Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 132

Thread: OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY

  1. #1
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY
    Revision 1.24
    Written By: Garry E. Harvey
    Contributing Editors: OpenCarry.org Members

    The purpose of this essay is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.

    INTRODUCTION
    "AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"
    Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community, the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been engrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowing eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thinks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
    Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whomever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the Constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.


    CONCEALED CARRY
    THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
    The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
    What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
    Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
    Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
    Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed, the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent; of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage, I think, and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do so. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.


    THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY
    BEWARE OF DOG/GUN
    A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
    The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
    With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.


    CONCLUSION
    THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY
    What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are there times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, definitely! Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
    Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
    We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."


    2007, Garry Harvey. This essay may be reproduced with the condition that it be kept in its entirety and cited accordingly.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I'm a big supporter of both. Open carry is my preferred choice. Frst of all, I'm too young to CCW, second I wouldn't want to pay the fee, and third I just like it better.

    However, it would be nice to CC on some really cold days where you want to wear a jacket.

    I think all states should allow both everywhere with no licensure required.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    That's how it should be anyway. No state in this country should have gone to a "permit" system. So far, Vermont and Alaska are the only states honoring the 2A to the fullest.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Great paper! Are you the author fullauto223cal? I would like to print/email this and give it to some other people, but I also want to give credit where it is due. If you are not the author, could you please point me in the right direction?

    There is only one place that I can say I don't agree with.
    To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign is meaningless.
    To someone who is anti-gun it is not meaningless, however they perceive the meaning to be "beware of the dangerous person". However wrong that line of reasoning may be, it is still there and ought to be taken into account.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    WOW! fullauto, if you are the true author of this writing, please, stand up and take a bow! Very well said. You have hit the nail straight on the head!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Post imported post

    Very good write up indeed, Me I do both dependent upon the circumstances, there is a place for OC and CC, when in the wild OC is far superior accessspeed is your friend.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    I support both. Because of my individual situation I usually endup carrying more concealed than I do openly. What ever works best for you.





    Tarzan

  8. #8
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Yes, I did in fact write this paper. I spent about two days while working a part time job guarding an empty state medical building. Needless to say I had a lot of time to think everything through. If you want to send it you may, my real name is Garry Harvey
    Jackson, TN

  9. #9
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    Great paper! Are you the author fullauto223cal? I would like to print/email this and give it to some other people, but I also want to give credit where it is due. If you are not the author, could you please point me in the right direction?

    There is only one place that I can say I don't agree with.
    To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign is meaningless.
    To someone who is anti-gun it is not meaningless, however they perceive the meaning to be "beware of the dangerous person". However wrong that line of reasoning may be, it is still there and ought to be taken into account.
    How about "To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless." I think that would satisfy your just argument. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make the nessacary changes.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    I really liked your analysis, Garry. Thanks for sharing it with all of us. I did notice one small typo though: The word "smokeing" should be "smoking".

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    There are a number of grammatical errors in the text, however I am not going to make any corrections. Nice piece of work.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Southernboy and everyone else,I still consider this paper a work in progress. If any of you have any corrective criticism please post or send me a private message. One of my college professors once told me that “a writer cannot be his own editor”. This isn’t the first thing I’ve ever written to not be 100% perfect. I await your responses. Thanks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Sometimes I conceal and sometimes I open carry. I normally prefer open carry. Sometimes the law dictates that I conceal.

    Perhaps a few sentences that indicate that the armed citizen does not always have a legally available choice.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    You left out the common arguement that open carrying will make you the first target. It's easy enough to refute and will save time versus the millions of e-mails you'll get from the anti-OC crowd saying "AHA! I found the flaw in your analysis! OC makes you a bullet magnet!"

    Beyond that and a few spelling/conventions errors it's a pretty good paper.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    fullauto223cal wrote:
    How about "To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless." I think that would satisfy your just argument. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make the nessacary changes.
    Cool. It just seems to me that it is not meaningless there would be no problems carrying, yet there they are.

    radwood wrote:
    You left out the common arguement that open carrying will make you the first target. It's easy enough to refute and will save time versus the millions of e-mails you'll get from the anti-OC crowd saying "AHA! I found the flaw in your analysis! OC makes you a bullet magnet!"

    Beyond that and a few spelling/conventions errors it's a pretty good paper.
    I think that was addressed in the CC section.



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Sheldon wrote:
    Very good write up indeed, Me I do both dependent upon the circumstances, there is a place for OC and CC, when in the wild OC is far superior accessspeed is your friend.
    You have been called out. Your honor is at stake.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...122105#p122105

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Sheldon wrote:
    Very good write up indeed, Me I do both dependent upon the circumstances, there is a place for OC and CC, when in the wild OC is far superior accessspeed is your friend.
    You have been called out. Your honor is at stake.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...122105#p122105
    For the love of the innumerable gods of darkness use the damn PM function, and stop spamming half the forum.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Great paper.

    Linked up on paopencarry.org
    Linked from the "FAQ" page and the "links" page.

    http://www.paopencarry.org/openvconcealed.html






  19. #19
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    May we repost that?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Franklin Township, DeKalb County, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    82

    Post imported post

    In my opinion, that was very well written. Thank you.

  21. #21
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    HEY EVERYONE!! FIRST, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE ENCOURGEMENT!

    I want everyone to know that this is still a work in progress. If any of you have anything you think will make this a better artical please send me a (PM) or post a reply on this thread.

    Keep the ideas and critisizm coming. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed I've added a Revision stamp and given credit to all who can help me perfect this article further. I've got my ears open brothers!

    If you guys repost it then (PM) me with a link, I'd like to see what those people say about it as well.

  22. #22
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    You left out the common arguement that open carrying will make you the first target. It's easy enough to refute and will save time versus the millions of e-mails you'll get from the anti-OC crowd saying "AHA! I found the flaw in your analysis! OC makes you a bullet magnet!"

    Beyond that and a few spelling/conventions errors it's a pretty good paper.
    Although I didn't state that argument verbatim, please refer to the "looking for trouble" counter argument under CONCEALED CARRY paragraph four as well as “risk vs. reward” logic in paragraph three. In summary, it is illogical that a criminal would instigate a gun fight for no other reason than to instigate a gun fight. I challenge anyone opposed to Open Carry to cite one documented case where a criminal did what they claim will happen. The behavioral evidence in support of Open Carry is well documented. If you think I should address this more specifically that’s fine, send me what your argument would be and we’ll see about inserting it.

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    fullauto223cal wrote:
    I'd like to see what those people say about it as well.
    Cross-posted:
    http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...tml#post186024

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Well done. I do have a few comments. I'll either post them up here later or PM you.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Empire of, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.

    What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.

    - Schofield


Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •