Missing the Point

imported post

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.

imported post

yea i hear that all to often. oh well, works for me since i have taken the oath to defend the good people of america and would gladly lay down my life in the event as long as i had even the slightest CHANCE that i could protect myself and others around me.

and besides whats to stop the BG from shooting someone whether they have a gun or not, if thats their intent thats what theyre going to do:quirky CC instructors are so funny sometimes

imported post

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."

Click to expand...

Several people on this forum (and lots of others) have challenged this idiotic idea many, many times. A money reward has been offered for any verifiable record of this ever happening anywhere in the US. So far, no takers.

Please, please disabuse people of this silly idea every chance you get. It's an urban legend that just doesn't want to die.

If there are several people, or only one... and one is carrying openly, just how many criminals are going to take any chance on getting hurt? They want weak, helpless victims - not armed adversaries.

I am a certified handgun and self defense instructor. I carry openly most of the time. I also teach concealed carry. Each mode has its place, but neither is superior for all situations.

imported post

I have mentioned before that I carry openly 100% of the time that I legally can. I look at it this way.. if I am in a group, usually I am the ONLY one armed.. regardless of how I carry. I take the responsibility of drawing fire as I am the only one who would at that moment be able to RETURN fire. The folks who use this argument also do not take into consideration the fact that hopefully all folks who carry (OC or CC) are more situationally aware and might have seen the threat coming..

I hear a lot of 'what if' arguments and yes you may be correct, but that is only one of thousands of possibilities.

J

imported post

Like the others here ai have heard that argument too. I would add to the comments above.

If there is a group of people, and one of them is openly armed, there is a very good likelihood that others in that same group would also be armed. People who hang out together usually agree on a lot of things. Ont of the kinds of things friends USUALLY agree on is firearms. Most Bad Guys are not so stupid as to overlook that possibility.

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.

Click to expand...

I agree Waxer. Why deny someone the choice of open carry.

Not to mention that argument is poor at best and completely moronic at worst. If you are in a group of 5 people and there is a criminal that is armed and dangerous approaching the group. You make eye contact because you don't spend your time looking at your shoes when you walk. He notices you are carrying a gun and decides to wait till your group is out of site and rob the next group.

The point of robbing someone is to get some money and get away. Not start a shootout, alerting everyone in the vicinity and getting the cops called, and possibly getting shot, (Now they may have to go to the hospital and explain how than manged to get a hole in them selves) or killed.

If said criminal has already made the decision they are going to murder someone and decide you or your group is the intended target. The dumb luck of who is closest to the attacker is going to be as much or more a factor than who is open carrying.

For example. If you are all friends, and talking while you walk, you are likely close enough together that if you are open carrying on the right side and standing on the left side of the group it would be very difficult for someone to notice your gun. Or if the attacker is approaching from the opposite side you carry on they will not have a chance.


Sorry for the long post but this argument is something I am dealing with in real life right now. My extended family just found out that I some times open carry and they are 100% sure that some sort of evil force emanates from my gun and the first person that sees me that is also carrying a gun is going to kill me for no reason what so ever.

imported post

HPC9, I recommend reading this article and perhaps passing along to your family. It's well written and makes a lot of sense.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

imported post

And for those that want hard facts, suggested reading is Gun Facts.
http://www.gunfacts.info/.

BTW - want to see what normal groups of people look like........OCing?
http://vagrapeshot.multiply.com/
Where might you be and be safer?

Yata hey

imported post

The CHL instructor was projecting. BG's go for the soft targets... the indefensable... whatever's easy. If you were CC'd... the BG might assume the group was unarmed and go for it. Passive deterrent then becomes active defensive. The BG will prob'ly have a weapon in hand already. You lose the advantage with a covered up position... plus 'you're reachin'. That act might get you shot.

I OC... other than when it's raining or cold enuff to wear a jacket that'd cover my gunbelt. Then I wear the shoulder holster.That's the only reason I have a CWP.

At any rate... you must be constantly awareor you're surroundings and follow your instincts. Too many people wander around oblivious to anything but the cell phone spotwelded to their ear.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

The CHL instructor was projecting. BG's go for the soft targets... the indefensable... whatever's easy. If you were CC'd... the BG might assume the group was unarmed and go for it. Passive deterrent then becomes active defensive. The BG will prob'ly have a weapon in hand already. You lose the advantage with a covered up position... plus 'you're reachin'. That act might get you shot.

I OC... other than when it's raining or cold enuff to wear a jacket that'd cover my gunbelt. Then I wear the shoulder holster.That's the only reason I have a CWP.

At any rate... you must be constantly awareor you're surroundings and follow your instincts. Too many people wander around oblivious to anything but the cell phone spotwelded to their ear.

Click to expand...

Excellent take on the topic, and mirrors the position I take on that subject.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

imported post

Orygunner,

That has got to be about the best discussion about the differences I have seen yet. It goes well beyond the "there are reasons for both methods of carry" point, and actually clearly presents both points.

Thank you.

imported post

Bearing arms is not only a Right... but a responsibility to be taken seriously. Firearms are not a fashion statement... or conversation piece... or a 'look at me' attention getter. They're deadly weapons to be borne with purpose.

imported post

Mayby Bill should consider to stop useing the power of government to destroy
law abiding citizens, and start obeying the constitution. Then he won't have
disgrunted citizens out gunning for him.

Except in those "peacefull" religous countries can anyone cite where a politition
that advocates leaving the populace alone to live thier lives is a target?

Just look at BHO, he feels the need to have armed security in his daughters school,
but cares not a whit about the other children.
If he needs the security in school, where guns are banned, then what are the other
children to do when they get caught in the cross fire.
Does anyone think the SS will go down the hall to render aid in another class
when the shooting starts. No they will let the minions be cannon fodder for thier escape.
If there is a threat that requires arms, then everyone deserves protection,
not just the annointed ones. It is this attitude that causes Bill to be a target,
not just being a politition with disgrunted constituants.

As for OC with 4 other people, What are the odds the other 4 are anti gun nuts
if they are standing with an OC'r? So the bad guy better figure that while
he is plugging me, 4 more pistols are going to be pointing his way with a lot of
lead following. The presumption that gun nuts will hang around an openly
carried pistol is in itself laughable. They will hide behind a dumpster and dial 911,
to report the bad man walking down the street.:lol:
I know that if I see someone carrying the first logical thought is, yep he is the only one armed.:banghead::banghead:

imported post

Not all public figures are targets because they have trampled the rights of others. Sometimes people are just crazy and come after you for reasons only they can understand. Look at the nut that shot Reagan, he was trying to impress Jody Foster and go live with her in the Whitehouse.:what:

imported post

SlackwareRobert, I agree. If an elected official chooses not to recognize his proper place and decides to infringe upon the liberties of the citizens, I would feel very little sadness overthe loss of such a tyrant. However, there's plenty of people that don't like pro-gun politicians either. That was just an example of a "public figure." Replace that side of the argument with any "famous" person that may have a stalker or nutcase bent on attack, like a tv or screen actor, sports star, umpire, CEO, etc.

It just makes sense to me that the defense "professionals" say OC is a bad idea because look at who they have to deal with and train. Commonly (from what I've seen), their points of reference are famous people, or bodyguards to famous people. If someone has a specific enemy who means them harm, thenI would agree that battle tactics or the art of war would apply. If you are armed, appear to your enemy to be disarmed. If you are close, appear to your enemy to be far, etc. etc. Since these tactics are logically the best for a celebrity's defense, they make the mistake of assuming it would apply to the average Bob, which is not always the case.

I think that it just comes down to odds. I figure that 99.9% of people OCing are average Bobs. The most common type of attack we have to be concerned with is the average criminal, who don't care about us personally and will happily go find another victim if they see that we're armed. The odds are incredibly slight that OCing will be a liability, and the opportunity for postive effect is so much greater.

Oppose that with anyone who may have a specific, personal threat, where I can see that CC does have a tactical advantage, as long as the attacker doesn't know their victim is armed.

...Orygunner...


Edited to clarify and remove chaff.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Not all public figures are targets because they have trampled the rights of others. Sometimes people are just crazy and come after you for reasons only they can understand. Look at the nut that shot Reagan, he was trying to impress Jody Foster and go live with her in the Whitehouse.:what:

Click to expand...

And do remember the nice "defensive" weapons deployed then. We are not
afforded the same protection. I also have multiple trees in my yard
and am therefore just as big a target, but i am denied the same protections.

But I look at that as more a problem of people ditching jury duty, they
let 12 idiots say yea that sounds like he should walk. If you are
threatening trees, then don't let him out till the trees are gone.

But I noticed they never charged him with the illegal explosive bullets either.
Even Obamma will agree you don't need explosive bullets to hunt trees.


As for the crazy's, I'd much rather be OC at that time, because 1/10's of a second
count at that point. Playing with my shirt is not an option.
A simple solution to car jacking is to have claymores in the door frame, just boom
and carjacker not a problem, but oh no that is illegal as well.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

A simple solution to car jacking is to have claymores in the door frame, just boom
and carjacker not a problem, but oh no that is illegal as well.

Click to expand...

Flamethrower now an option on S. African cars

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/


[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/fDrzMGdYWZc&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

imported post

MamaLiberty wrote:

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."

Click to expand...

Several people on this forum (and lots of others) have challenged this idiotic idea many, many times. A money reward has been offered for any verifiable record of this ever happening anywhere in the US. So far, no takers.

Click to expand...

Has anyone come up with proof of the opposite? That it deters the bad guy.

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

MamaLiberty wrote:

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."

Click to expand...

Several people on this forum (and lots of others) have challenged this idiotic idea many, many times. A money reward has been offered for any verifiable record of this ever happening anywhere in the US. So far, no takers.

Click to expand...

Has anyone come up with proof of the opposite? That it deters the bad guy.

Click to expand...

How do you prove what doesn't happen? Simple in this case by the lack of evidence that the opposite does.

Show me the verifiable instances of a legally OCing citizen being attacked, robbed, preemptively being shot or the like in these United States. BTW - if you find one or two it would change the numerical/decimal value to something like .0001% or less. Those are odds I like and it will help to demonstrate my point. That it is a much repeated urban legend.

Yata hey