Your Reasons

imported post

Task Force 16, I want to than you for your candid and informative responses. This study you keep referring to, could you share the source? I'd like to read it for myself.

imported post

TheSkeptic wrote:

Task Force 16, I want to than you for your candid and informative responses. This study you keep referring to, could you share the source? I'd like to read it for myself.

Click to expand...

The one done in the prisons surveying convicted felons.

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A survey of Felons and their Firearms, James Write, Peter Rossi, Aldine 1986

Source of the estimated number of crimes stopped each year. (I messed up it's actually 2.5 million per year.)

Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

I found the information in the document put out by www.GunFacts.info It's a conglomeration of facts and statistics from a multitude of sources, all of which are sited.

imported post

Wowsa, that was some site ... I can see why someone from there might feel a little like they fell in the deep end here. I can see several flaws with VC's original scenario that makes me wonder just how much experience she has with OC and SD laws.

Skeptic, if you haven't seen these yet, they might interest you:

Tueller Drill (should be 21') http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8hIeevPlg&feature=related

Gun Control History http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwdO2FLg1Rs

And as TaskForce said, and others on this forum will tell you, we do not carry a gun to kill someone, we carry to use the gun as a last resort to stop a threat. And as demonstrated in the Tueller Drill, a threat is someone 21' or closer.

In your research, you will probably find statistics that most shooting occur within 8' and closer, and most gunfire exchanges last less than 60 seconds.

I believe the most important thing you will find in this forum is the attitude that avoiding a situation is paramont, trying to defuse a situation is next, and only as a last resort under imminent threat of great bodily injury or death to you or another, is a gun to be used.

I am one who has drawn my weapon on more than one occassion and each time, the would-be bad guy turned and left in a hurry. I didn't need to shoot, I didn't report a non-incident.

What I did find myself doing was trying to defuse the situation twice which I never would have done if I had not been armed. Having the gun gave me MORE options that I would not have been able to try if I was not armed. One time, I still had to draw my gun, one time I was able to open the distance enough that the BG gave up as I was able to place myself in sight of others and he realized it.

I have carried a stun gun, OC spray, a mini-bat, a tire iron, a 4-D-cell Mag lite, a 4" blade, and a gun. The only weapon that I was not afraid would be taken from me is the gun.

I am a 5'2" middleaged woman of slight build with a few pounds and a bad back. There is no way that I am going to outrun or overpower an assailant. My only defense is vigilance and a gun. I live in a small rural town and was a bailbondsman for a while. Everyone knows where we live and what we drive and I definitely pissed off some violent criminals while they were on my bail. I have had creditable death threats. Although my state is CC only, I OCd in my office and when I was there at night (which was often) I would answer the door with a pistol in my hand and would make sure the folks saw it and also that they saw me put the safety back on. I would set the pistol on the table out of their reach, but would hold the .45 in my lap cond.0.

While I am a "gun nut" I am not a nut with a gun if you get the difference (which I expect you do :lol I have spent a lot of time and effort to beknowledgable about the laws of my state and as proficient with all guns that I own.

You will find that the folks in this forum are very knowledgable about a wide variety of subjects and very willing to help. They can also debate circles around any Bradyite who stumbles into this corner of the 'net :celebrate

I hope you stick around and get to know the folks here.

imported post

There have been many studies and many observations, but most important is the effect on crime vs armed citizens. Leaving aside our absolute right to remain armed, I would suggest John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime". Then look at places such as Kennesaw, GA which, in 1982, required private citizens to have a firearm in their home. That same year, Morton Grove, IL did just the opposite and banned handguns. The results are above impressed - they're downright amazing.

Of course, we can argue this until we're all blue in the face, but the simple fact is, we have an absolute and definitive right to be armed. I carry both ways, but most always, my sidearm is open and visible. My reason for carrying open is my knees. I can no longer run away or fight as I was once able to do. When I carry concealed, which I do occasionally, I look just like anyone else - an unarmed individual. However, when I carry openly, my little friend speaks silently for me, telling anyone who would do me harm that it is best to leave me alone. Reasons abound for concealed carry, open carry, and no carry, but the one thing that is a constant and brings everything into focus is this.

In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun.

imported post

I know that most CC advocates dislike us that OC because they feel that we are trying to compensate for something and are always saying that if you OC you will lose the tactical advantage or the element of surprise etc. When we OCers try to bring up the point that we may be able to prevent bad things from happening just with the presence of a firearm, we are usually laughed to scorn at such an idea. Well, here it is in black and white.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

My wife and I discussed this and imagined what would have happened if these two armed citizens would have CCed instead of OCed. The robbers would have cased the joint, found everyone "unarmed" and would have burst in and tried to rob the joint.

Sure the CCers would have had the element of surprise, but would have then had to draw and possibly use their weapons in a shootout and then deal with the aftermath. I for one found this article an excellent affirmation of my decision to OC.

imported post

HYRYSC wrote:

I know that most CC advocates dislike us that OC because they feel that we are trying to compensate for something and are always saying that if you OC you will lose the tactical advantage or the element of surprise etc. When we OCers try to bring up the point that we may be able to prevent bad things from happening just with the presence of a firearm, we are usually laughed to scorn at such an idea. Well, here it is in black and white.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

My wife and I discussed this and imagined what would have happened if these two armed citizens would have CCed instead of OCed. The robbers would have cased the joint, found everyone "unarmed" and would have burst in and tried to rob the joint.

Sure the CCers would have had the element of surprise, but would have then had to draw and possibly use their weapons in a shootout and then deal with the aftermath. I for one found this article an excellent affirmation of my decision to OC.

Click to expand...

Right. If my OC'ing prevents a BG from accosting me, then I am happy and my actions have done their job. If the residual effects also include saving others from any criminal attacks, then so much the better.

imported post

TheSkeptic wrote:

...but then I run into a plethora of biased, sensationalist, and badly-grounded information I'd be forced to sift through in an attempt to find the shreds of merit. Since the quality of a position is marked by its ease of explanation, I ask plainly, here: what are your rational arguments for open carry?

Click to expand...

Does such a grossly rude and obvious trolling comment (particularly after you complained about trolls) even justify a response to your question?


No.


ETA, on further examination of the discourse of the discussion, I'm leaving my comment as is, but letting you and everyone else know I apologize for any overbearing tone.

Having said that, I do request a reasonable questioning, but not so much of a shakedown, one way or the other on the issue of OC vs CC vs OC vs CC vs... You get the idea.

1. One or the other may be better in one situation or another

2. One may prove a better deterrent than the other.

3. One may prove a better crime-stopper than the other.

4. One may prove to be more palatable to the public than the other.

5. One may prove to be much more of an inroads to public awareness than the other.

It's all good...

imported post

I think this is all backwards and kinda like trying to prove a negative in some ways. Let's reverse this:

The OP asks essentially about OC v CC so we are starting at the point that we have decided to carry for personal and family protection. So what are the rational arguments AGAINST OC??

1) That it might scare/freak out/worry people leading to anxiety/MWAG calls/etc. Well, certainly this is not a rational argument but rather an emotional argument and emotions, as any good psychologist will tell you, are inherently irrational.

2) That the BG will target you first in an active shooter scenario.
a) Active shooters have shown themselves to be less than Patton-esque strategists and tacticians. Most of them just walk into someplace and start blazing away at whoever is closest. In most of the actual events the chance that the BG would have noted that you have an OC sidearm beforehand is nearly zero. Furthermore, almost all of these type events occur in gun free zones clearly suggesting that such BGs are going out of their way to avoid armed citizens.

b) That isn't the non-OC'ers problem. If this is true I would think a CCer would want an OCer on the other side of the room to distract the BG while they pull their sidearm from concealment. Who would CCers prefer the BGs target first?

3) That a BG will attack you and steal your sidearm.
This.Has.Never.Been.Documented.To.Have.Happened. Zombies that have special powers to detect kydex from 20 yards away might also rise up from the ground and target everyone who wears a kydex holster leading to the argument that everyone should only carry leather holsters, but then this also has never happened.
---------------------------

I'm just tired of people demanding that we justify our position and method of carry when they have no rational argument against it. It's like wearing a yellow shirt and someone saying, "I think you should wear a green shirt. Justify your position for wearing yellow!" It's a preference. There are many cons against CC as well - It can be uncomfortable, you have to dress for your gun which may make dressing appropriately for the event difficult or uncomfortable, it can be expensive both for licensure and for wardrobe adjustments, presentation may be slower, individually no deterrent effect, everywhere except AK and VT you have to be willing to put yourself in the system so to speak to CC, etc. How about I don't try to tell you what shirt to wear and you don't tell me how to carry my personal protection.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I think this is all backwards and kinda like trying to prove a negative in some ways. Let's reverse this:

The OP asks essentially about OC v CC so we are starting at the point that we have decided to carry for personal and family protection. So what are the rational arguments AGAINST OC??

1) That it might scare/freak out/worry people leading to anxiety/MWAG calls/etc. Well, certainly this is not a rational argument but rather an emotional argument and emotions, as any good psychologist will tell you, are inherently irrational.

2) That the BG will target you first in an active shooter scenario.
a) Active shooters have shown themselves to be less than Patton-esque strategists and tacticians. Most of them just walk into someplace and start blazing away at whoever is closest. In most of the actual events the chance that the BG would have noted that you have an OC sidearm beforehand is nearly zero. Furthermore, almost all of these type events occur in gun free zones clearly suggesting that such BGs are going out of their way to avoid armed citizens.

b) That isn't the non-OC'ers problem. If this is true I would think a CCer would want an OCer on the other side of the room to distract the BG while they pull their sidearm from concealment. Who would CCers prefer the BGs target first?

3) That a BG will attack you and steal your sidearm.
This.Has.Never.Been.Documented.To.Have.Happened. Zombies that have special powers to detect kydex from 20 yards away might also rise up from the ground and target everyone who wears a kydex holster leading to the argument that everyone should only carry leather holsters, but then this also has never happened.
---------------------------

I'm just tired of people demanding that we justify our position and method of carry when they have no rational argument against it. It's like wearing a yellow shirt and someone saying, "I think you should wear a green shirt. Justify your position for wearing yellow!" It's a preference. There are many cons against CC as well - It can be uncomfortable, you have to dress for your gun which may make dressing appropriately for the event difficult or uncomfortable, it can be expensive both for licensure and for wardrobe adjustments, presentation may be slower, individually no deterrent effect, everywhere except AK and VT you have to be willing to put yourself in the system so to speak to CC, etc. How about I don't try to tell you what shirt to wear and you don't tell me how to carry my personal protection.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Archsgurl wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I think this is all backwards and kinda like trying to prove a negative in some ways. Let's reverse this:

The OP asks essentially about OC v CC so we are starting at the point that we have decided to carry for personal and family protection. So what are the rational arguments AGAINST OC??

1) That it might scare/freak out/worry people leading to anxiety/MWAG calls/etc. Well, certainly this is not a rational argument but rather an emotional argument and emotions, as any good psychologist will tell you, are inherently irrational.

2) That the BG will target you first in an active shooter scenario.
a) Active shooters have shown themselves to be less than Patton-esque strategists and tacticians. Most of them just walk into someplace and start blazing away at whoever is closest. In most of the actual events the chance that the BG would have noted that you have an OC sidearm beforehand is nearly zero. Furthermore, almost all of these type events occur in gun free zones clearly suggesting that such BGs are going out of their way to avoid armed citizens.

b) That isn't the non-OC'ers problem. If this is true I would think a CCer would want an OCer on the other side of the room to distract the BG while they pull their sidearm from concealment. Who would CCers prefer the BGs target first?

3) That a BG will attack you and steal your sidearm.
This.Has.Never.Been.Documented.To.Have.Happened. Zombies that have special powers to detect kydex from 20 yards away might also rise up from the ground and target everyone who wears a kydex holster leading to the argument that everyone should only carry leather holsters, but then this also has never happened.
---------------------------

I'm just tired of people demanding that we justify our position and method of carry when they have no rational argument against it. It's like wearing a yellow shirt and someone saying, "I think you should wear a green shirt. Justify your position for wearing yellow!" It's a preference. There are many cons against CC as well - It can be uncomfortable, you have to dress for your gun which may make dressing appropriately for the event difficult or uncomfortable, it can be expensive both for licensure and for wardrobe adjustments, presentation may be slower, individually no deterrent effect, everywhere except AK and VT you have to be willing to put yourself in the system so to speak to CC, etc. How about I don't try to tell you what shirt to wear and you don't tell me how to carry my personal protection.

Click to expand...

+1

Click to expand...

+2

imported post

okboomer wrote:

I am a 5'2" middleaged woman of slight build with a few pounds and a bad back. There is no way that I am going to outrun or overpower an assailant. My only defense is vigilance and a gun. I live in a small rural town.....

Click to expand...

Wow, I've GOT to get out of the Wisconsin forum more often. Except for the 5'2" (I"m 5'4"), the above has described me. It's nice to see this and I carry for the same reasons you do.
As I was reading the GlockTalk/CopTalk forum a short time ago, there is a post with the majority of the responders making fun of the folks who open carry. I got to thinking about why I do and came up with the perfect answer for me, especially since a cop berated me a year and a half ago for wanting to open carry. Next time I'm asked why I carry, I'll respond 'For the same reason I carry a tampon, one must always be prepared for unexpected circumstances'.
I also live in a rural area located in northern Wisconsin. My BF, a police officer, was talking about getting a pistol for ankle carry. He never felt the need for it up here but has changed his mind. Crime, drugs, you name it is up here just like everywhere else. Wherever you go, you never know what you may come upon.
Pot growers have targeted out state/national forests for their secluded gardens. Since I'm not going to hide in my house, I will continue to be out and about BUT with protection.
Just the other day, the lab and I were hiking looking for sheds. A very strong musky smell filled about a 3 acre area. I'm thinking bear since this is where I deer hunted last fall and I swear, I think I was hunting in his toilet. The pistol wouldn't do much if there was a bear except maybe scare him with a BOOM. Next time I go back, I will have an even better protection strategy. I'm taking a friend with who I can outrun!

imported post

HYRYSC wrote:

I know that most CC advocates dislike us that OC because they feel that we are trying to compensate for something and are always saying that if you OC you will lose the tactical advantage or the element of surprise etc. When we OCers try to bring up the point that we may be able to prevent bad things from happening just with the presence of a firearm, we are usually laughed to scorn at such an idea. Well, here it is in black and white.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

My wife and I discussed this and imagined what would have happened if these two armed citizens would have CCed instead of OCed. The robbers would have cased the joint, found everyone "unarmed" and would have burst in and tried to rob the joint.

Sure the CCers would have had the element of surprise, but would have then had to draw and possibly use their weapons in a shootout and then deal with the aftermath. I for one found this article an excellent affirmation of my decision to OC.

Click to expand...

A correction to the text highlighted in bold.

We never have the tactical advantage of the "element of surprise", regardless of how we carry. Element of surprise is an offensive tactic, not one of defense.

imported post

Task Force did a great job of providing rational reasons and supporting evidence. But I'll throw in my personal reasons as well, these are 100% opinion and personal choice made by yours truly.



Comfort: IWB carry is uncomfortable for me, the weight isn't distributed well, and being inside the waist band, the gun is pressed against my rather bony hips, it's not very enjoyable.



Access: If you are in a situation where you need to deploy your sidearm, chances stand you will be in a state of duress. Even in an optimal scenario, drawing from concealment and presenting your firearm in an effecient manner isn't guranteed, guns have sharp edges, grips are grippy, and cloathing can interfere with the process. Drawing from an openly carried holster is much smoother, faster, and more consistant and can be done with ONE hand much easier.



Deterrent: Contrary to what the grabbers assert, RKBA advocates DON'T want to take anothers life. OC is a proven method of deterring violence for you and those around you.



Liberty: Me, a 26 year old graphic artist, with no military or police background, is trusted (Supposedly, at least) by my state and country to legally and responsibly take responsiblity for my own well being. It's a very humbling and inspiring notion, I enjoy taking pride in my ability to present myself as a free man, beholden to no authoritarian power.





Those are my reasons, I hoped I've helped you understand!

imported post

SsevenN wrote:

Those are my reasons, I hoped I've helped you understand!

Click to expand...

And excellent reasons are they.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

HYRYSC wrote:

I know that most CC advocates dislike us that OC because they feel that we are trying to compensate for something and are always saying that if you OC you will lose the tactical advantage or the element of surprise etc. When we OCers try to bring up the point that we may be able to prevent bad things from happening just with the presence of a firearm, we are usually laughed to scorn at such an idea. Well, here it is in black and white.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

My wife and I discussed this and imagined what would have happened if these two armed citizens would have CCed instead of OCed. The robbers would have cased the joint, found everyone "unarmed" and would have burst in and tried to rob the joint.

Sure the CCers would have had the element of surprise, but would have then had to draw and possibly use their weapons in a shootout and then deal with the aftermath. I for one found this article an excellent affirmation of my decision to OC.

Click to expand...

A correction to the text highlighted in bold.

We never have the tactical advantage of the "element of surprise", regardless of how we carry. Element of surprise is an offensive tactic, not one of defense.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, but you and I both know that this is the most common argument that folks use for CCing instead of OCing.

imported post

On the street, the answer is 'None of your fnckin' business'

imported post

I open carry because I've noticed that crime incidents have been rising here in north and central Las Vegas, when I got out of the service in 06 an Airman from the Air Force was gunned down in my neighborhood, and this is a very nice neighborhood. The Police ruled that there was no motive behind the murder, and there were no arrests made.

imported post

It really makes me wonder. The sheer amount of hate and scorn that gets directed towards anyone who posts a dissenting opinion, and the sheer rudeness that gets directed toward anyone who questions your reasons for OC, is staggering.

All this internet courage makes me wonder if you are really this rude in public. It makes me wonder if there is truth to the stereotype that we carry because we are insecure. How dare anyone come into your little club and question the way you do things! For every poster that gives a rational argument of their own, or quotes the rational arguments of others, there are ten that seek only to drive away someone who could have been turned to 'our side'. It's sad. Now I know why I spend most of my time in the Alabama forum.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

It really makes me wonder. The sheer amount of hate and scorn that gets directed towards anyone who posts a dissenting opinion, and the sheer rudeness that gets directed toward anyone who questions your reasons for OC, is staggering.

All this internet courage makes me wonder if you are really this rude in public. It makes me wonder if there is truth to the stereotype that we carry because we are insecure. How dare anyone come into your little club and question the way you do things! For every poster that gives a rational argument of their own, or quotes the rational arguments of others, there are ten that seek only to drive away someone who could have been turned to 'our side'. It's sad. Now I know why I spend most of my time in the Alabama forum.

Click to expand...

The comment in your first paragraph can probably be answered best by this. Many of us have found on this and other sites, that CC'ers (of which I am one on occasion) are more visceral and vehement in their bias against OC'ers than are OC'ers are towards CC'ers. I find this a might curious since in my opinion, we're all in this together and creating derision does nothing in our favor. So some OC'ers are perhaps a little gunshy when encountering arguments of this nature. They can get defensive and it's easy to see why. It has been my experience that OC'ers are far more tolerant of CC'ers than the other way around.

I also don't particularly care for comments and remarks which I consider to be uncivil or outright rude. This helps no one and certainly can work and be used against us. However, let's face it. We have definitely seen an increase in the number of trolls permeating this site, attempting to cause arguments and bitter responses. It is hard at times to keep one's tongue and civility about them under these circumstances.

Sorry you feel alienated from this forum, but do understand your fellow members have strong feelings, as do we all, about some issues.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

mcdonalk wrote:

It really makes me wonder. The sheer amount of hate and scorn that gets directed towards anyone who posts a dissenting opinion, and the sheer rudeness that gets directed toward anyone who questions your reasons for OC, is staggering.

All this internet courage makes me wonder if you are really this rude in public. It makes me wonder if there is truth to the stereotype that we carry because we are insecure. How dare anyone come into your little club and question the way you do things! For every poster that gives a rational argument of their own, or quotes the rational arguments of others, there are ten that seek only to drive away someone who could have been turned to 'our side'. It's sad. Now I know why I spend most of my time in the Alabama forum.

Click to expand...

The comment in your first paragraph can probably be answered best by this. Many of us have found on this and other sites, that CC'ers (of which I am one on occasion) are more visceral and vehement in their bias against OC'ers than are OC'ers are towards CC'ers. I find this a might curious since in my opinion, we're all in this together and creating derision does nothing in our favor. So some OC'ers are perhaps a little gunshy when encountering arguments of this nature. They can get defensive and it's easy to see why. It has been my experience that OC'ers are far more tolerant of CC'ers than the other way around.

I also don't particularly care for comments and remarks which I consider to be uncivil or outright rude. This helps no one and certainly can work and be used against us. However, let's face it. We have definitely seen an increase in the number of trolls permeating this site, attempting to cause arguments and bitter responses. It is hard at times to keep one's tongue and civility about them under these circumstances.

Sorry you feel alienated from this forum, but do understand your fellow members have strong feelings, as do we all, about some issues.

Click to expand...

I'll expand on what SouthernBoy said.

As for the trolls that post on these forums, it appears they constently excercize a form of insanity (Einsteins' theory on insanity). They keep posting the same old lame arguments against OC (or carry in general) as if they expect to get a different response. As you can imagine, this get frustrating to many of us that have argued repeadily in defense of OC and our 2A rights in general.

It gets to be like a "Bop the Mole" game in here sometimes. The anti's keep poping their heads up in here with their "feelings" arguments and we bop them with facts and logic. It does get old after awhile. :lol:


I'm wondering what happened to the OP, The Skeptic? He seemed to be rather rational, but hasn't been back in awhile. Maybe he's studying the resources I gave him.