see a handgun and decide not to commit a crime because of the possibility the OCer might use the gun. Not making an argument for OC, because I have been pretty negative on OC often enough, but at worst I have to believe it merely changes some of the dangers not just adds to them.

I'm in an OC state right now (NM), and the only person I've seen OCing so far has been a uniformed cop. Headed to another OC state (AZ) later in the morning. I have yet to see anybody OCing there on previous visits. Maybe it will be different this time? Flagstaff is my destination.

The only place I've ever OC'd in "town" was in Alaska. It's common practice because of bears. I have family in Tulsa, Ok and they OC regularly. We've been in restaurants, stores all over and we hardly got a second look. The police were never called.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, the fears that we have are in our minds. I haven't heard of any problems where OC Is already legal

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm in an OC state right now (NM), and the only person I've seen OCing so far has been a uniformed cop. Headed to another OC state (AZ) later in the morning. I have yet to see anybody OCing there on previous visits. Maybe it will be different this time? Flagstaff is my destination.

TAM, if you were staying in Tucson, AZ, later this month, you might see at least two persons carrying openly. I'll be in Tucson, AZ, in two weeks. I'll start carrying openly as soon as I cross the NM border and stay that way until I return to Texas. My 18 year-old son will also be carrying openly in AZ.

I, also, have not seen many other persons carrying openly in OK, CO, or NM as I visited those states during the past three years. However, as I carried openly there, I noticed very little reaction from the locals. I experienced only one mildly negative question from a visiting northerner.

I've had many conversations with several friends in CO, NM, and AZ, including a relative LEO in CO. In this necessarily limited sample of my personal acquaintances, the consensus is that carrying openly does not pose the negative issues espoused by many on this forum. The most common statement is "no one notices".

One's mode of carrying is a choice. I have made the choice to carry openly as often as possible. I've done my due diligence. Part of that is continually reevaluating the situation and adjusting as is prudent. In Texas, after 1/1/16, I plan to continue to carry in-waistband. I'll simply adjust the tucking of my shirt as seems most prudent in any given situation.

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.

There I fixed it for you. Otherwise it might sound like you were being disparaging.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I have seen people OCing in several states, but nobody else seemed to notice.