Are You Crazy If You Open Carry?

since9 · Jun 7, 2011

Aside from the training, usually required for CC but usually not required for OC, and averaging $100 every 3 years, a holster is a holster is a holster. The most expensive holster I own, a cross-chest carry for a .44 mag with scope, would still only be $70 in today's dollars. The other cost are the license fees for CC, averaging about $100 every three years.

So, that's $200 every 3 years, or about $5.50 a month.

I agree with most of you here our only expenses should be the firearm, accessories, and shooting supplies!

Aside from that, what's this huge, hidden, underground money stream? Do the math across the numbers of those who CC and all fees come to roughly $16 Million, which, across a 300,000 million person nation, is a pittance, some 5 cents on the dollar each month. Compared to our GDP it's a drop in the ocean.

Grapeshot · Jun 8, 2011

OC for ME said:
Reality check, gun ownership is a political issue. OCing is a de facto political statement. All of politics is about "us vs. them." CCing is a political statement, but just like sitting on your sofa complaining after an election you did not vote in, nobody will know what your political statement is.

Am I crazy for OCing? It all depends on who is defining "crazy". Do I OC 100% of the time, obviously not. I OC where it is legal AND prudent to do so. I CC where prudent. Am I armed when out and about....better question, would you bet your life on the possibility that I am not armed?

OCing helps those who are poor gamblers, to have the information and the odds they need to place a good bet.:arrow:

A good gambler uses the odds and solid psychology in his favor - he uses all of the tools to improve his odds of winning.

I see OC in part like bumping the ante to force those not wanting to play table stakes to sit out the hand. That's fine with me.

ColeMD17 · Jun 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Can anyone anywhere point to some verifiable source where an "obviously armed" (SMF vest or OC), LAC was actually targeted, either directly, or so the bad guy can move on to other targets?

Oh, man.... I'm gonna be crucified for this...

http://youtu.be/zx_YUO4SzcY

Somebody has to play devil's advocate, though. Doesn't change my views on OC, but I'm just saying, there's always gotta be ONE mega-ballsy BG out there.

eye95 · Jun 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
...Can anyone anywhere point to some verifiable source where an "obviously armed" (SMF vest or OC), LAC was actually targeted, either directly, or so the bad guy can move on to other targets?....

ColeMD17 said:
Oh, man.... I'm gonna be crucified for this...

http://youtu.be/zx_YUO4SzcY

Somebody has to play devil's advocate, though. Doesn't change my views on OC, but I'm just saying, there's always gotta be ONE mega-ballsy BG out there.

Folks keep producing this one like they've found some gem that has not been posted 100 times already. Reread the above post. Then listen to or read some of the dozens of accounts again.

This man was not targeted because he was OC. He was robbed and then discovered to have a gun.

But even if you assume that this case meets the criteria in the question (it doesn't), what does it tell you about the chances of being targeted because of OC versus the chances of being detargeted because of OC? We know (by their own admission and a documented case in Georgia) that criminals are cowards, that they only act when they feel they have the upper hand, and that they deliberately avoid people know to be armed. (And what makes it more known than OC?)

So, even if you underestimate that 99 times out of 100 a BG, who already had nefarious intent, sees an OCed gun and walks away and even if you overestimate that one time out of 100 a BG, who had no designs on you, now targets you because he sees that you have a OCed gun, clearly OC is a deterrent to, not an invitation for, crime.

Metalhead47 · Jun 19, 2011

eye95 said:
Folks keep producing this one like they've found some gem that has not been posted 100 times already. Reread the above post. Then listen to or read some of the dozens of accounts again.

This man was not targeted because he was OC. He was robbed and then discovered to have a gun.

But even if you assume that this case meets the criteria in the question (it doesn't), what does it tell you about the chances of being targeted because of OC versus the chances of being detargeted because of OC? We know (by their own admission and a documented case in Georgia) that criminals are cowards, that they only act when they feel they have the upper hand, and that they deliberately avoid people know to be armed. (And what makes it more known than OC?)

So, even if you underestimate that 99 times out of 100 a BG, who already had nefarious intent, sees an OCed gun and walks away and even if you overestimate that one time out of 100 a BG, who had no designs on you, now targets you because he sees that you have a OCed gun, clearly OC is a deterrent to, not an invitation for, crime.

I'm not sure if "coward" is quite the right word here. Criminals are predators. Do lions on the savanna pick the biggest, meanest wildebeest to take down? Do wolves pick the fastest deer to chase? No, predators target the weak and vulnerable. They don't go after the biggest & strongest simply because they won't want to waste their energy chasing something they can't catch, or fighting something that might likely kill them. This isn't cowardice, it's survival.

Human predators are no different. They target those who will be most easily taken advantage of, get them the biggest gain for the least expenditure. At the end of they day, they simply just want to survive too.

Not that it's impossible that a BG would directly target an OCer, but that BG would have to be truly deranged. Not crazy, so much as unable to think practically (out to prove something, etc). Criminals are a very small percent of the population, and actually deranged criminals are an even smaller percentage of that. Most BGs are, in their own twisted way, merely trying to survive.

ColeMD17 · Jun 19, 2011

I Said the same thing when I first saw this. Whatever the case, OC is ALMOST always a deterrent. But no rule is absolute. There's always gotta be at least one exception

eye95 · Jun 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
I'm not sure if "coward" is quite the right word here. Criminals are predators. Do lions on the savanna pick the biggest, meanest wildebeest to take down? Do wolves pick the fastest deer to chase? No, predators target the weak and vulnerable. They don't go after the biggest & strongest simply because they won't want to waste their energy chasing something they can't catch, or fighting something that might likely kill them. This isn't cowardice, it's survival.

Human predators are no different. They target those who will be most easily taken advantage of, get them the biggest gain for the least expenditure. At the end of they day, they simply just want to survive too.

Not that it's impossible that a BG would directly target an OCer, but that BG would have to be truly deranged. Not crazy, so much as unable to think practically (out to prove something, etc). Criminals are a very small percent of the population, and actually deranged criminals are an even smaller percentage of that. Most BGs are, in their own twisted way, merely trying to survive.

"Cowards" is the precise right word. They may prey on others, but generally will only do so when they feel that they have the upper hand.

That is the exact word I meant to use, and I stand by it. Most criminals are quite cowardly.

eye95 · Jun 19, 2011

ColeMD17 said:
I Said the same thing when I first saw this. Whatever the case, OC is ALMOST always a deterrent. But no rule is absolute. There's always gotta be at least one exception

The OC in this case was neither a deterrent nor a motivator. It was a fact discovered mid-crime.

No doubt someone, someday will relate an OC-motivated crime (the gun-grab or the targeting). But the rarity of this exception proves the rule. OC is a huge deterrent to crime.

gogodawgs · Jun 19, 2011

eye95 said:
The OC in this case was neither a deterrent nor a motivator. It was a fact discovered mid-crime.

No doubt someone, someday will relate an OC-motivated crime (the gun-grab or the targeting). But the rarity of this exception proves the rule. OC is a huge deterrent to crime.

And if they pick the wrong OCer, like many of us...myself included, they will find themselves full of lead from our BUG.

ET. · Aug 5, 2011

Here is a novel idea:

"I won't pass judgement on you simply based on how you choose to carry your fiream, if you don't pass judgement on me simply because I choose to carry mine in a different manner."

or,

"I won't tell you how you should carry your gun, if you don't tell me how I should carry mine."

or better yet,

"I'll carry my gun any damn way I want to. It's none of your business. Now go away and bother someone else."

eye95 · Aug 5, 2011

I recommend this alternative to your first suggestion:

"I won't pass judgment on you simply based on how you choose to carry your firearm in the hope that you won't pass judgment on me simply because I choose to carry mine in a different manner. You are free to pass whatever judgment you will, and I am free to ignore you and to continue to carry in the way I believe to be most effective."

Bill Starks · Aug 18, 2011

Yesterday while I was out with my son a guy walks past me and mumbles something but I clearly heard the words "Open Carrier" as he passes by. This is a guy who is wearing one of those sporting vests so I turn and say out loud "Concealed Carrier" in a vest......I got a disgruntled look back from him.

Metalhead47 · Aug 18, 2011

M1Gunr said:
Yesterday while I was out with my son a guy walks past me and mumbles something but I clearly heard the words "Open Carrier" as he passes by. This is a guy who is wearing one of those sporting vests so I turn and say out loud "Concealed Carrier" in a vest......

ROFL what was his response?

Bill Starks · Aug 18, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
ROFL what was his response?

All I got was a disgruntled look....

MyWifeSaidYes · Aug 21, 2011

M-Taliesin said:
...
I won't even bother to address the nonsensical business about situational awareness and gun grabs by miscreants. Since I have yet to see one single shred of evidence that any open carrier ever had his weapon grabbed by a bad guy, there's really no issue to argue here.

December of 2009
Security guard grabs for OC's gun. That made the guard a bad guy, right?
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=40381

Grapeshot · Aug 21, 2011

MyWifeSaidYes said:
December of 2009
Security guard grabs for OC's gun. That made the guard a bad guy, right?
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=40381

If anyone hasn't seen this before. they should take the opportunity to read the link.

Believe I remember right that the OCer was not charged and the security officer was fired.

Situational awareness is good, trained responses are good, attempted gun grabs are very foolish - thankfully they are virtually unknown to occur.

Bill Starks · Aug 21, 2011

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

Man Legally Carrying Gun Robbed at Gunpoint

By Melanie Stout

(June 2010) MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee man found out the hard way that carrying a gun for protection doesn't always keep you safe. In fact, it may have made him a target.
The 34-year-old man legally owned a handgun and carried it out in the open in his holster for protection. Neighbors say they knew he was always armed.

Grapeshot · Aug 21, 2011

M1Gunr said:
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

Man Legally Carrying Gun Robbed at Gunpoint

By Melanie Stout

(June 2010) MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee man found out the hard way that carrying a gun for protection doesn't always keep you safe. In fact, it may have made him a target.
The 34-year-old man legally owned a handgun and carried it out in the open in his holster for protection. Neighbors say they knew he was always armed.

This reference has been discussed at length on this and other forums w/o satisfactory conclusion.

Was he targeted because he was OCing or simply the victim of a robbery? There is also some evidence that the entire situation was manufactured and did not occur as reported.

Even if it were to be proven that he was targeted because he was OCing, it would stand as one (1) negative event amongst millions or considerably less than .0001%. Have to admit I chuckle every time I see figures like that - gotta love the odds.

Bill Starks · Aug 21, 2011

targeted or not, he was OCing when it happened.

WalkingWolf · Aug 21, 2011

One thing the author fails to note, is that if you are drawing a concealed weapon your quap is already in the wind. Then you have to undo clothing, and draw, acquire a target and then fire, all this while what brought you to the use of force is already happening or is about to happen. Most victims are unarmed that is a fact, so the BG assumes you are unarmed he sees you as a victim.

Now most is the same for OC except the BG seeing you as a victim, and having to undo clothes to get to your gun. I dislike concealing period, I dislike bulky clothes, I dislike the drawing disadvantage, and I dislike sweating on a gun when it is hot. I think, and just my opinion, it is crazy to conceal when one can OC.

Besides smart BG's, if there is such a thing, do not commit crimes where there is a likelihood of getting shot.

Are You Crazy If You Open Carry?

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Well-known member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

State Researcher

Legendary Warrior

State Researcher

Regular Member