Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Questions on OC?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLC, , Ireland
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    I found out about this site from the new article on those who were having issues with OC in West Valley City. I have read a number of the other posts and responded to a few of them. Needless to say I have enjoyed the courteous and respectful replies and opposing opinions to mine.

    However I do need to ask a sincere question which I feel I need to preface first. I am an not an American. I have been granted the priviledge to live here as a permanent resident, as a result I get to enjoy the rights of this country with the exceptions of the right to vote.

    My questions, thoughts are as follows:

    Why OC instead of CC? Surely CC is more advisable?

    If you choose to exercise to OC do you not feel that prudence would dictate that certain placed would be a bad idea to carry in? Example a bank? I read the account ot the two who it appears had some after shocks afterwards with the officers they dealt with.

    Please know I am not asking these questions to be insulting, I am trying to understand a mindset I did not grow up with. Thank you in advance for your replies.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    I am sure you will get a lot of replies with this thread, but I will give you some simple answers which others will no doubt expand upon.

    Why not just CC?

    Perhaps CC is uncomfortable. Maybe it's harder to find a holster that works well with your clothing. What if you're a woman and don't have a good on-the-body location to conceal? What if you are too young to apply for a permit? What if you want people to know that you carry a firearm? What if concealed carry makes you feel like you somehow have something to hide, like a common criminal? What if you don't want the goverment having your records on file by applying for a permit? What if you believe that we shouldn't even need a permit to carry a firearm? What if you hope people will see your carry of a firearm and start to regard this sight as normal, thereby minimizing the irrational fear of weapons pervading our society? Just a few reasons. I am sure there are more... so, no, CC might not be more advisable. Even tactically speaking, there is no evidence to support the claim that OC'ers are targeted first in a shooting/criminal encounter. This is pure hearsay, but I see the point, I just disagree. I think more crimes are prevented by the open carry of firearms than ever were stopped by the use of concealed firearms. But then again, there's no evidence to support that either, so it's just opinion, no fact whatsoever on either side. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves.

    The only places that I can see OC as a bad idea are those where carry of firearms is illegal. If you can CC someplace, why shouldn't you be able to OC there as well? A bank perhaps? Do you think it reasonable that the teller ring the panic button as soon as someone with a gun on their hip comes into the bank? I don't think it is, there might be a lot of false alarms there. How about they ring the panic button when the person has shown themselves to be a threat - like shouting out orders or threatening violence or force? A gun is a tool, plain and simple. Some people feel that this tool is somehow magical and goes around shooting people all by itself. Somehow every gun is evil because all guns cause death. Guns aren't evil, people are evil. Guns don't cause death, they fire projectiles that potentially damage tissue and cause the person/animal to die. It's fairly simple, but someone always has to be on the firing side to effect this outcome, therefor blaming the tool is somewhat assinine when you sit down to think about it.

    If you feel uncomfortable carrying openly, I think that's rational. It's not for everybody. I don't think prudence is much of an argument however, we're in the business of living our lives the way we see fit (inside the confines of the law), we're not out to make everyone feel warm, fuzzy and comfortable all day (people who want to feel that way need to realize that life has nothing to do with constant warm fuzzies).

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLC, , Ireland
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Thank you for the reply Dave, I would like to comment on the following:

    What if you don't want the goverment having your records on file by applying for a permit?

    How do we know that by the very purchase of a legal firearm that they don't already have this information? Surely the stores which sell guns need to report them sold and to whom and with each gun purchase is there not a check done with BCI before the store makes the final sale?

    What if you hope people will see your carry of a firearm and start to regard this sight as normal, thereby minimizing the irrational fear of weapons pervading our society?

    Could this argument not also be turned around in favor of those who would do society harm, if they carried in OC and people were so used to it that they did not remain cautious and react when required?

    Even tactically speaking, there is no evidence to support the claim that OC'ers are targeted first in a shooting/criminal encounter.

    I also do not have any proof that OC would make you a first target for those who would do society harm, but from a tactical point of view I would say that by making that decalaration you could be placing yourself in harms way.

    Do you think it reasonable that the teller ring the panic button as soon as someone with a gun on their hip comes into the bank?

    I think it is very reasonable that someone could behave this way. I am not sure how many people on this board have ever been in a combat zone, held at gun point or as a hostage, even detained at gun point, but after an experience like that you have a different mindset and pushing the panic button when an openly armed person approaches you in a bank could be a rational action. So perhaps for those who OC they could consider the bank as a place where perhaps you should not go while OC.

    What if concealed carry makes you feel like you somehow have something to hide, like a common criminal?

    Perhaps if people feel like this then they are not mentally prepared to carry a firearm in either CC or OC. Perhaps it would also be reasonable to puth forth that perhaps they are not ready for the ramifications of carrying and one day using that gun in the pursuance of personal safety.

    This statement if not to challenge anyone's right or whether they are compotent or not mentally, but have they already made peace with the decision that one day which we pray never comes they may have to kill someone. If they are already having an emotional reaction (guilt) then perhaps carrying a firearm is not something they are ready for.

    A gun is a tool, plain and simple. Some people feel that this tool is somehow magical and goes around shooting people all by itself. Somehow every gun is evil because all guns cause death. Guns aren't evil, people are evil. Guns don't cause death, they fire projectiles that potentially damage tissue and cause the person/animal to die. It's fairly simple, but someone always has to be on the firing side to effect this outcome, therefor blaming the tool is somewhat assinine when you sit down to think about it.

    I am in total agreement with you, guns are not responsible for deaths, but those who pull the triggers.

    However respectfully it could also be put forth that the gun was the only 'tool' designed and manufactured with the intent on the protection of a live(s) and the loss of another in return. Therefore I would debate the term 'tool', I would do so as a 'tool' was created with the intention of the creation of something else. A hammer can be used to built something from wood, however was not designed with wind resistance, velocity etc in mind to kill someone if ever used. It can be used for that purpose, but it is not advertised, sold or designed to do so. But a gun is.

    I don't think prudence is much of an argument however, we're in the business of living our lives the way we see fit

    I have quoted only a part of your reply here, and do not mean to twist the words or meaning of your whole reply, but prudence can never be ruled out. Prudence or however you phrase it will be the reason used on whether you draw or not as well.

    -- Thank you for replying and I appreciate what you have said, even though some of it I may not agree with or understand the mindset behind it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    What if you don't want the goverment having your records on file by applying for a permit?

    How do we know that by the very purchase of a legal firearm that they don't already have this information? Surely the stores which sell guns need to report them sold and to whom and with each gun purchase is there not a check done with BCI before the store makes the final sale?

    Purchasing a firearm runs a basic background check for previous crimes. Submitting for a permit runs an FBI background check with fingerprints. Also, if you buy from a private owner and not a federal firearms licensed dealer, there is only the personal transaction record. So no, this is a real concern for some people who want the government to be involved as little as possible in their personal lives.

    What if you hope people will see your carry of a firearm and start to regard this sight as normal, thereby minimizing the irrational fear of weapons pervading our society?

    Could this argument not also be turned around in favor of those who would do society harm, if they carried in OC and people were so used to it that they did not remain cautious and react when required?

    Not really a valid argument as criminals don't OC. If they did, then it would be the same as if you and I CC'd. What we're trying to say here is that having or how you carry a gun is not criminal, it's what you do with one.

    Even tactically speaking, there is no evidence to support the claim that OC'ers are targeted first in a shooting/criminal encounter.

    I also do not have any proof that OC would make you a first target for those who would do society harm, but from a tactical point of view I would say that by making that decalaration you could be placing yourself in harms way.

    Theorhetically, yes, that makes sense. I even subscribed to that thought for a while. Then I thought, "If I CC and someone starts shooting, who's to say who they will shoot first?" Then I thought, "If I OC and someone wants to commit a crime, perhaps my show of force (willingness and ability to resist crime) will make them reconsider and not shoot in the first place." Both arguments have valid points, which you ascribe to is a personal decision.

    Do you think it reasonable that the teller ring the panic button as soon as someone with a gun on their hip comes into the bank?

    I think it is very reasonable that someone could behave this way. I am not sure how many people on this board have ever been in a combat zone, held at gun point or as a hostage, even detained at gun point, but after an experience like that you have a different mindset and pushing the panic button when an openly armed person approaches you in a bank could be a rational action. So perhaps for those who OC they could consider the bank as a place where perhaps you should not go while OC.

    First of all, Wells Fargo is no combat zone. And just walking in with a firearm (concealed or open) does not display any intent, so responding as if you were in a war zone is irrational. It's what we do with our firearms that should determine intent, not simply the presence of said arms.

    What if concealed carry makes you feel like you somehow have something to hide, like a common criminal?

    Perhaps if people feel like this then they are not mentally prepared to carry a firearm in either CC or OC. Perhaps it would also be reasonable to puth forth that perhaps they are not ready for the ramifications of carrying and one day using that gun in the pursuance of personal safety.

    This statement if not to challenge anyone's right or whether they are compotent or not mentally, but have they already made peace with the decision that one day which we pray never comes they may have to kill someone. If they are already having an emotional reaction (guilt) then perhaps carrying a firearm is not something they are ready for.

    I don't think this is the case. People wouldn't carry if they actually felt this way. What I meant to say is, what if you feel that you shouldn't conceal your firearm? I mean, should you feel like you need to conceal your skin color when going to an area where you don't "fit in"? What if you are of the mindset that there is nothing wrong with an openly carried firearm and see concealment as "covering up" not to disturb the precious masses? I don't know, just an idea. It's impossible to judge people for why they do what they do, all I know is that there are many possible reasons to not want to conceal.

    A gun is a tool, plain and simple. Some people feel that this tool is somehow magical and goes around shooting people all by itself. Somehow every gun is evil because all guns cause death. Guns aren't evil, people are evil. Guns don't cause death, they fire projectiles that potentially damage tissue and cause the person/animal to die. It's fairly simple, but someone always has to be on the firing side to effect this outcome, therefor blaming the tool is somewhat assinine when you sit down to think about it.

    I am in total agreement with you, guns are not responsible for deaths, but those who pull the triggers.

    However respectfully it could also be put forth that the gun was the only 'tool' designed and manufactured with the intent on the protection of a live(s) and the loss of another in return. Therefore I would debate the term 'tool', I would do so as a 'tool' was created with the intention of the creation of something else. A hammer can be used to built something from wood, however was not designed with wind resistance, velocity etc in mind to kill someone if ever used. It can be used for that purpose, but it is not advertised, sold or designed to do so. But a gun is.

    A tool is defined as: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose. So yes, a gun is a tool. It might not be a construction tool, but it is still a tool, desigend to accomplish a task or pupose.

    I don't think prudence is much of an argument however, we're in the business of living our lives the way we see fit

    I have quoted only a part of your reply here, and do not mean to twist the words or meaning of your whole reply, but prudence can never be ruled out. Prudence or however you phrase it will be the reason used on whether you draw or not as well.

    I wasn't talking about prudence or discretion in regard to when to employ a firearm. I was trying to imply that we shouldn't have to walk around worrying about stepping on people's toes. If what you are doing is legal, do it. If people have a problem with how you slurp your soup, dress, carry a firearm, or style your hair, that's their problem, not yours and you should never be meant to feel that it is. People who go around trying to dictate how others act are hypocrites and fools. Let each live their own way and leave judgement to God.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLC, , Ireland
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Dave - to start with I find discussing this with you a treat. It is a pleasure to discuss topics with people who can really impart personal opinions and details without being rational. So thank you!

    Purchasing a firearm runs a basic background check for previous crimes. Submitting for a permit runs an FBI background check with fingerprints. Also, if you buy from a private owner and not a federal firearms licensed dealer, there is only the personal transaction record. So no, this is a real concern for some people who want the government to be involved as little as possible in their personal lives.

    I can understand the desire for the government to not be involved in your life but was under the impression that any transaction that took place from a legal store front was recorded and therefore something which could be accessed in the future. I was also under the impression that personal sales also had to be recorded for legal reasons in order to record the transfer of ownership.

    Not really a valid argument as criminals don't OC. If they did, then it would be the same as if you and I CC'd. What we're trying to say here is that having or how you carry a gun is not criminal, it's what you do with one.

    But however if the public did start to feel more at peace with OC then it would be plausable that those would do society harm would feed of that calm and OC as well in order to blend in? I guess this is really an open topic, but I guess if you don't think like a criminal and are not a criminal then this is subjective.

    First of all, Wells Fargo is no combat zone. And just walking in with a firearm (concealed or open) does not display any intent, so responding as if you were in a war zone is irrational. It's what we do with our firearms that should determine intent, not simply the presence of said arms.

    I could not agree more - Wells Fargo is not a combat zone, however is an area where people could be more sensitive about guns, especially the bank security staff. However the point I had hoped to make and obviously did not illustrate well enough was that people in banks have been robbed, some harmed, some are employees who have served this country and could be sensitive to firearms. Therefore it would not be an un-natural reaction to push the alarm. I understand what your saying about intent and can understand it - but still put forth that banks are sensitive zones.

    I don't think this is the case. People wouldn't carry if they actually felt this way. What I meant to say is, what if you feel that you shouldn't conceal your firearm? I mean, should you feel like you need to conceal your skin color when going to an area where you don't "fit in"? What if you are of the mindset that there is nothing wrong with an openly carried firearm and see concealment as "covering up" not to disturb the precious masses? I don't know, just an idea. It's impossible to judge people for why they do what they do, all I know is that there are many possible reasons to not want to conceal.

    I cannot compare skin color to firearms, but appreciate the comparison. If someone feels an emotional response while carrying I still put forth that that person may not be ready for the after effects of use of the firearms.

    There was an interesting show which I caught a small bit of some months back. There was a Marine Col. who is now a consultant to the Marine on PTS. He stated the Marines are taught to fire a weapon, how to maintain one, how to achieve an objective, however no one prepares someone for the reality of taking a life or being in combat. No one can know how you will react to being shot at or shot.




  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    478

    Post imported post

    Wow, a calm and logical OC discussion. No name calling, no bantering; If only all could be this way.

    I think most bad guys are lazy, and thus they are looking for an easy target. Seeing a gun on a person’s hip means that they, and all people around, are no longer an easy target for crime as there is now a known risk of getting shot. That wallet/car/girl/etc looks a lot less tempting when you feel your life could be at risk.

    OC or CCis a statement as much as it is a tactical choice. When you CC you are trying to blend in, when you OC you are saying guns are a part of life, get used to it.

    Say that there are 100 guns owners carryingin Wal-Mart at any given time (I am sure this number is huge, but it doesn't matter for my point). If all 100 people conceal their gun does that mean there are not 100 gun there? now if the same 100 people OC-ed their guns is there any more danger?

    This is kind of like an ostrich putting its head in the sand and thinking it is safe.

    If I am going to rob a bank or shoot up a school that is a choice I have made. My method of carrying my gun matters very little at that point. Any ALL mass shootings I have read about occur where there are not guns… How many times do you read about shootings at the police station, gun show, gun stores, or any place you are likely to find armed people? Now think about all the shootings at places that limit or have a perceived limit on guns… Schools, malls, churches, etc.

    I think it only makes sense that visual deterrents work… that’s why Cops are in uniforms and drive cars that stand out. Are you going to speed when you see a cop driving behind you? But if that same cop is in an unmarked car and you are not aware he is there speeding looks more doable.

    GOT IT YOU LINT LICKER

    Sorry… there was just to much rational discussion

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLC, , Ireland
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    thank you to those who responded, I appreciated the points of view

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Dave addressed most of your points very well, I just want to comment on a couple of them.

    Keldar wrote:
    What if you hope people will see your carry of a firearm and start to regard this sight as normal, thereby minimizing the irrational fear of weapons pervading our society?

    Could this argument not also be turned around in favor of those who would do society harm, if they carried in OC and people were so used to it that they did not remain cautious and react when required?
    While I can't say that's impossible, I think both psychology and tactics argue against it.

    Suppose OC became so common that a significant percentage of adults carried openly on a daily basis. Say, 10%. From a tactical perspective, if you're a bad guy there's still an advantage to be had in concealing: surprise. On the other hand, the only way that concealing could be a tactical disadvantage is if OC were so pervasive that unarmed people were automatically suspect.

    Psychologically, I think that people who intend to do bad things feel a need to hide their intent. I have no support for this other than the fact that I've never seen or heard of a robbery, assault, mass shooting, etc., where the BG didn't hide his gun until bringing it into play.

    Keldar wrote:
    Even tactically speaking, there is no evidence to support the claim that OC'ers are targeted first in a shooting/criminal encounter.

    I also do not have any proof that OC would make you a first target for those who would do society harm, but from a tactical point of view I would say that by making that decalaration you could be placing yourself in harms way.
    That does seem like the obvious conclusion, but I think it's wrong.

    The thing about CC is that it is a fairly abstract deterrent. The BG knows that some people carry guns, but not that many, and so is willing to take the risk. Further, the BG has an inherent advantage to limit the target's ability to respond with a weapon: surprise. Since law-abiding gun owners don't go around randomly drawing on people, not even people who seem suspicious, the BG will draw first nearly 100% of the time.

    So, as a concealed carrier, if you get targeted by a mugger or something, it's VERY likely that you will start the engagement in reactive mode. By the time you know that you need your gun, the BG will probable have the drop on you. What do you do then? Some suggest creating a distraction, by tossing your wallet. Others say just do something surprising yourself, like falling over. Others suggest leg sweeps, arm blocks, punches, etc. In one real-world case recently, the elderly victim faked a heart attack. Whatever the tactics, you have to find SOME way to create a gap in the BG's attention so that you can retrieve your gun, and if you fail you're going to be shot.

    With OC, once the BG has drawn down on you, you're in a slightly worse spot, because the BG knows you have a gun and will be much more careful not to be distracted. Or, maybe, the BG will just decide not to take the chance and shoot you.

    But if we back up a little, it's highly likely that any BG without a death wish will simply decide you're not a good target. This gets back to the point that it's almost always the BG that initiates the engagement, which means that the BG almost always gets to choose whether or not the encounter happens at all, AND the BG gets to pick the target. What kind of person is going to choose an ARMED target among all those who are unarmed?

    Most criminals are looking for an easy score. A gun on the target's hip means the score is not easy. It also means that there's a good chance the target will fight back, which means the BG is setting himself up for charges of pre-meditated murder if things go badly. No, much better to find a meeker target.

    Of course, I'm assuming a mugging, rape or similar attack, where the BG intends to survive and doesn't really want to risk life in prison, or the chair. An active shooter (e.g. Trolley Square) is different -- that sort of BG walks in intending to kill everyone, and not planning to survive. An OC'er will be the first target if the BG happens to notice the gun. But active shooters are MUCH rarer than muggers and rapists. It makes sense to optimize your strategy for the more common threat, so on balance OC is a better choice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Keldar wrote:
    thank you to those who responded, I appreciated the points of view
    OT: I take it you're a fan of John Ringo?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SLC, , Ireland
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Whose John Ringo? Am I over polite?

    Okay I did the polite thing and went and researched John Ringo. Never heard of him until you mentioned his name. I will however now go and look for one or two of his books so I can answer the question.

    One of the authors I enjoy the most however is David Morrell.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Keldar wrote:
    Who's John Ringo? Am I over polite?

    Okay I did the polite thing and went and researched John Ringo. Never heard of him until you mentioned his name. I will however now go and look for one or two of his books so I can answer the question.
    My guess was way off. Ringo wrote a series of books about a former SEAL who stumbles into an old culture in the mountains of Georgia (the country, not the state). The people are called the "Keldara", and their leader (which the former SEAL becomes, since their tradition is to choose a foreign soldier) is called the "Kildar" -- but I misremembered and thought it was "Keldar" and wondered if that were the origin of your handle.

    The books are pulp, but they're highly entertaining if you like over-the-top military action. If you're going to try some of his books, though, I'd start with a different series. I'd suggest his "Aldenata" series, starting with A Hymn Before Battle. You risk nothing but your time, because it's a free download. Ringo's publisher (Baen) does that with a few novels from each of their major authors, to get you hooked.

    Wow, that certainly took me offtopic. Sorry.

Posting Permissions

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