So who open carries?

[JohnKSa]

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.

That sorta goes without saying, doesn't it?

Don't you get funny looks when you go out like that? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[JohnKSa]

Surprise is an attack, not a defense.

That is incorrect. Surprise can used both in defense or in attack. As you point out, it does require that the defender conceal capabilities, if not specifically weapons.

...if carrying concealed is such a tatical advantage, why don't the military and law enforcement require their personel to carry concealed?

Several reasons.

1. Rifles (military) are hard to conceal.
2. The uniform gives them away.
3. Even stupid people realize that the guy in the tank/army truck/cop car is armed even if his gun is not in plain sight.

Finally, if you know anything about the military, you will know that whenever possible the military DOES strive to conceal their full capabilities (that's why security classifications exist) because they know that if the enemy knows their full capabilities they can plan to neutralize them. They conceal capabilities whether they intend to attack OR defend.

LE is a bit different, they're not really able to conceal much capability, however, I'm sure you know that there are situations that call for concealment of capability, even in LE. Unmarked cars, etc.

OC is more tatically sound then CC. nothing is between you and your sidearm that can cause a misdraw, extra steps or worse, extra time to clear your holster.

No, OC makes it easier to draw your weapon. That's not the same thing as saying it's more tactically sound. That's only one factor in this comparison--all of them (or at least the significant factors) must be compared before one can say that one is more tactically sound than the other.

you want to bet your life you're quicker then the BG?

Nope, don't have to. He doesn't know I have a gun so I don't have to beat him. I just have to wait until the circumstances give me the edge. CC allows one that option. OC generally won't.

most people who are criminals are looking for the easy score, the easy target, they sure as hell don't want to work, or fight, for anything. and by OC, you are more times then not, eliminated from their choice of targets.

This is a non-argument. Criminals who are out for an easy score don't want to hurt anyone. That means that whether you OC or CC you're gonna come out of it OK as soon as your gun is visible. The difference is in how you come out against a criminal who's not averse to swift and violent action. OC means you get neutralized first and then robbed. CC might (not will but might) cause the criminal to feel that he doesn't need to initially neutralize you which might (not will but might) give you a chance to respond.

In other words, it's a draw when facing criminals who don't want to hurt anyone and possible advantage to CC when facing a crook who has no compunctions against it.

do wolves attack the guard dogs or the sheep?

Sure they do. Not all the time, but it certainly happens.

normal BG's aren't looking for confrontation, they are looking for easy targets and easy targets aren't armed.

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that there are some BG's who aren't "normal". The point is that you can pretty much make the type of BG a non-issue by concealing. If he's normal, you just pull your gun and he runs (just like he would have if he'd seen your OC gun) and if he's not, maybe the fact that you're concealing your gun will keep you alive long enough to make use of it.

is the exception, not the rule. that person was bent on hurting people, not robbing people.

As I see it, you're just as dead if you get shot by someone who's the exception and not the rule. Maybe your take is different.

though i doubt a citizen walking in would have garnered the same response, something about a guy with a badge makes BG's nervous.

I agree if you mean an unarmed citizen or a citizen CC'ing. I think a citizen OC'ing would get exactly the same response as a badge though. Something about guys with guns makes BG's nervous--at least that's what you've been telling us.

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

Last I checked, copkillers were pursued much harder and prosecuted much more severely than the average murderer. In other words, you're dead wrong. A police officer is not just a deterrent because he's armed but also because he has access to backup and because criminals know that if they attack a cop they're going to have a hard time hiding and a real bad time if they're caught.

why, oh why, would a perp attempt to attack someone openly carrying?

Guns are desirable and expensive. There's been at least one documented case of an OC'er getting robbed for his handgun. Common? No, but why , oh why, would you make yourself a target if you don't have to.

 

[NavyLT]

You know what? It really just doesn't matter.

If I OC, and I get shot first, then the CC'er will get the chance to exercise his element of surprise and shoot the bad guy (and win this stupid argument in the process).

If I OC and the BG sees it and picks another target and goes to the CC'er, then maybe the CC'er will have a chance to prove his defensive skills, but now I am walking away.

If I OC and scare the sheeple, so what. I carry an inanimate object on my belt. If they are afraid of an inanimate object then let them go somewhere else. My rights don't end just because they are afraid to see me exercise my rights. They can go and hang out with the CC'er, maybe he will get more friends that way and everybody will be happier.

If I OC and someone sees it and asks me about it and I get the chance to discuss it with them rationally and they get a different, more positive attitude toward self defense, then we all win.

Let's just carry our guns the way that we see fit to carry them, it's just like carrying with one in the chamber or not... I really don't care how you carry your gun. I may not think it is the best way, but at least you have a gun. I have chosen the best way for me to carry and I more than likely am not going to change the way I carry unless a change in statute causes me to have to.

 

[JohnKSa]

I really don't care how you carry your gun.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I do...

I'm certainly not against OC, I just object to the frequent assertions that it's obviously superior to CC and the fervent attempts to prove it.

Sure, it offers some advantages, but there are disadvantages too. Same with CC. Depending on the specific circumstances of the situation, it's easy see that one might provide an edge over the other and also how that edge might reverse if the circumstances change a bit.

 

[NavyLT]

I'm certainly not against OC, I just object to the frequent assertions that it's obviously superior to CC and the fervent attempts to prove it.

Not exactly sure why you are objecting, you are doing exactly the same thing towards the CC side of the argument.

The point is this - we will not ever have real statistics as to how many BG's see an OC'er with a gun and move on. We have interviews with BG's who have said they would move on to an easier target. We will never have real statistics as to how many BG's have shot an ordinary citizen OC'ing because they were OC'ing. Sure, there have been a couple instances where open carrying citizens have been shot (and let's not please try to even pretend that LEO's are shot because of their open carrying and call it the same.) Really, when it boils down to what is important, the important factor is whatever the carrier is comfortable with because that will cause him/her to be more relaxed in their method of carry and cause them to carry more often.

 

[JohnKSa]

Not exactly sure why you are objecting, you are doing exactly the same thing towards the CC side of the argument.

What, unless I admit that OC has the advantage in every respect I'm "doing the same thing towards the CC side"?

I've already admitted to at least one advantage OC has, but maybe that's not enough.

Besides usually slowing down the draw compared to OC, CC generally requires smaller (less shootable) guns, often in smaller (less effective) calibers and usually reduced capacity. It's almost always less comfortable than OC.

Ok, now that I've said that.

I'm certainly not against OC, I just object to the frequent assertions that it's obviously superior to CC and the fervent attempts to prove it.

Sure, it offers some advantages, but there are disadvantages too. Same with CC. Depending on the specific circumstances of the situation, it's easy see that one might provide an edge over the other and also how that edge might reverse if the circumstances change a bit.

 

[supergas452M]

I have to agree with the NavyLT here (may be a first for me). I'm not really concerned about how I carry. I carry open and I carry concealed. I may actually carry open and concealed at the same time. The point is "I carry".
All the brow beating about what a BG may or may not do or how a sheeple may or may not react is of no major consideration to me. I will do as I feel necessary to defend myself/family. If that bothers someone, oh well. In my state I am legally allowed to open carry. I know when and where it is legal. If I'm legal and it scares your grandma and she screams "OMG, he's got a gun, I'm gonna turn to her and say "Relax Granny, I'm one of the good guys." If I'm OCing and a BG notices it and wants to make me his target then he's in for a battle and chances are I noticed him first. This topic has been beat to death. No one wins and no one changes anyone elses opinion.
CLOSE THREAD NOW.

 

[KnightZero]

Its legal to OC in my state, but I normally CC. I will OC in my local area - the way I see it, me OCing in establishments that I frequently visit only gets me branded as "The good guy with the gun." Sure, I might get hassled a few times, but it's legal, and my local area cops seem to know the law. In the long run this could be an asset, should I ever need to use my firearm at or near one of these establishments in my local area. Better to be surrounded by people who know you as a positive carrier - might not make THAT much of a difference, but every little bit helps.

Training in retention of your firearm, and having a proper holster is vital for OC. My OC holster for my everyday carry gun is a very tight leather holster that holds the gun very firm, and only permits draw from the proper angle. Since I plan to switch to the XD for OC, I will be getting a Serpa retention holster to OC for the future.

 

[mrray13]

1. Rifles (military) are hard to conceal.
2. The uniform gives them away.
3. Even stupid people realize that the guy in the tank/army truck/cop car is armed even if his gun is not in plain sight.

Finally, if you know anything about the military, you will know that whenever possible the military DOES strive to conceal their full capabilities (that's why security classifications exist) because they know that if the enemy knows their full capabilities they can plan to neutralize them. They conceal capabilities whether they intend to attack OR defend.

LE is a bit different, they're not really able to conceal much capability, however, I'm sure you know that there are situations that call for concealment of capability, even in LE. Unmarked cars, etc.

ok, i'll conced that the military will conceal a large portion of their strength, but only if you'll conced that has nothing to do with primary and secondary weapons..ie;rifles, pistol. and i wasn't talking about number of tanks, nukes, subs, planes, they are irrelevant to this discussion. however, the secondaries are, and guess where they are at? why?

No, OC makes it easier to draw your weapon. That's not the same thing as saying it's more tactically sound. That's only one factor in this comparison--all of them (or at least the significant factors) must be compared before one can say that one is more tactically sound than the other.

ok..what does CC offer over OC tactically, other then surprise? you say it yourself later...in most cases, CC means smaller guns, which means smaller caliber, smaller capacity, in exchange for concealment. no, i'll stand by my statement that OC is tactically superiour to CC.

Nope, don't have to. He doesn't know I have a gun so I don't have to beat him. I just have to wait until the circumstances give me the edge. CC allows one that option. OC generally won't.

wanna bet? again, with a simple change in stance, a BG will never see my OC sidearm. and when you walk in on one, they don't look at your waist. however, i will agree that CC does off that advantage without a change is stance. but you'll have to concede it gives up the fact you have to make way more motions to achieve the same goal. meaning, getting the weapon out.

The difference is in how you come out against a criminal who's not averse to swift and violent action. OC means you get neutralized first and then robbed. CC might (not will but might) cause the criminal to feel that he doesn't need to initially neutralize you which might (not will but might) give you a chance to respond.

In other words, it's a draw when facing criminals who don't want to hurt anyone and possible advantage to CC when facing a crook who has no compunctions against it.

a criminal who is not adverse to harming you will probably shoot you the moment he can. he will want to incapacitate anyone not associated with what he is intent on achieving.

Sure they do. Not all the time, but it certainly happens.

but it is the exception, not the rule. they will usually bait the guard dog away from the flock, but in desperation, they will attack. but they make their living off the sheep, not the guard dog, and again, unless desperate, they will avoid a guard dog at all costs. if nothing else, the guard dog will alert the shepard, and that brings in the big guns.

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that there are some BG's who aren't "normal". The point is that you can pretty much make the type of BG a non-issue by concealing. If he's normal, you just pull your gun and he runs (just like he would have if he'd seen your OC gun) and if he's not, maybe the fact that you're concealing your gun will keep you alive long enough to make use of it.

maybe concealing it means you won't have time to react if he's not normal. big maybes, on both sides. what i was trying to point that is that most criminals aren't looking for confrontation, those that are are a different set of rules. one in which we touch on next.

As I see it, you're just as dead if you get shot by someone who's the exception and not the rule. Maybe your take is different.

yep, you're correct. but the exception is out to harm, that is their goal. they want to cause bodily harm to achieve thier goal, or bodily harm is their goal. in that case, one is likely to get shot whether they are carrying open or concealed. hopefully, someone is in a position to stop it before it gets to bad, regardless of how they are carrying.

I agree if you mean an unarmed citizen or a citizen CC'ing. I think a citizen OC'ing would get exactly the same response as a badge though. Something about guys with guns makes BG's nervous--at least that's what you've been telling us.

yep, if they see it. you walk in on someone robbing a place, they don't look at your waist. as a LEO, you will stand out, you are in uniform. when i'm in plainclothes and have my beltslide on, noone sees it without looking, and that's carrying openly. they have to LOOK for it. eye contact is made before anything else, and gives me a moment to turn slightly, or draw.

now, out on a street, when a BG has a chance to scope out his targets, then yeah, the OC guy is a lot less likely to get singled out. it will make them nervous.

Last I checked, copkillers were pursued much harder and prosecuted much more severely than the average murderer. In other words, you're dead wrong. A police officer is not just a deterrent because he's armed but also because he has access to backup and because criminals know that if they attack a cop they're going to have a hard time hiding and a real bad time if they're caught.

true, can't argue. but it still happens. why? because there is also the stigma that goes with being a copkiller. almost like hunting, we are the big bulls, major points for capping a cop. smart BGs will weigh the pros and cons to attacking a cop, but a stupid one? and then again, how often do we read about an openly armed citizen getting attacked? especially singled out for his weapon?

Guns are desirable and expensive. There's been at least one documented case of an OC'er getting robbed for his handgun. Common? No, but why , oh why, would you make yourself a target if you don't have to.

one? so just how are we targets if we openly carry? one documented case. seems more like a deterrent then a target...

I'm certainly not against OC, I just object to the frequent assertions that it's obviously superior to CC and the fervent attempts to prove it.

umm, what about the opposite? what about all the "i'm not a target" comments, or the "element of surprise" comments that seem to be the only two basis for CC, other then CC is PC and it won't **** anyone off? all this "OC wil get you singled out", yet you say there is one documented case?

sorry, i can't buy into CC is better for any reason save one, when attire won't allow for OC.

i am glad that this debate has stayed level headed. it's been fun!

 

[mrray13]

If I'm OCing and a BG notices it and wants to make me his target then he's in for a battle and chances are I noticed him first. This topic has been beat to death. No one wins and no one changes anyone elses opinion.
CLOSE THREAD NOW.

sure about that? i hope so.

no one changes their opinion? i've seen a couple posts reflecting a change. and it's not about winning or losing, it's about getting as much info out there as possible. let a person make up their own mind.

close the thread? you staff now?

 

[JohnKSa]

again, with a simple change in stance, a BG will never see my OC sidearm.

Do you assume that every person you see is a BG and change your stance so they can't see your OC sidearm? Unless you can say yes then I don't understand how you think this comment is cogent.

i'll stand by my statement that OC is tactically superiour to CC.

Perhaps the issue is how you define "tactically". It means: "Of, relating to, or using tactics." Most of the CC disadvantages are materiel (not material) disadvantages, not tactical disadvantages.

a criminal who is not adverse to harming you will probably shoot you the moment he can.

Well, he certainly will if you're armed. But he may not if he thinks you're unarmed.

he will want to incapacitate anyone not associated with what he is intent on achieving.

He will want to incapacitate anyone who stands between him and his goal. Why would he want to incapacitate even those who are not hindering him or standing in his way. That makes no sense at all... IF hurting everyone on the scene is his goal it might make sense, but even then CC would generally be a better bet.

There was an incident where exactly that situation arose at a shooting range/gun shop. The criminal took the entire staff hostage and herded them out to the back alley, telling them he was going to kill them. One of the employees was armed with a concealed weapon and was able to choose an opportune time to respond, shooting and incapacitating the criminal. None of the employees were harmed.

He had the option to wait for the right time to respond because his pistol was hidden. Had the pistol been worn openly the employee would have had to respond immediately when things turned sour or he would have been disarmed. Given that the criminal cased the scene carefully before acting--hechose HIS moment to play his hand--picking a time when he had a significant advantage it's hard to imagine how it could have worked out better if the employee had been OC instead of CC.

On the other hand, had ALL the employees been OC, the criminal might well have moved on without trying his hand. The deterrent value of OC goes WAY up when there are multiple OC present. I think there's no room for debate there. The issue is that if you're the ONLY OC then the criminal can deal with you fairly easily. But if you're the only CC, you look just like everyone else in the group--and that's an advantage.

but it is the exception, not the rule.

How is that significantly different from "Not all the time but it does happen." which is what I said? Your earlier statement said it doesn't happen. As we both now agree, it DOES happen on occasion.

yep, you're correct. but the exception is out to harm, that is their goal. they want to cause bodily harm to achieve thier goal, or bodily harm is their goal.

You're still making this way too specific. As if the ONLY criminals who would harm a person without compunction are those who have harming a person as their GOAL. That overstates the rarity. Yes, there are some who WANT to hurt people, but there are also those who don't WANT to hurt people (that's not their goal) but who simply don't care if they have to in order to carry off their crime. A sadist or a psychopath WANTS to hurt people but they're rare. Sociopaths are far more common. They don't necessarily WANT to hurt people, but they'll do it without a second thought if they think it's necessary.

one? so just how are we targets if we openly carry? one documented case.

One DOCUMENTED case (cite available online) is not the same as ONE case. Does your department post all its police reports online so that they can be searched on the internet? Do you know of other departments who do so? In other words, the one DOCUMENTED case proves it does happen. The fact that most crime reports are not available to be readily searched on the internet means that determining the likelihood would be impossible without extensive, hands-on-intensive research. I made NO representation that my comment spoke to likelihood, only pointed out that it CAN happen because we KNOW it already HAS.

ok, i'll conced that the military will conceal a large portion of their strength, but only if you'll conced that has nothing to do with primary and secondary weapons..ie;rifles, pistol.

In other words you'll admit you were wrong now that it's been made obvious that is the case but in return you want me to admit to being wrong too? Why would I do that?

The point is that it's often an advantage to conceal one's full capabilities from potential enemies. That goes for militaries and it goes for individuals.

Obviously everyone with a brain knows that every military in the world has small arms, so there's little benefit in attempting to conceal that capability and they focus on concealing more telling capabilities. In all likelihood, the most telling capability an armed citizen has is access to his weapon.

So while militaries conceal the number of fighter jets they have and just how fast they fly, armed citizens conceal the fact that they have a gun immediately accessible. BECAUSE if an enemy knows the exact capability of a military they can work to neutralize it and if a criminal knows the exact capability of a man on the street he can easily neutralize it.

 

[Al Norris]

The deterrent value of OC goes WAY up when there are multiple OC present. I think there's no room for debate there.

Which is exactly what happened in my neighborhood.

As I said earlier, it's no longer in fashion. That's the only reason people fear it.

Guess I'm just not very civilized John, as I still enjoy walking around Sun Valley with my 44 strapped on.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't think I've ever called OC uncivilized. I think that there's a good argument to be made that the open carry of weapons contributes to civilization although I realize that's almost certainly not the view taken by most of the general public.

 

[mrray13]

Do you assume that every person you see is a BG and change your stance so they can't see your OC sidearm? Unless you can say yes then I don't understand how you think this comment is cogent.

easy, the intial scenerio presented said i was an armed civilian walking in on a robbery and the FIRST thing the BG would notice was my sidearm.

Perhaps the issue is how you define "tactically". It means: "Of, relating to, or using tactics." Most of the CC disadvantages are materiel (not material) disadvantages, not tactical disadvantages.

using the definition you just gave, OC is an tactical advantage. you care to explain how CC is just a materiel disadvantage?

Well, he certainly will if you're armed. But he may not if he thinks you're unarmed.

you surprise a BG who doesn't care about life or is bent on harming everyone in the, i don't care if you are armed or not. chances are, you are shot. walk in on one who is just after money...well...flip a coin. but which way of carry is faster to respond?

IF hurting everyone on the scene is his goal it might make sense, but even then CC would generally be a better bet.

that was my point and just how would CC be better?

There was an incident where exactly that situation arose at a shooting range/gun shop. The criminal took the entire staff hostage and herded them out to the back alley, telling them he was going to kill them. One of the employees was armed with a concealed weapon and was able to choose an opportune time to respond, shooting and incapacitating the criminal. None of the employees were harmed.

sorry, that BG knew he was going to die/get shot. if he had really wanted to kill the entire staff, it would have been done inside the store. how many mass shooters give their victims that kind of time? none. IMHO, this example does nothing to help.

The deterrent value of OC goes WAY up when there are multiple OC present. I think there's no room for debate there. The issue is that if you're the ONLY OC then the criminal can deal with you fairly easily. But if you're the only CC, you look just like everyone else in the group--and that's an advantage.

of course. but your arguement has been that (ie, the state of florida), there are so many people CC, that that is a deterrent. to be honest, it helps, but it hasn't done enough. if more of us OC, if the states allowed all legal owners to OC, just what do you think would happen? if multipule OC is a big deterrent, then what is the likely result of more people OC?

How is that significantly different from "Not all the time but it does happen." which is what I said? Your earlier statement said it doesn't happen. As we both now agree, it DOES happen on occasion.

it's not, and i've never said otherwise. i've allows stated "that is the exception, not the rule". please go look again and find where i stated otherwise.

You're still making this way too specific. As if the ONLY criminals who would harm a person without compunction are those who have harming a person as their GOAL. That overstates the rarity. Yes, there are some who WANT to hurt people, but there are also those who don't WANT to hurt people (that's not their goal) but who simply don't care if they have to in order to carry off their crime. A sadist or a psychopath WANTS to hurt people but they're rare. Sociopaths are far more common. They don't necessarily WANT to hurt people, but they'll do it without a second thought if they think it's necessary

ok, i'll clarify. the majority of BGs do not want to harm, in any case. they will simply flee, not fight. others will indeed turn and fight, but only to flee. then there are those who will turn and fight, or fight from the word go, just because they don't care. and lastly, there are those who walk in adn shoot everyone in the room to start. as you go through the list, they get rarer and fewer and farther in between.

i'll concede i was being a bit too specific.

only pointed out that it CAN happen because we KNOW it already HAS.

true, never argued that. but the CC side always wants to use that as the primary arguement. "it'll make me a target", yet it so rarely happens, or is so rarely reported, that the argument is null. i'm sure that if it was reported, a police report filed and dropped off at the PA office, it's available. online? well, not everyone is up to date on that. it is a matter of public record, and can be researched. so, IMO, if it is such a valid arguement, and i'm not saying it doesn't happen, why isn't there more reported, documented cases?

my department is in a county that isn't that up to date. of course, it doesn't matter here, my state doesn't allow carry of any kind, unless you know the "loophole".

In other words you'll admit you were wrong now that it's been made obvious that is the case but in return you want me to admit to being wrong too? Why would I do that?

because the original arguement had nothing to do with the military concealing small arms to hide strength. it had to due with them concealing small arms as a tactical advantage.

everyone keeps saying the surprise factor is the key, it's the tactical advantage of carrying concealed. yet, no uniformed entity carries concealed. it's not tactically sound for them to. maybe that arguement is bogus even on my part, ok. but to bring in the whole strength of the military to prove a point? well, it's bogus too, but i'm adult enough to concede a valid point, even if it really doesn't pertain to the arguement at hand.

if a criminal knows the exact capability of a man on the street he can easily neutralize it.

that's a big if in front of that statement above. just because that man is armed, it doesn't show his exact capability. he could be a 5thdan blackbelt, he could be a cop in plainclothes, he could have a knife or better yet, another sidearm somewhere else. way to many if's to say just because he sees one sidearm, he can be easily neutralized.



and we can go back and forth all day. but again this statement by you...

The deterrent value of OC goes WAY up when there are multiple OC present. I think there's no room for debate there.

is the one that we need to focus on, and one we need to achieve. once the general public gets over their fear of LEGAL firearms, and those people who carry them legally all day everyday, then the focus might just shift to enforcing the laws already on the books, and punishing those who break them to the fullest extent.

 

[jhco50]

Colorado is an open carry state. I do carry open when I travel or just feel like it. My most common position for open carry is in the seat beside me while traveling from city to city. If I stop somewhere I just slip the gun under the seat and lock the truck.

I don't have a CWP because I don't think the police or gov should know that much about what kind of guns I have or even have me registered as having a gun.

More people should excersize their right to open carry and not worrie about the woosies of the world. They will get over it.

 

[OldMarksman]

the majority of BGs do not want to harm, in any case. they will simply flee, not fight.

I'll buy that. The problem occurs when they think they cannot flee. Who can outrun a bullet? Who's going to try?

you surprise a BG who doesn't care about life or is bent on harming everyone in the, i don't care if you are armed or not. chances are, you are shot. walk in on one who is just after money...well...flip a coin [CC or OC]

So you do not accept that the person who is visibly armed with deadly weapon will be seen by the felon as posing a much, much more serious threat to his safety or personal freedom than one who is not? To me, that is simple, basic, incontrovertible common sense.

but which way of carry is faster to respond?

Respond??? The unarmed person or person carrying concealed does nothing. The guy open carrying probably can't choose that option because he poses a threat, but darn few folks can draw and shoot a man with a gun in his hand.

just because that man is armed, it doesn't show his exact capability. he could be a 5thdan blackbelt, he could be a cop in plainclothes, he could have a knife or better yet, another sidearm somewhere else. way to many if's to say just because he sees one sidearm, he can be easily neutralized.

Easily? How about BANG?

 

[mrt949]

When i lived i PENNSYLVANIA .You could open carry .But now living in FL.I have no option but to CC.I prefer to c.c. much safer.

 

[JohnKSa]

the intial scenerio presented said i was an armed civilian walking in on a robbery and the FIRST thing the BG would notice was my sidearm.

Again, unless you blade away from the people in a building EVERY time you enter one, I don't see how that's going to help.

using the definition you just gave, OC is an tactical advantage. you care to explain how CC is just a materiel disadvantage?

I didn't say CC was "just" a materiel disadvantage, I said "most". And I didn't say that OC had no tactical advantages, I said earlier that A single tactical advantage (faster draw) isn't sufficient to state that OC has an OVERALL tactical superiority. You have to take all of the tactical advantages/disadvantages of both and compare them. NOT just one particular factor.

walk in on one who is just after money...well...flip a coin. but which way of carry is faster to respond?

We both agree that OC will generally allow a faster draw. What you refuse to accept is that CC generally means that you don't HAVE to have a fast draw because it can give you the option to pick an advantageous moment to respond rather than forcing you to respond immediately.

that was my point and just how would CC be better?

I explained in the paragraphs immediately after the quote you responded to.

how many mass shooters give their victims that kind of time?

You've never heard of the "herd them all into a back room & shoot them" scenario? What kind of LE are you in?

that BG knew he was going to die/get shot.

Given that many mass murderers commit suicide, it's reasonable to assume that many of them know that they're going to die/get shot. I don't see that as a comfort to the victims, perhaps you see it differently.

yet it so rarely happens, or is so rarely reported, that the argument is null.

You're kidding right? You really can't see the difference between "rarely happen"ing and "rarely reported"? The two are not at all the same thing. Besides, the issue isn't the raw number of occurrences,it's the number of occurrences vs the number of people who OC. Given the rarity of OC in populous areas (such an incident requires not only that you have a person who OCs, but also a person who OCs where there are a good number of other people who SEE him OCing), even a few incidents could mean that it's relatively likely GIVEN that a person OCs in a populous area.

it's the tactical advantage of carrying concealed. yet, no uniformed entity carries concealed.

Yeah, I don't know what else to say. If you don't automatically understand why it's not particularly useful for UNIFORMED military/LE personnell to conceal their weapons as a means to conceal capability then I don't believe it's possible to explain it to you.

that's a big if in front of that statement above. just because that man is armed, it doesn't show his exact capability. he could be a 5thdan blackbelt, he could be a cop in plainclothes, he could have a knife or better yet, another sidearm somewhere else. way to many if's to say just because he sees one sidearm, he can be easily neutralized.

Explain how any of those things make a difference to a defender if he's been hit hard from behind before he knew anything was even going on?

is the one that we need to focus on, and one we need to achieve.

Sure, I'm all for that, I just understand that it's not a feasible goal except in isolated circumstances (gun stores are one such isolated circumstance). I'm for complete nuclear disarmament too--but I know it is a pipe dream...

 

[mrray13]

Again, unless you blade away from the people in a building EVERY time you enter one, I don't see how that's going to help.

ok, your twisting the conversation. we were talking about walking in on a BG who's shouting, and pointing a weapon in the commision of a crime,but i'll play. yes, i do indeed blade away from people everytime i enter a room. concealed or open. i either pull the door open with my right, or push it open with my left, so my strongside is almost always turned away from everyone inside.

I didn't say CC was "just" a materiel disadvantage, I said "most". And I didn't say that OC had no tactical advantages, I said earlier that A single tactical advantage (faster draw) isn't sufficient to state that OC has an OVERALL tactical superiority. You have to take all of the tactical advantages/disadvantages of both and compare them. NOT just one particular factor.

ok, IMHO, it is (oc) superior in every aspect, save concealibilty. and CC only offers that over OC. from style of weapon, to postion of carry, to capacity, to quickness in both drawing and reholstering..it's just no contest in my mind. and again, i believe that with the right holster, even OC is partially concealed anyway. when i do carry open, people have to REALLY LOOK to see i'm carrying.

What you refuse to accept is that CC generally means that you don't HAVE to have a fast draw because it can give you the option to pick an advantageous moment to respond rather than forcing you to respond immediately.

no, i agree with that statement. what i disagree with is your arguement, and OldMarksman's, that a BG will IMMEDIATEILY notice a plainclothes wearing citizen OCing when they walk in on him commiting a crime. they just don't look at the waist first. too many things going on, and if your lucky, your not shot just walking in.

You've never heard of the "herd them all into a back room & shoot them" scenario? What kind of LE are you in?

sure. in the movies mostly. or with more then one gunman. not saying it doesn't happen, just not as often as teh gunman walking in and just shooting. and even in that situation, an openly armed person will have time to blade away, or even draw, due to the fact the single gunman can't have eyes everywhere.

and in your example, the guy walked into a gunshop. he was completely stupid, naive, or whatever adjective you want to use, to not think someone in there wasn't armed, even in the republik of illinois, it's completely legal for a business owner to carry concealed on his property. his specific goal, IMHO, was to die. otherwise, why choose that business and then walk them all outside? doesn't add up to my LE mind. but then again, i'm small town LEO, i guess we just don't measure up to big cities...


and i will say again, your example was a poor one. that BG honestly, IMHO, had no intention of harming anyone, unless absolutely necessary for one of them to shoot him.

Yeah, I don't know what else to say. If you don't automatically understand why it's not particularly useful for UNIFORMED military/LE personnell to conceal their weapons as a means to conceal capability then I don't believe it's possible to explain it to you.

ok, you win. when i refute your point, you twist it around. i know why we don't carry concealed, uniformed LEO, it's tactically unsound, and just plain unnecessary. OC is a deterrent as well has an advantage. however, you keep wanting to bring up the point of CC being better, hiding strength and such. but i can't refute it because you twist it and try to make me sound dense.we should just drop the uniform and military out of the conversation as it's diluting it anyway. agreed?

Explain how any of those things make a difference to a defender if he's been hit hard from behind before he knew anything was even going on?

that goes both ways. you'll argue to take out the openly armed person, i'll argue to take out the weak, or appearing unarmed, person.


in the end, it adds up to this. i feel as though OC is the better option. if more people would actually excercise their right (if legal) of OC, the deterrent factor goes way up, as you agree to. i believe in the school of thought, and from my experience in LE, that BGs don't go after those they know will resist, fight or possibly inflict harm upon them unless they are for certain they can get the jump on them. they aren't after the hard targets. that said, i have yet to deal with someone hell bent on causing bodily harm with any kind of deadly weapon, and those types are more the exception then the rule. again, IMHHLO, if a person is carrying openly, they are less of a target then one who is carrying concealed.

again, ask yourself this question...if you are set on mugging someone and two people are walking down the street, one is openly armed, the other isn't, who are you going after?

oh, wait, i know...you as the BG will COMPLETELY surprise the OC individual and get their gun and money. let's assume they are so naive in their capabilities as to not be fully aware while OC. but i will agree, some won't be. i'll also agree it will happen. but i'll also stipulate that a CC individual will also be just as easily taken by surprise and their weapon can just as easily be removed, as they will be more often then not, just as unaware in their surroundings as the OC individual.

What kind of LE are you in?

the kind that puts me at risk everyday. the kind that tries to protect those in a state where noone can legally carry a gun in their own defense, yet just about everybody i come into contact with due to my job has some kind of weapon. the kind that says i will try and make yoru night restful because i am on duty. and i do this all with no benefits and $9.00 per hour.

is that good enough for you? what kind are you in?



i apologize if i'm a bit sarcastic, but that question rubs me very wrong. we are always to blame if we do our job, and we are always to blame if we can't. and to be questioned like that, even if in the wrong context, well, i don't want to get banned so i won't cuss.

 

[OldMarksman]

you'll argue to take out the openly armed person, i'll argue to take out the weak, or appearing unarmed, person.

WHY? How is the latter a threat to you?

That's the crux. You have agreed that the felon likely does not want to shoot anyone. But if someone comes along with a gun, the felon can reasonably deduce that he must be the first to shoot or he himself will be shot.

That's true whether it's a man carrying a gun openly or a person carrying concealed who is so unwise as to try to draw on a man with a gun in his hand.

Now if the perp is just out looking for an easy victim in a parking lot, I agree that he will likely avoid the man with a gun on his belt (the exception would occur if there are several perps who strongly desire to get the gun and are willing to try to get the man from behind, or if one is armed to shoot first).

But the scenario we've been discussing is the crime in progress, where the person carrying openly represents a clear and present danger unless he is taken out. No deterrent value there, I'm afraid.