Does open carry promote more violence.

imported post

Ok I know its a dumb question, but I am in a discussion with a couple of people that think open carry promotes violence, and in their words, "Only a retarded person would open carry. The male ego will make criminals want to fight you." I call utter BS, but I need proof that it is, ie some reasearch on the subject and some statics or something.

Thanks for the help!!!

imported post

Well, since they are making they argument that it does, you could ask them to prove their side. I'll put a nickel on them not finding more than a couple documented instances of someone getting attacked because they were openly carrying a gun. I'm not sure they would accept it as proof, but you could show them that there is no evidence of such a thing happening. Unless they pull the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, in which you are screwed as they have made up their minds and will not be convinced.

Edit:
If you really wanted to show them, challenge them to follow you around as you OC.

imported post

i will try it, but I like Powell's way of thinking, over welling forces. (in this situation it would be evidence)

I OC about 80% of the time, and only conceal when I am wearing a suit or its just not right for me. ie church or certain stores.

imported post

We do have some anecdotal evidence that OC is a deterrent. We know from jailhouse interviews that the vast majority of criminals avoid situations where they are likely to get shot, such as homes where they know people are home and likely to have firearms. We also know that criminals look for easy targets. They are predators. The vast majority do not want to tangle with a sheep dog, they want to grab a sheep and run. They look for people who are not paying attention, who have body language that says, "Hey, I'm an easy target". People who OC, in part because of the OC, tend to be very observant, "head on a swivel" mode, when in public. This, coupled with their exposed sidearm, makes them a lesser target.

Are there some jackasses out there who might start something because of the OC? Probably, although I suspect that those people are much more likely to be bullies who think you won't fight back against intimidation because you are OC and therefore won't let it escalate rather than criminals trying to ply their trade. And they are probably right. If some guy came up to most of us and tried to start a fight, maybe calling us cowards for carrying a gun, etc, we are going to walk away.

imported post

Well it does promote more violence by some LEO's. :cuss:
Does seem to bring out the worst, i.e theft, brandishing, intimidation, assault.

But like the death trap that is anti lock brakes, you put up with the bad ones that are
out there and worry about your own safety.

imported post

Ah yes, the old "shoot out in the streets" argument. I think we're still waiting for the first report of such an event between some one OC'ing and a BG.

I agree with Fogrider, have them present evidence to back their claim. Both of them. Point out to them that "retarded" people aren't allowed to evenown a gun, let alone carry one.

imported post

Yes, make them prove their claim.

Better, yet. Realize there is a good chancethey don't actually believe it themselves. I suspect they're throwing up chaff.

Start asking questions. Dig for the real reason.

I suspect chaff for a couple reasons.

First, when was the last time this "challenge" business came up? An old western?

Second, whatare the oddstwopeople would land on this exact same idea with the same degree of conviction regarding the workings of another unknown person's mind? Hell, even psychiatrists, who supposedly specialize in understanding the mind, can't agree half the time.

I'll bet they think its dumb, or over-the-top, or too unusual, or something much more mundane. Something more along the lines of what weusually hear.

Dig for it. Otherwise you'll be swinging at shadows as fastas they can manufacture them.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

We do have some anecdotal evidence that OC is a deterrent. We know from jailhouse interviews that the vast majority of criminals avoid situations where they are likely to get shot, such as homes where they know people are home and likely to have firearms.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal, hell, a couple of us, including Tico recently have given stories about how someone was causing, or about to cause a problem, noticed a good guy OCing, and decided that trouble wasn't int he cards right then.

I, and a couple of others have reported seeing shifty-looking types digging in their pockets while hiding their faces. They would enter a convenience store, notice the OCer, and promptly do a 180.

I'd consider that first-hand proof.

imported post

AbNo wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

We do have some anecdotal evidence that OC is a deterrent. We know from jailhouse interviews that the vast majority of criminals avoid situations where they are likely to get shot, such as homes where they know people are home and likely to have firearms.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal, hell, a couple of us, including Tico recently have given stories about how someone was causing, or about to cause a problem, noticed a good guy OCing, and decided that trouble wasn't int he cards right then.

I, and a couple of others have reported seeing shifty-looking types digging in their pockets while hiding their faces. They would enter a convenience store, notice the OCer, and promptly do a 180.

I'd consider that first-hand proof.

Click to expand...

You may very well consider it first hand proof, but when you tell someone the story without hard evidence or a news report, it is anecdotal.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Second, whatare the oddstwopeople would land on this exact same idea with the same degree of conviction regarding the workings of another unknown person's mind? Hell, even psychiatrists, who supposedly specialize in understanding the mind, can't agree half the time.

Click to expand...

This is my "conspiracy of ignorance". Two or all idiots agreeing do not make even virtual-truth.

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

AbNo wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

We do have some anecdotal evidence that OC is a deterrent. We know from jailhouse interviews that the vast majority of criminals avoid situations where they are likely to get shot, such as homes where they know people are home and likely to have firearms.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal, hell, a couple of us, including Tico recently have given stories about how someone was causing, or about to cause a problem, noticed a good guy OCing, and decided that trouble wasn't int he cards right then.

I, and a couple of others have reported seeing shifty-looking types digging in their pockets while hiding their faces. They would enter a convenience store, notice the OCer, and promptly do a 180.

I'd consider that first-hand proof.

Click to expand...

You may very well consider it first hand proof, but when you tell someone the story without hard evidence or a news report, it is anecdotal.

Click to expand...

Thus the problem with obtaining 'hard proof'... When an incident is avoided there is no incident therefore no report, no media, no nothing other than maybe witnesses that could be considered hearsay...
We will likely never know how many 'non incidents' have taken place for the simple reality that they did not take place!

imported post

There is more than ancidotal evidence.

How many doa's have you ever heard of that had an empty holster on?
I've never heard of one, plenty of stiffs that didn't have one.

imported post

Here is how I see it, No.

Cuz, If I was able to OC a Firearm On the Outside of my VEHICLE, I know no one would Cut me off orgive dirty looks, EXC.



You don't need proof cuz they don't have proof to back up there hypothesis



Do you carry around them if so is violence escalated?

imported post

If OC promotes violence then those of us here would surely have seen a lot of it directed at us, would we not? Evidence would seem to be contary to that.

Antis are not prone to accept logic and reasoning or for that matter facts either. We have seen countless studies done that show how availablity of guns reduces crime and makes people safer but no one has figured out how to accurately compile data on events that are prevented - do not happen - are stopped before they started.

Actually in this case I think the lack of evidence that OC promotes violence is the greatest proof that it does not. No blood in the streets, no OK corral shotouts, no premptive strikes against OCers.

Let's not forget that LEOs are OCing and your friends premise would therefore suggest that LEOs OCing promotes violence.

Good luck - frankly I would not bother.

Yata hey

imported post

Polie wrote:

Ok I know its a dumb question, but I am in a discussion with a couple of people that think open carry promotes violence, and in their words, "Only a retarded person would open carry. The male ego will make criminals want to fight you." I call utter BS, but I need proof that it is, ie some reasearch on the subject and some statics or something.

Thanks for the help!!!

Click to expand...

I think it's quite the opposite really, only a retarded criminal will attack an armed man. Sure, there's the occasional gun-grab attempt, but that happens mostly to Law Enforcement Officers who are attempting to make an arrest. I don't know of very many gun-grab attempts on civilians who are minding their own business while open carrying.


You would be surprised how much more respectful people get when they see a firearm. There have been a few times where I have open carried and people who would normally stare me down and not step aside if we're on a "collision course" when walking have glanced at the firearm and immediately stepped aside. Some even say hello or ask me how I'm doing.