Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Open carry makes you a target????

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    388

    Post imported post

    It seems that a lot of boards I go to there are people (most of them) who think open carry makes you the first one to be shot.

    I don't think so, I like to think open carry make the person who was planning on doing something to just move on.

    Your thoughts?



    bob



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    BobR wrote:
    It seems that a lot of boards I go to there are people (most of them) who think open carry makes you the first one to be shot.

    I don't think so, I like to think open carry make the person who was planning on doing something to just move on.

    Your thoughts?



    bob

    I'd say that most if not all of the people on this board would agree with you. When challenged to show any evidence of the claim that OC makes you a target you will get nothing but that one tired story about the security guard taking a guys sidearm (assuming you get anything at all). I'm not entirely sure what the story is supposed to prove as he would have been in as much trouble CCing if confronted by a mugger.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Moved to open carry questions.

    As for the topic at hand I'd say when I see an open carrier shot first, we will know for sure. I think its one of these things that might happen but really isn't a primary concern for me.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    674

    Post imported post

    The only thing open carry has made me a target for since I started doing it in November is entirely too much hassling by the police and WalMart managers.

    Beyond that, not a word.

    Though you have to add the open carrying to the fact that I'm 6'3", 330lbs and not a friendly looking guy most of the time. (Too much effort to smile :P) That may also add into it, compared to a smaller, friendlier looking person.

  5. #5
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Aran wrote:
    The only thing open carry has made me a target for since I started doing it in November is entirely too much hassling by the police and WalMart managers.

    Beyond that, not a word.

    Though you have to add the open carrying to the fact that I'm 6'3", 330lbs and not a friendly looking guy most of the time. (Too much effort to smile :P) That may also add into it, compared to a smaller, friendlier looking person.
    Aran: Go to the Mich posts and look for the thread Kmart/Sears. I have posted the emails I recieved from them regarding the company policy of carrying firearms on their property. It also includes the response from Walmart. In short, Walmarts policy is whatever Mich state law allows. Copy the email and use it to challenge the managers who seem to want to challenge you all the time.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Most of the time..... criminals use a gun as a tool to get what they want. It is a leverage bar that gets people motivated and make them turn over the cash.

    Most petty criminals do NOT want to shoot someone. Robbery and Murder are two different crimes and one can carry life in prison or the death penalty.

    So I submit that a criminal walking in to commit a robbery that seems someone is armed will walk right back out and find some other place.

    The criminal is not going to want to get into a shoot match with another armed citizen. And where there is one armed citizen.... there could be more.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Given that a majority of us have CC permits/license and are active on an OC forum, I think it safe to say that most of us see value in both types of carry. Furthermore, many who object to CC here object to the license/permit process/requirements rather than the manner of carry.

    I think that both types of carry are valid and the choice depends on the situation. I think that there is some deterrence effect from OC although I don't think it is a huge effect because I don't think that most street criminals, the type we are most likely to encounter, are going notice. The ones who do I think it will genearlly deter. The ones who do and are all hyped up on drugs it will likely have little or no effect and may even slightly increase your likelihood of being shot first. Given the small likelihood any of us will actually ever be in a situation where we need our sidearms, I think that which type of criminal you come up against, be it the one with whom you would be better either OC or CC is simply a crap shoot. That being my opinion, I carry as is most comfortable, appropriate and practical for me.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I suspect that the theory that OC will get you shot first, stems from situations more applicable to professional kidnappings, military or quasi-military settings (for example in Iraq), or to situations in which the perpetrator has already decided to shoot people beforehand. Seems to me, that most criminals would rather avoid the whole entanglement if they realized you were carrying, as there is too much risk for the possible payoff. Some research has shown that, for the basic mugger or robber, they tend to pick their victims intentionally and are pretty risk-averse.However, in something like the campus shootout scenario, if the assailant shows up with a gun, and notices you are carrying, I think the risk increases of moving to the head of his line. There was a fairly recent incident at a city council meeting, in which someone who apparently had a long-standing grudge with city hall, came prepared (perhaps intending all along) to shoot the place up. He took his first shot at the chief of police who was, as always, in attendance, and then went on to shoot several others after killing him first. I'd say that if you are going to OC, you need to practice your high speed presentation from the holster, til it's pretty quick! Also if someone gets all macho on you, you can't really back down easily if you're carrying openly. I'm 62 and if I'm carrying concealed, Ican usually rely on the old, "Look son, I'm twice your age, half your size, and have a bad back, but if you really think you have to prove you can whip me..." trick, and the macho blowhards typically "declare victory" and leave me alone. That would be harder to pull off if they knew I was carrying, and would be more likely to escalate beyond my control. It is also good to keep in mind that just because they decide to shoot you first doesn't mean they will succeed, and you can draw a tad quicker from OC. I think however, that the most cogent argument for OC is the fact that all forms of self-defense carry are regularly under attack by the media and the PC society generally, so there is an urgent need for the public to start seeing guns in the hands of safe, good guys, in public places, to desensitize them to the effects of hollywood and the mainstream media. The public needs to relearn (we all knew this intuitively 40 years ago) that there is nothing inherently dangerous about having armed people in your vicinity, if anything just the opposite is the case.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Shotgun49 wrote:
    I suspect that the theory that OC will get you shot first, stems from situations more applicable to professional kidnappings, military or quasi-military settings (for example in Iraq), or to situations in which the perpetrator has already decided to shoot people beforehand. Seems to me, that most criminals would rather avoid the whole entanglement if they realized you were carrying, as there is too much risk for the possible payoff. Some research has shown that, for the basic mugger or robber, they tend to pick their victims intentionally and are pretty risk-averse.However, in something like the campus shootout scenario, if the assailant shows up with a gun, and notices you are carrying, I think the risk increases of moving to the head of his line. There was a fairly recent incident at a city council meeting, in which someone who apparently had a long-standing grudge with city hall, came prepared (perhaps intending all along) to shoot the place up. He took his first shot at the chief of police who was, as always, in attendance, and then went on to shoot several others after killing him first. I'd say that if you are going to OC, you need to practice your high speed presentation from the holster, til it's pretty quick!

    Excellent points and good analysis of possible scenarios.

    Also if someone gets all macho on you, you can't really back down easily if you're carrying openly. I'm 62 and if I'm carrying concealed, Ican usually rely on the old, "Look son, I'm twice your age, half your size, and have a bad back, but if you really think you have to prove you can whip me..." trick, and the macho blowhards typically "declare victory" and leave me alone. That would be harder to pull off if they knew I was carrying, and would be more likely to escalate beyond my control.

    I have to disagree with you here. I have seen this argument before and have thought about it and don't think OC precludes walking away and may make it easier.

    It is also good to keep in mind that just because they decide to shoot you first doesn't mean they will succeed, and you can draw a tad quicker from OC. I think however, that the most cogent argument for OC is the fact that all forms of self-defense carry are regularly under attack by the media and the PC society generally, so there is an urgent need for the public to start seeing guns in the hands of safe, good guys, in public places, to desensitize them to the effects of hollywood and the mainstream media. The public needs to relearn (we all knew this intuitively 40 years ago) that there is nothing inherently dangerous about having armed people in your vicinity, if anything just the opposite is the case.

    More good points. Welcome to the forum!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    I think an important distinction has been drawn between petty criminals who use the advantage of being armed against unarmed and cooperative victims and determined criminals who have decided ahead of time that they will meet their objectives utilizing a broad range of force options, including pre-empting resistance with gunfire.

    Thankfully, criminals are a cowardly bunch and mostly fall into the former category.

    Awareness, and willingness/ability to resist promptly and fiercely are the only options against bad guys falling into the second category.


    Too many people allow themselves a false sense of security. Examples: People who live in a gated community or "secure" building with a security guard at the desk. People who patronize a bank and assume that the cameras, bulletproof windows and bank guard will prevent a robbery attempt. People who carry firearms without the physical and mental preparation needed to identify, assess and act on a dangerous situation.
    (Not an attack on open or concealed carriers... some people think all they need to do is purchase, load and carry and they're automatically safe).

    I've seen countless movie/TV show scenes in which a determined assailant scales an electric gate or walks right into a reception area and immediately kills the guard at the desk. Next, the victim is easily tricked into opening their door - after all, why would there be an intruder there - the building/community is "secure" right?

    And as for banks, well there was a particularly vicious bunch in recent memory that immediately started blasting upon entering the branch, killing tellers and customers.
    That certainly wasn't a safe place.

    This goes right back to one of our bedrock ideas (or what I believe to be a bedrock idea) - that carrying doesn't inherently create or solve a problem. It gives an option to the person carrying; the option to confront an aggressor with something other than bare hands. Without a firearm, the only option is to submit to the assailant's demands and hope for the best. (Leaving aside, of course, advanced disarming techniques and lucky malfunctions of a bad guy's weapon)

    Yes, there are a minority of assailants who will use fast and overwhelming force against both unarmed and armed "threats" to get what they want. Some will succeed, but their chances of success can be greatly minimized by having more decent, armed (both concealed and openly) and prepared people to stand against them.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Overtaxed wrote:
    This goes right back to one of our bedrock ideas (or what I believe to be a bedrock idea) - that carrying doesn't inherently create or solve a problem. It gives an option to the person carrying
    +1
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I would suggest that CC is more likely to get you shot. If you are CCing you are a lot more likely to get into a dangerous situation than if you are OCing, because of the deterrent effect of OC. So for every incident where someone who is OCing is confronted by a BG, there are most likely dozens of incidents where someone CCing will be confronted because the BG just assumes their target is unarmed.

    This also brings up in my mind the point that if you are CCing, you are a lot more likely to need to draw/use your weapon, because of the lack of deterrence. So it is CCers who are actually more "Dirty Harry" (maybe Death Wish is a more appropriate term) than OCers.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Sitrep wrote:
    I would suggest that CC is more likely to get you shot. If you are CCing you are a lot more likely to get into a dangerous situation than if you are OCing, because of the deterrent effect of OC. So for every incident where someone who is OCing is confronted by a BG, there are most likely dozens of incidents where someone CCing will be confronted because the BG just assumes their target is unarmed.

    This also brings up in my mind the point that if you are CCing, you are a lot more likely to need to draw/use your weapon, because of the lack of deterrence. So it is CCers who are actually more "Dirty Harry" (maybe Death Wish is a more appropriate term) than OCers.
    I also like how anti-OCers think that BGs will notice an openly carried gun, but won't notice someone reaching into their pants, ankle, purse, or other "concealed" compartment...

Posting Permissions

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