So who open carries?

[Al Norris]

If I had just come into this "debate," cold, without reading the whole thread, I would be saying the same things that freakshow and mrray13 have said.

I open carry aboutr as much as I carry concealed - which is about half the time. The only difference (if it's a difference) I have is that when I open carry, I also have a concealed handgun.

The reality is that people don't like open carry because it is no longer in fashion.

 

[Housezealot]

I don't mean to carry on an argument but if I was the BG and I walked into a place with ill intent of course I would shoot the guy with a pistol before I did any thing else, I understand that the fact some one was armed might be a deterent. but personaly I don't see the advantage in tipping my hand.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I understand that the fact some one was armed might be a deterent. but personaly I don't see the advantage in tipping my hand.

I think it comes down to whether or not you think the theoretical increased chance of being a deterrent offsets the theoretical increased chance of becoming a target.

Some people would say being a target is too dangerous to take the chance. Others would say that the chances of that happening are too low to matter.

I'd say it's an individual choice.

 

[mrray13]

I think it comes down to whether or not you think the theoretical increased chance of being a deterrent offsets the theoretical increased chance of becoming a target.

that equates directly to an uniformed LEO. are we more deterrent or target?

an openly armed citizan, IMHO, is no more a target then myself in uniform. he/she is as much their own deterrent against attack as they are their own protection. a BG simply does not want an armed confrontation, and to single out an individual means they aren't focused on their original task at hand. unless like perviously mentioned, they are there just to cause bodily harm, to which nothing will deter them save a bullet.

 

[XLT]

Wrothgar...you can already carry one of those over your shoulder in Texas, AFAIK

 

[OldMarksman]

If I had just come into this "debate," cold, without reading the whole thread, I would be saying the same things that freakshow and mrray13 have said.

And those things might well make sense in Rupert, Idaho. They probably always have.

I respectfully suggest that in a large, heavily urban area adjacent to a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation, surrounded by meth country, at the convergence of the two heaviest-traveled drug arteries in the nation, and with a populace that in large numbers strongly opposes the idea of anyone having a gun, what works in Rupert might not make sense.

if I was the BG and I walked into a place with ill intent of course I would shoot the guy with a pistol before I did any thing else,

If you were in fact bent on mayhem and not looking for easy cash. But as mrray points out, the more likely risk to the guy with the pistol occurs when he walks in on a criminal action in progress.

 

[mrray13]

I respectfully suggest that in a large, heavily urban area adjacent to a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation, surrounded by meth country, at the convergence of the two heaviest-traveled drug arteries in the nation, and with a populace that in large numbers strongly opposes the idea of anyone having a gun, what works in Rupert might not make sense.

you live in or near chicago?


but, again, the arguement can be made that if more people could/did carry openly, some of those stats might be different. or in the case of illinois, just be allowed to carry period.

 

[OldMarksman]

you live in or near chicago?

Nope, closer to you. I can carry--concealed.

but, again, the argument can be made that if more people could/did carry openly, some of those stats might be different.

Maybe, but in reality, I really think people would likely accept it only in smaller, safer communities. Even then, a policeman--or a civilian with a gun on his hip--might be shot if he happens to interrupt a crime at a stop and rob on a rural highway.

in the case of illinois, just be allowed to carry period.

Yep. When I lived in Chicago in the mid '60s, everyone I knew was anti gun. The police spokesman for the Maryville church incident opined that a citizen armed would have made things worse.

In my state there are now about now three dozen CCW licenses, including those issued to our residents by other states, for every LEO in a car or on the street. (That's taking the total number of officers, subtracting 10% for desk, lab, and other operations, and dividing by three shifts).

The younger LEOs generally support concealed carry now. Some of the older veterans are still dubious.

The more senior (in terms of rank) generally recommend against open carry for civilians (not permitted in the major counties anyway) for the three reasons I cited above RE: off-duty open carry:

"Man with a gun": I can't for the life of me understand why a law abiding citizen would suspect that a person carrying a firearm openly might be up to no good. That just doesn't make sense. But it happens.

"Personal risk of becoming a target": It's abundantly clear why a man involved in, or escaping from, an armed criminal act would take down a uniformed policeman or an openly armed citizen immediately and in preference to anyone else who happens to walk in or be outside.

an openly armed citizen, IMHO, is no more a target then myself in uniform.

That makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately it doesn't give me much comfort!​

"Risk of being ambushed by someone after the weapon": The policemen I know here tell me that in their training it is addressed as a significant risk, though it is not as great as that of being run over or being shot by a person already armed. An excellent way to get killed, one former SWAT team lead tells me. An officer from another city told me that back-ups are prohibited in his department but that they all carry one in case their service arm is taken (I didn't get his name, don't ask).

The only place in which open carry in town might benefit me, were it legal, is in the parking lot situation in which someone who appears threatening approaches. If he keeps coming when he sees the gun maybe he's OK. But maybe not. I would like to at least be able to pull my shirt back. Other than that, I don't put that much stock in the idea of "deterrence," other than that that results from the realization that anyone in the room or on the street may be armed. Police and parole officers I know tell me that meth heads are the most dangerous people in the hemisphere and are not deterred by anything.

Now, if I were on the trail and open carry were permitted, I could carry a bulkier weapon. Even then, my LEO friends and those who have attended high-priced combat training courses generally advise me against it.

 

[NGIB]

I carry both ways as the situation warrants.

I will note that folks really need to check the laws of their state to see what's legal and what's not. On the first page of this thread I noticed someone said OC is legal in Florida - it most certainly is not. If you "print" in Florida, you are violating the law.

Where I am in GA, you need a GFL (Georgia Firearms License) to carry either open or concealed...

 

[mrray13]

"Man with a gun": I can't for the life of me understand why a law abiding citizen would suspect that a person carrying a firearm openly might be up to no good. That just doesn't make sense. But it happens.

"Personal risk of becoming a target": It's abundantly clear why a man involved in, or escaping from, an armed criminal act would take down a uniformed policeman or an openly armed citizen immediately and in preference to anyone else who happens to walk in or be outside.

Quote:
an openly armed citizen, IMHO, is no more a target then myself in uniform.

That makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately it doesn't give me much comfort!
"Risk of being ambushed by someone after the weapon": The policemen I know here tell me that in their training it is addressed as a significant risk, though it is not as great as that of being run over or being shot by a person already armed. An excellent way to get killed, one former SWAT team lead tells me. An officer from another city told me that back-ups are prohibited in his department but that they all carry one in case their service arm is taken (I didn't get his name, don't ask).

The only place in which open carry in town might benefit me, were it legal, is in the parking lot situation in which someone who appears threatening approaches. If he keeps coming when he sees the gun maybe he's OK. But maybe not. I would like to b able to pull my shirt back. Other than that, I don't put that much stock in the idea of "deterrence," other than that that results from the realization that anyone in the room or on the street may be armed. Police and parole officers I know tell me that meth heads are the most dangerous people in the hemisphere and are not deterred by anything.

the bold section..that's exactly what it is for.


"man with a gun" is the only argument i can't argue with. that will happen, except in states where open carry is allowed. or it shouldn't happen, although i'm certain it does. but any common sense having individual should know, you already stated this, any open carrying individual isn't likely to be a perp.


"personal risk of becoming a target" what? anyone getting in the way of a BG, either in the process of or the act of leaving the scene, is a target, regardless of being armed or not. an armed person had a better chance of survival,IMHO,and an openly armed person is to be avoided in most BG mindsets.

"risk of being ambushed by someone who is after the weapon" why, oh why, would a perp attempt to attack someone openly carrying? that's too hard, and way to risky. if ill-gotten guns are what theey are after, they most likely will folow you home, see where you live and visit while you are away. no confrontation that way, so it's easier.

i just don't buy that argument, or the target argument, for any reason whatsoever. there are zero studies that show that the openly armed person was the first target, unless the perp was bent on causing bodily harm in the first place.

back-ups are prohibited in his department but that they all carry one in case their service arm is taken

how in the hell do they plan on getting to their backup if their primary is taken? by the time their primary is gone, chances are, they are shot. a BG is not going to take a cop's gun and just leave. not with the cop still breathing, or capable of following them, getting to their car and getting another weapon, or something. if they are in that close of a struggle, and the primary is grabbed, it's escalated to a lethal force issue and that perp is going to die. and that perp knows that.

i don't care who the specific officer is that you spoke too, but his department needs to rethink some training, IMO. if they feel they have time to go for a backup, that is by policy against regulations, if their primary is taken, they have issues. and if they by some grace of God do indeed reach that backup and stop the perp, what is going to happen to them? the BUG is against policy, and in that fight, it's illegal.


that's not a department i want to work for.

 

[L_Killkenny]

In my State open carry isn't legal and it's not a "shall issue" state. But it is getting easier to get CCP's. That being said, if I could open carry I would on occasion. I read on this and other sites about how dangerous it is to carry open. Making you a target, etc. I'd like to see some facts to back this up. I've never so much as seen an article about a civilian gun carrier being targeted from the get-go in a robbery. Sounds like a bunch of bunk.

 

[OldMarksman]

the bold section.. [from the realization that anyone in the room or on the street may be armed] that's exactly what it is for.

I was referring to concealed carry--for example, in Florida, where there are more than a quarter of a million people carrying concealed. No one knows who they are. Assuming the guy didn't drive down from New Jersey or Illinois, there is a deterrent effect that benefits everyone.

The person carrying openly has no anonymity, and while someone looking for easy cash who notices that a citizen is armed may choose to come back later and probably will, a person who is a determined killer who sees the man with the gun knows exactly what to and do to whom, and if someone has already commenced the commission of a crime, the first option is no longer available.

anyone getting in the way of a BG, either in the process of or the act of leaving the scene, is a target, regardless of being armed or not. an armed person had a better chance of survival,IMHO,and an openly armed person is to be avoided in most BG mindsets.

At the risk of sounding unkind, let's think about that.

You are holding up a store or carjacking someone. You have a gun in your hand, adrenalin in your blood, and a high level of desperation in your mind.

You don't want to shoot anyone, but you will to avoid capture or to preserve your skin. You will avoid anyone you can, but if he can shoot you from a distance, you may not be able to. And there's the rub.

An apparently unarmed man walks in, or by, and notices you. What are you going to do? Shoot? Why?

A uniformed policeman comes along and sees you. You know what you'll do here, if you can't run or drive away. Unfortunately it happens a lot more than we like.

A civilian with a gun on his hip? Well, maybe he won't seem as much a threat until you see the gun, but then ... Think about it.

Or try it this way. You're off duty, or out of your jurisdiction, or a civilian.

You walk into a stop and rob, perhaps at the same time as someone else you've never met, and a desperate man with a gun in his hand shouting orders at people to stay back sees you come in.

Would you rather appear unarmed and therefore not likely a threat, or would you like him to see a gun on your hip? Or would you rather be a policeman in uniform? Remember, he has the drop on you, his adrenaline level is a lot higher than yours, he may feel that he has absolutely nothing to lose, and you pose a serious danger to him.

To me it's a complete no brainer.

By the way, if you are off duty in a place where a robbery occurs, what does your training tell you to do?

 

[joh56usa]

I OC when I feel like it!

OCing doesn't make you more a target than any other LEOs and it's actually make bad guys to panic IMO. If they are determined to commit a crime, OC or not will make no difference for them.

Here in Ohio..we have quite a bit of dumbos like to call 911 and report " someone's got a gun!!!!"

 

[joh56usa]

OhioAAA! Having a firearm in a financial lending institution is eillegal unless you are employed there as a armed gard, or you are a LEO. It's a fed. law no matter what state or territory you are standing in. Your banker can't even have a working gun in a shadow box on his wall. OC or CC it doesn't matter in the bank.

Not true!
I guess most banks in Ohio are violating the federal laws then.....!!?

 

[OldMarksman]

OhioAAA! Having a firearm in a financial lending institution is eillegal unless you are employed there as a armed gard, or you are a LEO. It's a fed. law no matter what state or territory you are standing in. Your banker can't even have a working gun in a shadow box on his wall. OC or CC it doesn't matter in the bank.

Federal law prohibits the carrying of weapons in Federal Reserve Banks only.

State laws vary. Where I live I can carry into a bank.

 

[mrray13]

You are holding up a store or carjacking someone. You have a gun in your hand, adrenalin in your blood, and a high level of desperation in your mind.

You don't want to shoot anyone, but you will to avoid capture or to preserve your skin. You will avoid anyone you can, but if he can shoot you from a distance, you may not be able to. And there's the rub.

An apparently unarmed man walks in, or by, and notices you. What are you going to do? Shoot? Why?

A uniformed policeman comes along and sees you. You know what you'll do here, if you can't run or drive away. Unfortunately it happens a lot more than we like.

A civilian with a gun on his hip? Well, maybe he won't seem as much a threat until you see the gun, but then ... Think about it.

Or try it this way. You're off duty, or out of your jurisdiction, or a civilian.

You walk into a stop and rob, perhaps at the same time as someone else you've never met, and a desperate man with a gun in his hand shouting orders at people to stay back sees you come in.

Would you rather appear unarmed and therefore not likely a threat, or would you like him to see a gun on your hip? Or would you rather be a policeman in uniform? Remember, he has the drop on you, his adrenaline level is a lot higher than yours, he may feel that he has absolutely nothing to lose, and you pose a serious danger to him.

ok..he has the drop on everybody...as a policeman, it's a nobrainer and we both agree that the perp will more then likely shoot. but then again, i'm in uniform.

as a armed citizen....

open carry, chances are he's not going to see my sidearm as i'm in plainclothes and look no different then anyone else. he's going to focus on my face first to scream at me, and i all i have to do is turn slightly and my gun isn't visible, yet it's available with no extra motions. and if i decide to draw, it's one fluid motion, all he sees is one hand moving.

CC..same as above. only if i decide to go for my weapon..and this is where it gets tricky...i have to move something other then my strong hand. he's going to see all the motion, be it my weakhand coming across to grab my shirt/jacket/vest, dropping to a knee to go to my ankle, both hands going behind my back to lift shirt/draw weapon...it's going to draw his attention to my hand(s) and to what i'm doing.

which one is more obvious and likely to get you shot? and just who has the real advantage?

of course, carrying concealed does lend itself to not doing anything other then being a good witness. and with that, i'll concede that point over open carry. which kinda leads me to this...

By the way, if you are off duty in a place where a robbery occurs, what does your training tell you to do?

because by department rules, i have to carry concealed unless on official business, our training dictates that we do nothing and be a great witness. HOWEVER, we are also trained that if the opportunity presents itself, take out the threat.



that said, i can honestly only see the one instance where CC has any advantage over OC. and that's when you decide to do nothing and be a good witness. otherwise, it's all OC. from speed and access to draw, to being a deterrent in the first place. speaking of which..

i just talked to a friend. asked him if he know what states allowed concealed carry/open carry and what state he would most likely commit a robbery in. california, washington dc and florida were his top three to commit crimes as he thought they had the toughest gun laws, best opportunities. texas and oklahoma were the two places he wouldn't do anything in because he believes they all carry guns all the time. how many potential out of state BGs research gun laws??

 

[Creature]

So who open carrys?

Not me. Scares the uninformed far too much.

 

[NavyLT]

I don't mean to carry on an argument but if I was the BG and I walked into a place with ill intent of course I would shoot the guy with a pistol before I did any thing else, I understand that the fact some one was armed might be a deterent. but personaly I don't see the advantage in tipping my hand.

If I was a BG, and I walked into a place with ill intent, and I saw an armed citizen there, I would turn around and beat feet out of there. There is a huge difference in robbery, possibly armed robbery, and murder. I think even low intelligence BG's probably know that. They might be willing to do time for robbery in order to make a few bucks, but I think most would think twice about murder chargers. Besides, with the absolute ABUNDANCE of visibly unarmed citizens, why in the world would the BG stick around a place where he KNOWS the chances of him getting shot at have just risen exponentially because of the presence of a gun and the presence of a citizen with the balls to carry that gun openly!

 

[Conradm]

I think I've decided to OC even when I get my permit. I can just see it's going to be to much of a hassle to try and fit my SR9 in my pants while I'm only wearing a t-shirt.

 

[OldMarksman]

If I was a BG, and I walked into a place with ill intent, and I saw an armed citizen there, I would turn around and beat feet out of there. There is a huge difference in robbery, possibly armed robbery, and murder. I think even low intelligence BG's probably know that. They might be willing to do time for robbery in order to make a few bucks, but I think most would think twice about murder charges.

Makes complete sense to me, unless the BG happens to be already intent on murder, as was the case in Kirkwood.

However, the issue, I think, is that if a BG is already committing a violent crime such as armed robbery and is beyond the point of no return, what happens when someone unexpectedly walks in (assume that escape is out of the question)?

A seemingly non threatening person? If you were the perp, what do you think you would do? Probably nothing. OK?

A citizen carrying openly? If you were the perp, what do you think you would do?

A uniformed policeman? If you were the perp, what do you think you would do?

Personally, at that point, I'd rather blend into the surroundings.