bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
This comes from another thread:
QuikDrawMcGraw wrote:
This comes from another thread:
QuikDrawMcGraw wrote:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Open vs Concealed Carry
- Thread starter bnhcomputing
- Start date
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
First:
I would LOVE a VT, AK, AR style carry for WI. The reality is in MI for example you CANNOT carry without a permit from your state of residence. Do I advocate to change the laws in 47 states and DC, or do I work in WI only? If I only work (lobby) in WI, then WI needs a permitting system for reciprocity with the other states. If WI goes directly to "constitutional carry" that's GREAT! But, then what? How do WI residents carry in other states? Do we then have to expend time and resources for national carry?
Second:
Anyone who currently carries a concealed weapon in WI is a criminal because concealed carry is against the law. Any argument about criminals knowing other criminals carry concealed weapons is mute, because again if you carry concealed, you ARE a criminal.
I will not condone nor will I advocate for violating the law. When we condone/advocate for violating our laws that heads us down the path of anarchy. Is that what some here condone? We don't like the law, so the heck with the law? If that is where you stand, then I cannot stand with you. We should work within the law to change the law, not violate the law.
Third:
I know there are NRA members going around the state telling people to conceal carry, and I don't mean lowly NRA members like me, but supposedly high ranking NRA officials. If I hear another one of them sanction violating the law in favor illegal concealed carry over legal open carry, I am going to call them out on it in public and demand clarification from the NRA as to their official position on violating the law. Does the NRA truly favor citizens deciding which laws to follow and which laws to ignore? Does the NRA truly condone all their members simply IGNORE the law? I doubt it.
Last:
Open Carry v. Concealed carry. As I have already posted, Concealed Carry DOES NOT PREVENT THE CRIME, it simply gives you an option of surprise once the bad guy has already committed the crime. I believe open carry will actually prevent the bad guy from enacting the crime.
Here is a copy of the open carry argument posted by mainsail over on usacarry.com Read his original post and the discussion that has taken place there.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html
The Open Carry Argument
My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.
Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.
Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.
Quote:
First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.
It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.
I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.
Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
First:
I would LOVE a VT, AK, AR style carry for WI. The reality is in MI for example you CANNOT carry without a permit from your state of residence. Do I advocate to change the laws in 47 states and DC, or do I work in WI only? If I only work (lobby) in WI, then WI needs a permitting system for reciprocity with the other states. If WI goes directly to "constitutional carry" that's GREAT! But, then what? How do WI residents carry in other states? Do we then have to expend time and resources for national carry?
Second:
Anyone who currently carries a concealed weapon in WI is a criminal because concealed carry is against the law. Any argument about criminals knowing other criminals carry concealed weapons is mute, because again if you carry concealed, you ARE a criminal.
I will not condone nor will I advocate for violating the law. When we condone/advocate for violating our laws that heads us down the path of anarchy. Is that what some here condone? We don't like the law, so the heck with the law? If that is where you stand, then I cannot stand with you. We should work within the law to change the law, not violate the law.
Third:
I know there are NRA members going around the state telling people to conceal carry, and I don't mean lowly NRA members like me, but supposedly high ranking NRA officials. If I hear another one of them sanction violating the law in favor illegal concealed carry over legal open carry, I am going to call them out on it in public and demand clarification from the NRA as to their official position on violating the law. Does the NRA truly favor citizens deciding which laws to follow and which laws to ignore? Does the NRA truly condone all their members simply IGNORE the law? I doubt it.
Last:
Open Carry v. Concealed carry. As I have already posted, Concealed Carry DOES NOT PREVENT THE CRIME, it simply gives you an option of surprise once the bad guy has already committed the crime. I believe open carry will actually prevent the bad guy from enacting the crime.
Here is a copy of the open carry argument posted by mainsail over on usacarry.com Read his original post and the discussion that has taken place there.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html
The Open Carry Argument
My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize.
Carry of any firearm or other weapon for defensive purposes is a solemn responsibility. Those of us that do (openly or concealed) are mortified by the idea, constantly promoted by the pacifists, that our behavior is more reckless because we are armed. In other words, because we carry a handgun we take more risks than we would if we were unarmed. While it would be dishonest to claim we are all responsible gun owners, it is my belief that the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what or how you carry, you need to come to the realization that you are setting yourself up to lose. Whenever you are placed in a defensive situation, you will always lose; it’s only the degree of loss that’s negotiable. Ayoob hits on this in his book, In the Gravest Extreme. He suggests tossing the robber a small wad of cash and moving off, even if you could prevail with a weapon. There’s a very good reason for this. Regardless of how skilled you are at drawing your weapon, you are going to lose. It may be only a minor loss, like being very shaken up and not sleeping well for a few days, or it may be a major loss, like becoming fertilizer, or (most likely) it may be somewhere in-between, but you always lose. Your life will not be the same even if you prevail.
Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
Deterrent Value:
When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.
Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime
I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.
Quote:
I do not believe the act begins after the BG has made his intentions known by drawing on you (attack); it began when he formed the intent. Well, there’s not a lot I can do personally to stop another’s intent, so I need to look a little farther along in the sequence and try to derail that train before it gets to the attack. For the sake of argument, let’s remove weapons from the equation for just a moment. A 5’2” unarmed attacker isn’t going to choose a 6’6” victim over a 5’1” victim, right? He’s going to attack the easier target. Now let’s come back to the reality of violent crime and add back the weapons. Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second. A concealed weapon cannot deter an attack at the ‘interview’ stage; it’s completely ineffectual in that role. Open carry is the only method that provides a direct deterrent. Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right? Then, let’s say the planets have all aligned just so and he, for whatever reason, has begun his attack despite your openly carried sidearm. At this point, the OCer is on level footing with the CCer, the attack has begun. Who has the advantage? Well, I’m going to say that with all things being equal (skill level and equipment) the OCer has a speed of draw advantage over the CCer.
First One To Be Shot:
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
Surprise:
Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.
It Will Get Stolen:
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
It Scares People:
One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.
I’m Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:
This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.
Conclusion
No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
(not directed at you Hubert as you didn't write that essay, but in response to his comment)
Why should someone need to write an essay to justify how they choose to carry?
It doesn't matter which method is better.
Of course it is illegal to conceal carry in Wisconsin so right now its clearly better to open-carry.
Having said that how a law-abiding person chooses to carry (assuming both were legal) or IF a person chooses to carry doesn't need to be justified to anyone but themselves.
(not directed at you Hubert as you didn't write that essay, but in response to his comment)
Why should someone need to write an essay to justify how they choose to carry?
It doesn't matter which method is better.
Of course it is illegal to conceal carry in Wisconsin so right now its clearly better to open-carry.
Having said that how a law-abiding person chooses to carry (assuming both were legal) or IF a person chooses to carry doesn't need to be justified to anyone but themselves.
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
I understand the point regarding deterrence value of open carry; it does make sense. I have not seen any data on it and am not sure they exist, but this does make sense.
In terms of deterrence value of concealed carry, it sounds like what you are saying is that concealed carry has no deterrence value. If you are talking about an individual going about his or her daily life I think you would be correct about this, however, there has been a lot of data collected in states that have passed shall issue concealed carry laws that show there is an overall drop in various crime rates after passage of the law. This would imply that concealed carry does have deterrence value for a population in an area that has shall issue concealed carry; I don't think you are talking about a lack of deterrence for concealed carry at that level, right?
My personal preference would be to carry concealed; I have no logical explanation for my preference, that is just my outlook. For those who prefer open carry, I have no problem with them doing so.
I understand the point regarding deterrence value of open carry; it does make sense. I have not seen any data on it and am not sure they exist, but this does make sense.
In terms of deterrence value of concealed carry, it sounds like what you are saying is that concealed carry has no deterrence value. If you are talking about an individual going about his or her daily life I think you would be correct about this, however, there has been a lot of data collected in states that have passed shall issue concealed carry laws that show there is an overall drop in various crime rates after passage of the law. This would imply that concealed carry does have deterrence value for a population in an area that has shall issue concealed carry; I don't think you are talking about a lack of deterrence for concealed carry at that level, right?
My personal preference would be to carry concealed; I have no logical explanation for my preference, that is just my outlook. For those who prefer open carry, I have no problem with them doing so.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I understand and accept that concealed carry can/does/will reduce certain types of crime, as I too have seen numbers to verify this.
My point was one of, even with CC the bad guy decides, "you don't look armed. Only 2-3% are armed, I got a 97% chance you aren't."
Now 100% of the criminals won't reach this decision, CC will deter a certain percentage just because somebody MIGHT be armed.
But many if not most who are not deterred by CC because we MIGHT be armed, will KNOW we are armed and be deterred.
I also agree with Nik, I don't necessarily see a need to justify carrying or not to anyone other than me/mine. I posted the essay as a reference to demonstrate, what I believe, that there ARE advantages to OC.
Edit:
I would prefer to choose OC or CC whatever suits me at the time.
I understand and accept that concealed carry can/does/will reduce certain types of crime, as I too have seen numbers to verify this.
My point was one of, even with CC the bad guy decides, "you don't look armed. Only 2-3% are armed, I got a 97% chance you aren't."
Now 100% of the criminals won't reach this decision, CC will deter a certain percentage just because somebody MIGHT be armed.
But many if not most who are not deterred by CC because we MIGHT be armed, will KNOW we are armed and be deterred.
I also agree with Nik, I don't necessarily see a need to justify carrying or not to anyone other than me/mine. I posted the essay as a reference to demonstrate, what I believe, that there ARE advantages to OC.
Edit:
I would prefer to choose OC or CC whatever suits me at the time.
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
Agreed, I would too.
bnhcomputing wrote:
Agreed, I would too.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
When it rains I'd prefer to conceal and keep my weapon dry. Don't always have time to clean it after every errand in bad weather. Is that another "reasonable" argument for the essay author?
When it rains I'd prefer to conceal and keep my weapon dry. Don't always have time to clean it after every errand in bad weather. Is that another "reasonable" argument for the essay author?
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I agree, as a practical matter CC is something I would LOVE to have in WI for the reason Nik sited as well. I didn't say I agreed with everything in the essay, just used it as a starting point to continue the discussion from the other thread.
And I stand by my OP, if you are CC now, you ARE one of the bad guys and your choice to ignore the law only hurts the cause because you can no longer claim you are law abiding, rather only law ignoring.
I agree, as a practical matter CC is something I would LOVE to have in WI for the reason Nik sited as well. I didn't say I agreed with everything in the essay, just used it as a starting point to continue the discussion from the other thread.
And I stand by my OP, if you are CC now, you ARE one of the bad guys and your choice to ignore the law only hurts the cause because you can no longer claim you are law abiding, rather only law ignoring.
Dustiniac
Banned
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
bnhcomputing wrote:
Do you ever speed? No one is truly law abiding.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Dustiniac wrote:
I cannot say I do not accidentally speed, but cruise control works wonders. I can say I put forth the effort NOT to and I do not condone speeding, just like I put forth the effort to NOT conceal and don't condone CC.
Those that do CC in Wisconsin now are no better than the bad guy who is CC today and they will be the ones who help the anti's say, "see, there is no such thing as a law abiding gun owner in WI."
It is my belief that knowingly violating the firearms laws only hurts our cause.
Dustiniac wrote:
Apples and oranges.
I cannot say I do not accidentally speed, but cruise control works wonders. I can say I put forth the effort NOT to and I do not condone speeding, just like I put forth the effort to NOT conceal and don't condone CC.
Those that do CC in Wisconsin now are no better than the bad guy who is CC today and they will be the ones who help the anti's say, "see, there is no such thing as a law abiding gun owner in WI."
It is my belief that knowingly violating the firearms laws only hurts our cause.
Dustiniac
Banned
imported post
But the law against CC is unconstitutional, so breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal.
But the law against CC is unconstitutional, so breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Dustiniac wrote:
There is no case law to support you argument, only your belief.
Let's look a little closer at open carry, we claim the bad guys don't open carry. The criminals are already carrying concealed, right? Then in your argument, you turn right around and say "breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal."
So the criminals who carry concealed are NOT criminals then, right? If you think drugs should be legalized, then purchasing, using, selling, distributing, basically "breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal."
No sir, I'd say society believes in a having laws and believes those that break the laws are criminals. We cannot convince the general public to support CC if we say, regardless, we'll do it anyway because we don't believe in this law.
We don't get to pick and choose here people, we need to follow the law and work within the law to change the law. That is why Heller, McDonald, and WCI challenged these erroneous laws in civil court. We follow the law, to change the law.
Dustiniac wrote:
Here we'll have to agree to disagree. If one thinks the 0.08 alcohol is unconstitutional, so one breaks the invalid law, by your analogy they are not a criminal? If one thinks that giving one's spouse or child a beating is unconstitutional, so one breaks the invalid law, by that same analogy they are not a criminal.
There is no case law to support you argument, only your belief.
Let's look a little closer at open carry, we claim the bad guys don't open carry. The criminals are already carrying concealed, right? Then in your argument, you turn right around and say "breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal."
So the criminals who carry concealed are NOT criminals then, right? If you think drugs should be legalized, then purchasing, using, selling, distributing, basically "breaking a law that is invalid does not make one a criminal."
No sir, I'd say society believes in a having laws and believes those that break the laws are criminals. We cannot convince the general public to support CC if we say, regardless, we'll do it anyway because we don't believe in this law.
We don't get to pick and choose here people, we need to follow the law and work within the law to change the law. That is why Heller, McDonald, and WCI challenged these erroneous laws in civil court. We follow the law, to change the law.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
Which brings to thought; what if Criminals start OCing?
Which brings to thought; what if Criminals start OCing?
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
The road to hell is paved with what-ifs.
Any statement so qualified as to be necessarily and tautologically true is a waste of time to read and to write. Referring to that 2251 C&P.
The road to hell is paved with what-ifs.
Any statement so qualified as to be necessarily and tautologically true is a waste of time to read and to write. Referring to that 2251 C&P.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
I disagree.
Of course "bad guy" is a subjective judgement, but..
There is malum prohibitum and malum in se. 2 TOTALLY different things.
If you are CC'ing now, you are breaking the law. True. That doesn't make you a bad guy in and of itself. (using my own personal definition of "bad guy")
If you are using your gun to violate someone else's rights. (harm them not acting in self defense, rob them, assault them, etc) THEN you are a bad guy. But not because of how you chose to carry your firearm, rather what you chose to do with it.
If the government passed a law that made criticizing the government illegal, and someone criticized the government. I would NOT think that person a "bad guy" though they are breaking the law. Rather I think they are a good guy and would shake their hand for being a patriot and understanding the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.
I disagree.
Of course "bad guy" is a subjective judgement, but..
There is malum prohibitum and malum in se. 2 TOTALLY different things.
If you are CC'ing now, you are breaking the law. True. That doesn't make you a bad guy in and of itself. (using my own personal definition of "bad guy")
If you are using your gun to violate someone else's rights. (harm them not acting in self defense, rob them, assault them, etc) THEN you are a bad guy. But not because of how you chose to carry your firearm, rather what you chose to do with it.
If the government passed a law that made criticizing the government illegal, and someone criticized the government. I would NOT think that person a "bad guy" though they are breaking the law. Rather I think they are a good guy and would shake their hand for being a patriot and understanding the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
One more clarification. It goes without saying that WCI doesn't advocate for breaking the law. It would be irresponsible to encourage people to expose themselves to potential criminal charges.
It is however clearly stated in WCI's mission statement that how law-abiding people choose to carry is THEIR choice, not the governments. We believe carrying as you choose is YOUR human right. Conceal Carry is currently (except for a few rare circumstances the WSSC carved out)a right denied. For that reason, its just not possible for us to advocate that people do it NOW except in those circumstances the WSSC carved out.
Wisconsin Carry's official position is that if you CC now, you are (except in a few circumstances) breaking the law BUT we also believe that it is your human right to carry as you choose so our goal is to bring the right to carry as you choose into a legal capacity in Wisconsin.
It is not our position that a person who exercises what we believe (and state in our mission statement) ia a human-right is a "bad guy", rather they are just breaking the law.
One more clarification. It goes without saying that WCI doesn't advocate for breaking the law. It would be irresponsible to encourage people to expose themselves to potential criminal charges.
It is however clearly stated in WCI's mission statement that how law-abiding people choose to carry is THEIR choice, not the governments. We believe carrying as you choose is YOUR human right. Conceal Carry is currently (except for a few rare circumstances the WSSC carved out)a right denied. For that reason, its just not possible for us to advocate that people do it NOW except in those circumstances the WSSC carved out.
Wisconsin Carry's official position is that if you CC now, you are (except in a few circumstances) breaking the law BUT we also believe that it is your human right to carry as you choose so our goal is to bring the right to carry as you choose into a legal capacity in Wisconsin.
It is not our position that a person who exercises what we believe (and state in our mission statement) ia a human-right is a "bad guy", rather they are just breaking the law.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
imported post
bnhcomputing wrote:
So, how many states require a non-resident to have a resident CCW permit from the state in which they reside? Other than Michigan?
How do Vermont residents CCW in other states?
How do Wisconsin residents CCW in other states, NOW?
A point that I was trying to make is that it would actually be easier to get Vermont style , than it would be to get Alaska or Arizona style. But the truth is, you will not get any of the the three.
You would have Vermont style if 941.23 was declared unconstitutional.
bnhcomputing wrote:
I understand that, as an Executive Officer of Wisconsin Carry Inc. you cannot condone or advocate breaking the law.I did not ask you to. I did not ask you to offend a large concensus of your membership, but you did.
We are presumed innocent, until proven quilty in a court of law. I do believe that is in the Constitution.
Based on your position, I have only one question for you. What will you do when the Constitution is shredded and possesion of firearms is illegalon the Federal or International level?
I presume you will march right down and turn them in, because you do not want to be a criminal.
This site is about Open Carry, so let us move on to the next point
bnhcomputing wrote:
Let me know how that goes for you. This country would not have been founded if the Founding Fathers were afraid to break any laws.
bnhcomputing wrote:
I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. Both Open Carry and CCW deter a certain percentage of crime. Each has its advantages and disadvatages.
I read in that essay that there is an assumption that criminals will see your openly carried firearm, and decide that therisk in now to great for them. This may be true for some, but it is not true for all. For those that it does not deter, and they adjust thier stategy,that openly carried firearm, just became your liability.
Option of Surpise? A perp walks up to me and dsipalys a weapon and demands money, jewelry, keys, etc. At this time, the crime is attempted armed robbery, unless he is successful. Then it would be armed robbery and possibly homicide. IF he is not successful, he won't be going to jail to face any charges. He will be dead. There are many ways to draw from concealment. IF I open carry, before I have time to draw, I may have a gun straight to my head and be disarmed. I may even be struck to the head from behind and knocked unconscious. If the perp knows I am armed, he will make sure I cannot use my firearm on him. If he does not know I am armed, that may give metime and opportuities to draw. I prefer the 'Option of Surprise', it gives me the greater chance or survival. The lesser criminals thatopen carrywould deter are not the ones that truly concern me.
bnhcomputing wrote:
So, how many states require a non-resident to have a resident CCW permit from the state in which they reside? Other than Michigan?
How do Vermont residents CCW in other states?
How do Wisconsin residents CCW in other states, NOW?
A point that I was trying to make is that it would actually be easier to get Vermont style , than it would be to get Alaska or Arizona style. But the truth is, you will not get any of the the three.
You would have Vermont style if 941.23 was declared unconstitutional.
bnhcomputing wrote:
I understand that, as an Executive Officer of Wisconsin Carry Inc. you cannot condone or advocate breaking the law.I did not ask you to. I did not ask you to offend a large concensus of your membership, but you did.
We are presumed innocent, until proven quilty in a court of law. I do believe that is in the Constitution.
Based on your position, I have only one question for you. What will you do when the Constitution is shredded and possesion of firearms is illegalon the Federal or International level?
I presume you will march right down and turn them in, because you do not want to be a criminal.
This site is about Open Carry, so let us move on to the next point
bnhcomputing wrote:
Let me know how that goes for you. This country would not have been founded if the Founding Fathers were afraid to break any laws.
bnhcomputing wrote:
I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. Both Open Carry and CCW deter a certain percentage of crime. Each has its advantages and disadvatages.
I read in that essay that there is an assumption that criminals will see your openly carried firearm, and decide that therisk in now to great for them. This may be true for some, but it is not true for all. For those that it does not deter, and they adjust thier stategy,that openly carried firearm, just became your liability.
Option of Surpise? A perp walks up to me and dsipalys a weapon and demands money, jewelry, keys, etc. At this time, the crime is attempted armed robbery, unless he is successful. Then it would be armed robbery and possibly homicide. IF he is not successful, he won't be going to jail to face any charges. He will be dead. There are many ways to draw from concealment. IF I open carry, before I have time to draw, I may have a gun straight to my head and be disarmed. I may even be struck to the head from behind and knocked unconscious. If the perp knows I am armed, he will make sure I cannot use my firearm on him. If he does not know I am armed, that may give metime and opportuities to draw. I prefer the 'Option of Surprise', it gives me the greater chance or survival. The lesser criminals thatopen carrywould deter are not the ones that truly concern me.
professor gun
Regular Member
imported post
In terms of breaking the law, as a group we must never advocate such behavior. Having said that, each individual must make a choice in terms of their own behavior and adherence to the law. If you do violate the law then you must be prepared to accept the consequences.
Having grown up in the 1960's I saw first hand a lot of civil disobedience during that time; some of it was stupid and nonsensical but some of it was necessary to make important changes in our society that were positive.
Some of you mention the unconstitutionality of our current firearms laws; philosophically I agree with you on that. I would be interested to hear from any attorneys who may be on this forum regarding the topic of jury nullification.
In terms of breaking the law, as a group we must never advocate such behavior. Having said that, each individual must make a choice in terms of their own behavior and adherence to the law. If you do violate the law then you must be prepared to accept the consequences.
Having grown up in the 1960's I saw first hand a lot of civil disobedience during that time; some of it was stupid and nonsensical but some of it was necessary to make important changes in our society that were positive.
Some of you mention the unconstitutionality of our current firearms laws; philosophically I agree with you on that. I would be interested to hear from any attorneys who may be on this forum regarding the topic of jury nullification.
BROKENSPROKET
Regular Member
imported post
professor gun wrote:
professor gun wrote:
Highlights are mine. I agree.