imported post
Waxer wrote:
Disclaimer: My humble thoughts only.
I recently took my required 10 hours of CHL training. One of the topics that came up was Open Carry. My instructor had proclaimed with great affirmation that he was against open carry and gave us this reason:
"If you're in a group of let say, 5 people, and you are the only one open carrying. If there is a criminal that is armed and dangerous and approaching the group, which person do you think he's going to shoot first? The one that is open carrying."
Well, he missed the whole point of the open carry initiative. It's about having the freedom and the right to decide when you want to open carry and when you want to conceal. Open carrying all the time is as foolish as open carrying none of the time. But by having open carry legal, we now have the freedom and the right to use our intelligence to decide when we want to. And that my friends, is the point he missed.
Interesting that you should bring this up, because I've come around to some ideas about OC vs. CC recently and how it relates to the average citizen.
My initial thought about OC was the standard "That's stupid. Why ask for trouble?" After finding OCDO and understanding the OC point of view, that changed drastically, and I'm now firmly on the Pro-OC side of the fence.
However, something still has been bothering me. There's some pretty damn smart people, trainers, instructors, and other professionals who do NOT agree with OC. They say it reduces your "tactical advantage," destroys the "element of suprise,"and may make you the first target for someone that recognizes you as the greatest threat to their plan of attack.
The pro-OC side counters with "It's never happened" and "There's no tactical advantage - the element of suprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic, not defensive." We even argue that criminals aren't going to mess with prey that they see can defend themselves, they'll go find easier pickins somewhere else.
I've seen both sides argue this back and forth and I think I've realized something I've never seen anyone bring up before in these arguments, and I believe it makes BOTH sides of the argument correct.
The two biggest factors in OC vs CC are who is carrying, and who is likely to attack them.
Let's compare Bob and Bill. Bob is an average guy, Bill is a political figure.
Who is most likely to attack Bill? Bill is a public figure, well known in the press and by the people of his district, some of which may not particularly like Bill's voting record. Bill may get nasty letters, death threats, and there may very well be someone that wants Bill dead that has the means and opportunity to do it. Bill's attacker isn't going after him because he wants to rob him or because he's a random target. The attacker's goal is to kill Bill. If Bill often Open Carries, Bill's attacker is going to know this and take the fact that Bill is armed into consideration into his plan, likely escalating his initial attack to negate that armed resistance. However, if Bill carries concealed and his attacker does not know he's armed, he may plan his attack thinking Bill is an easier target than he really is.
Now take Bob. Average guy, pretty much nobody too special. He's not a jerk, doesn't pick fights, helps his landlady take out the garbage. Who is most likely to attack Bob? Your average criminal. The average criminal is looking for money or things to rob from someone. We already know the majority of criminals will NOT attack someone they think is armed, and will likely go after easier targets that will not resist. If a bad guy starts to consider Bob (or someone else in bob's vacinity) and sees Bob Open Carrying, he is most likely going to find another target. However, if Bob carries concealed, other than Bob's situational awareness, what indicator is there to the criminal that if they attack Bob or someone around him that they will be met with armed resistance?
This isn't to say that Bill wouldn't get attacked by a random criminal, or Bob won't have someone who has made him a specific target no matter what. I'm considering the most likely attacker, and their goal.
I think this answers the concerns of both the CC only side and the Pro-OC side. If you're likely to be a specific target for someone that is dedicated to attack whether you're armed or not, I believe CC gives you more of a tactical advantage than OC. However, if you're an everyday average guy with no stalkers or serious deadly enemies, OC has the best advantage in deterring crime, with the added bonus of being an advocate for our rights
.
This ended up being longer than I expected. I welcome your comments.
...Orygunner...