OC and CCW advantages and disadvantages -The Gun Show (springfield)

Matt is going to be covering the advantages and disadvantages of OC and CCW on this Sunday's show!

You can listen live at www.ksgf.com 3pm-5pm on Sunday.
If you want to call the show I'll have the 800 number later today.
Local: 417-447-5743
Toll free: 800-630-5743

Please don't make this show about which one is actually better.

We all know the trap that has been set by the OC regulatory law and it is very likely to come up on the show.

I can bet you he not going to like OC. I wont claim that he Anti-OC, but i say he dosent support OC. He tells people in his class that OC is illegal. I unfortunatly took his class back when i first got into guns. And he told us it was illegal to OC in Missouri. Then when i found out it wasn't, I called him up and asked his wife. She told me it was b/c canovi is afraid someone will go into an city that dosent allow OC and get themselves in trouble. So he just tells everyone its illegal to solve that issue. I paid him to tell me the law, not what he wants me to do. He should of told us that it was legal in certian cities then recomended us not to OC due to the fact of it being an issue with certian cities.

here a link to one of his posts against OC. scroll down like half way and you see his post on OC. He says some wild things i think he speculates on a bit, like how the criminal will just shoot youfirst. While i dont argue that couldnt happen, but never does he discuss the topic that it might deter a criminal just to go to another place that dosent have armed guys, instead of trying to deal with armed men. And he brings up that you lose element of suprise, which I not sure what suprise you get with CCW. He already got his gun out, the criminal is the one with the element of suprise.


http://thegunshowradio.com/firearms-forum/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=15

goalseter88 said:

I can bet you he not going to like OC. I wont claim that he Anti-OC, but i say he dosent support OC. He tells people in his class that OC is illegal. I unfortunatly took his class back when i first got into guns. And he told us it was illegal to OC in Missouri. Then when i found out it wasn't, I called him up and asked his wife. She told me it was b/c canovi is afraid someone will go into an city that dosent allow OC and get themselves in trouble. So he just tells everyone its illegal to solve that issue. I paid him to tell me the law, not what he wants me to do. He should of told us that it was legal in certian cities then recomended us not to OC due to the fact of it being an issue with certian cities.

here a link to one of his posts against OC. scroll down like half way and you see his post on OC. He says some wild things i think he speculates on a bit, like how the criminal will just shoot youfirst. While i dont argue that couldnt happen, but never does he discuss the topic that it might deter a criminal just to go to another place that dosent have armed guys, instead of trying to deal with armed men. And he brings up that you lose element of suprise, which I not sure what suprise you get with CCW. He already got his gun out, the criminal is the one with the element of suprise.


http://thegunshowradio.com/firearms-forum/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=15

Click to expand...

Please DO NOT lend any creedence to the above individual. This is his continued effort to mount persoal attacks upon Canovi and Associates as well as anyone who he feels has crossed his path in what he perceives as negative. He has been informed by a lawyer to cease and decist his defamatory statements, clearly he refuses to do so. Police reports have been and will continue to be filed.

Nowhere in ANY of the Canovi and Associates classes do any of the instructors say OC is outright illegal in Missouri. When asked, (it is a ccw class after all) the instructors do address that it can be illegal at different levels due to the open carry regulatory law in Missouri. Hence, it CAN be illegal from one jurisdiction to another within Missouri, just not at the State level. It's even been addressed and mentioned on the radio show multiple times. If I manage to find the podcast(s) I'll gladly post them up. Doc has addressed this particular law at length in a couple of other threads as it's a subject close to his heart. (thanks again for doing that Doc!)
http://www.ksgf.com/podcasts/thegunshow/130087633.html

To illustrate something important in the thread posted above, flash mobs have exactly that mentality and potential described in Matt's post; he also comes from an extensive law enforcement background. Flash mobs were also a radio show topic. Training is the most important aspect no matter what you choose, be it OC or CCW. If you fail to train you are just failing to save your own life.


Listen this next Sunday when the subject is continued. Part of the first hour this "episode" was taken up to address something important from Nixa. Obviously there wasn't enough of a chance to attack this subject from two sides and genuine callers will be needed to bring up great points on both sides.

so that some are not offended

Edited because cooler heads have prevailed......

I listened to the gun show and didn't feel that the show did any justice to open carry. Stoney, I like you alot, however when you bought up the fact that the criminals that concealed carry had a higher percentage of "success" in killing a police officer than those that open carried, it made me cringe. The element of surprise is a great offensive tactic, but is not a good defensive tactic.


To me, it just seemed to use the same basic "Its just logical" argument that the anti's use but without many facts.

I have my concealed carry permit, I got it from Matt and recommend him to just about everyone that I meet that inquires to me about the concealed carry permit process. I sent my wife to Matt to get her permit. I have seen no fewer than 4 of my friends and family get their concealed carry permit from Matt, based on my recommendation.

I say all of that to ensure that no one mistakes me for Matt Canovi bashing. I think that Matt is a very intelligent person that has more experience than I will ever have.

However, when I listen to Matt, I am looking for information and facts and not an emotional argument. Is Open Carry a bad idea? If so, convince me and give me facts. Is Conceal Carry the best way to roll? Show me.

I don't carry the same way for all situations. I Open Carry sometimes and Conceal Carry sometimes. It all depends on the circumstances.

HYRSC,

What emotional response? I presented the LE statistcs straight out of the training manual and those give excellent insight into the converstional issues. The most primary of those issues being this: If bad guys are documented as carrying concealed 1 in 37 I think was what the book said (refer to the podcast if you need to), then how and why is society convinced/conditioned that everyone who OC's is a criminal? We can apply that to both sides of the conversation as there are some folks that believe that if you're not a LEO and you're carrying that you're obviously a criminal which we all know isn't the case.

My sincerest apologies to everyone for the way it seemed, it was due to other issues that I'll explain. Neither Matt nor I had enough time to really get it going and the guys from Nixa didn't get a chance to chime in on the topic. The first 10 minutes were wasted thanks to a particular "issue" that needed addressing and another 30 minutes were dedicated to getting out the Nixa-Watch message. That is why it will be revisited this upcoming Sunday so call in!

Please listen to the podcast, I did not use the word "kill". I used the word "success" because the stats said rate of success hitting their target and made no inference to killing an officer. It's 13:50 into the podcast, clearly stated "success rate". 417-447-5743 or 800-630-5743 If the line isn't answered let it ring or try again, the producer can only do so many tasks at once.

As always we have to make sure folks know that those are law enforcement statistics, which is why I always say they are, and that the civilian side is so minute, yet we cannot simply ignore the LE statistics. Doing so would be quite wrong. The civilian side didn't get a chance to get out due to time and it needs to and I promise you that it's going to be accompanied by the public-view of us OC'ing. (don't forget that I do practice that from time to time) The direct advantages and disadvantages of each stance also need to be gone over because each has issues unique to that stance.

I hope a couple of members I've PM'd will call the show this Sunday and present their points as they have plenty of OC experience within the State that gives a unique point of view.

Those success rate statistics should scare us a little, every one of us, because that is the real possibility from the bad guy standpoint if we're ID'd as carrying a firearm, no matter our stance of choice. But now you're aware! OC makes someone readily identifiable and we all know how limited the civilian statistics are on civilians having their firearms taken from them by criminals. That's in part to the fact that citizens aren't trying to run down violent criminals every day; the LAC doesn't seek out gunfights. CCW isn't always as readily identifiable and we all know that an experienced person can spot CCW quickly. Again, the minute amount of documented incidents involving citizens being disarmed needs to be brought up and discussed as well. (Doc, where are you!!)

So to reiterate the major point in the conversation, no matter what your choice is on OC or CCW seek out some sort of training on firearms and the law. Without training you're setting yourself up for failure given that there are two fights to survive, the first is the gunfight, the second is the legal fight.

I'm a stats guy, so someone please present the stats (call in with them) illustrating that the element of surprise is a positive or negative for CCW as well as the stats illustrating that the lack of an element of surprise is a positive or negative for OC.

REALteach4u said:

HYRSC,

What emotional response? I presented the LE statistcs straight out of the training manual and those give excellent insight into the converstional issues. The most primary of those issues being this: If bad guys are documented as carrying concealed 1 in 37 I think was what the book said (refer to the podcast if you need to), then how and why is society convinced/conditioned that everyone who OC's is a criminal? We can apply that to both sides of the conversation as there are some folks that believe that if you're not a LEO and you're carrying that you're obviously a criminal which we all know isn't the case.

Click to expand...

Uhm, I will go on record and state flatly that there is a HUGE problem with the 1/37 statistic, a HUGE problem. Criminals do NOT open carry and they sure as heck do not do it at a 37 to 1 rate. Criminals have ALWAYS concealed, they RARELY use a holster of any type at all, and this is not a surprise to any officer I have ever discussed it with. I have inquired with HUNDREDS about them EVER arresting a criminal with a firearm and of those criminals who did have a firearm how many were openly carrying it and have a grand total of exactly 0, not a single one. It is in fact so rare, it is a HUGE surprise that an officer even bothers contacting an OC'er, it is almost a 100% chance that the person is NOT a criminal at any level.

The main issue for most officers I have been able to engage in REASONABLE discussions on the issue holds merit and lends some understanding to their response.

Most of the time when they get a MWAG calls in the past, that meant a person with a firearm in their hand conducting themselves in such a manner one would believe they had criminal intent or were a few screws loose. This at some levels is a dispatch issue, is it a MWAG in a holster, or is it actual threatening behavior? Because that question is not asked, there is no difference in the call for me walking my dogs and the nut with a gun pointed at his wife's head.

in understanding that, the adreniline is pumping, they are in high alert mode and they do not KNOW if you just now holstered it or what is going on at all, they only know what their past has shown and what they see now and the two may or may not be very different.

I have not had time to bother with the podcast at all so I have no input as to the merit or lack of by Mr Canovi, but as a generalized group, CCW instructors are not advocates for open carry, they tend to be neutral or slightly against it. As with any stereotype, it does not hold true as there most certianly are supporters, advocates and vocal advocates and if you consider the population at large, they actually have a high level of support but tend to be less vocal about it in general and are far less to be public with their support.

I think if I were instructing a CCW class and the subject of OC came up, I would answer it with a fairly high level of vauge neutrality. IE "Is OC legal?" ans: "No it is not, nor is it Illegal, it is both and for that reason you will not find me suggesting ANYONE ever do it" and ladies and gents, that holds true in what I tell a lot of folks who inquire on it. It takes a LOT of work to OC, it takes a LOT of understanding, and it takes a LOT of patience or you can get yourself into trouble.

I would also be clear that I was a supporter for change and that I would like to see the constitutional protections upheld against some of the power monger politicians, but i would never begin to instruct someone to OC who had sought out professional advice from me, there are simply too many hazards for them.

LMTD,

How can you have a huge problem with that statistic? It was one study conducted in one year involving a very minute number compared to the 47,000 assaults upon LEOs. They couldn't get everyone to participate or the numbers would be VERY different while illustrating the same minute percentage of criminals OC'ing. But still, that illustrates that less than 3% risk going OC on the criminal side of things, which raises a very important point.

How and why have we managed to allow society to be convinced that if you OC you're either a cop or a criminal when it's illustrated that 3% or less will risk OC'ing?

That question and the stat makes me do this. :banghead:

That question has likely crossed the mind of everyone who has researched OC issues in any State. It's something that I simply don't understand and I'd love to get some OC folks and the media to conduct some public interviews asking questions to those who would stand against OC because they're afraid of what they will call the "evil gun".

Please folks, don't try to argue that CCW instructors or those who hold CCW permits are against OC (even partly), because that starts the argument that OC folks are against CCW and that clearly is NOT what this is about. It IS about understanding your choice of carry method and TRAINING for that choice.

Break Down

I have taken the liberty to go through the LEOKA data, and post the results for 2009. The portions indicated in red type will NOT apply to civilians.

The number on the left side of the / is the total number reported. The number on the right side is the total number prosecuted.

Assaults:
Total:57,268 /#prosecuted 5,465

Assault breakdown:
Call to disturbance: 18,672 /#prosecuted 1811
During arrest: 8,797 /#prosecuted 783
Handling/Transporting person: 7,274 /#prosecuted 817
Investigating a person:5,475 /#prosecuted 547
Traffic Pursuit: 5,479 /#prosecuted 652

I left out the miscellaneous and other categories because there was no way to tell what they were for. Unless there are some REALLY industrious civilians out there playing super hero, I don't think any of these will apply to them. Assaults on civilians generally occur when the victim appears weaker than the attacker. If they believe they have the advantage and can over take someone for their own gain, they will. Making yourself look like a less favorable target is a good way to deter criminal activity against your person.

Deaths:
Total:48
Investigating Disturbance: 6
During Arrest: 8
Transporting/Handling person: 2
During Investigations: 4
Ambushed: 15
Traffic Pursuit/Stop: 8
Tactical: 5

Of these 48 deaths, 33 would occur during a law enforcement only activity. Does ambush apply here? Hard to tell from the data. If you read the incident reports for the ambush attacks, nearly all of them occur the same way. Most of the ambush attacks occuring in this set of statistics was done deliberately, by placing a call to a police department and shooting the officers as they arrived.

So if we assume that ambush attacks would occur on civilians at the same rate it does a police officer, then about 31% of the civilians that open carry would also be ambushed. Since there has been only 1 or 2 documented cases of such a thing ever occurring it's likely not an accurate number. In states such as Arizona where open carry is a more frequent practice, we should see a much higher number of these occur and we do not.

Lastly of the 48 officers killed, 2 were killed with their own firearm. Applying that same statistic to civilians would see a rate of about 4%, Also a number that is not accurate.

REALteach4u said:

LMTD,

1. ...How can you have a huge problem with that statistic? It was one study conducted in one year involving a very minute number compared to the 47,000 assaults upon LEOs.

2. ....But still, that illustrates that less than 3% risk going OC on the criminal side of things, which raises a very important point.

3. ....How and why have we managed to allow society to be convinced that if you OC you're either a cop or a criminal when it's illustrated that 3% or less will risk OC'ing?

4. ...That question and the stat makes me do this. :banghead:

5. ...Please folks, don't try to argue that CCW instructors or those who hold CCW permits are against OC (even partly), because that starts the argument that OC folks are against CCW and that clearly is NOT what this is about. It IS about understanding your choice of carry method and TRAINING for that choice.

Click to expand...

Edited for clarity only,

1. how can I have a huge problem with it? That is easy, statistically speaking one can make statistics show whatever their position warrants.

I doubt that even ONE of those quoted as openly carrying were. The issue is, a gun carried from the car in the hand is "open carry" and while it might fit, I would wager a big pile of money that out of those 47,000 reported assaults exactly 0 were firearms openly carried in a holster and I can see the police using the 3% number to try and use it as a "see, we need to check them out because we do not want even 1 running around like that" kind of BS when they KNOW it is bs and they simply want to discourage it completely.

2. As stated above, the problem I have with it is that it is exaggerated 5 or 6 hundred percent. The percentage of criminals who oc in a holster is way way below 1% and in fact would be more likely that an OC'er inadvertently broke the law. IE pulled it showing off and caught a criminal charge, OCing and drunk which was a felony a couple of years ago, poaching while carrying a rifle etc. A criminal jumping from his car with a firearm in his hand and running into 7-11 and robbing it was not OCing, however under statistical evaluation since it was not concealed he was openly carrying the firearm, a HUGE difference.

1 and 2 combined, assaults on LEO = nothing can change it, OC, CCW sniper makes no difference, those statistics can not be useful to determine public safety issues for the general public as they are conducted by the criminally insane so to speak. There is never a win taking on the police and once one has decided to do that, that behavior is beyond the scope of the general population so far it is useless. A very low percentage of the population is even willing to resist an officer who is effecting an illegal arrest let alone actually attacking one. For that reason and that reason alone the stat is totally worthless, other than LEO training it serves no purpose.

3. There is the problem, it is far less than 3% and the 3% should never have been extrapolated from the information gathered as it never applied, but they do it anyway. Thus the problem with statistics in general, not the math or the numbers nearly as much as it is the application of those numbers and math.

4. The procedure and skewed application of non-applicable statistics make me bang mine, and no, I do not mean your unintended use, I mean the intentional application to the general public at large when it is clearly a very specific group of deranged individuals in the polling pool.

5. Was not the intent, just taking note of why Mr. Canovi MAY have made a statement that was misunderstood. Saying OC is illegal is wrong, saying it is legal is also wrong. Both are completely dependent upon the spot on the earth one is standing at the time it is asked and moving only a couple of feet one way or the other can indeed change the answer. I believe that can apply to many instructors neutrality, they are being asked for a professional opinion that is not a dedicated part of curricula. Since the answer might apply where the class is being taught but not at the asker's home, it is not possible to answer without a full explanation. Since that application is NOT simple or short, simply stating that it is BOTH and recommending against it or at the very least recommending a huge amount of research including advice from a lawyer would IMHO be the best professional response. I think that drives a lot of the instructors to remain neutral at best on the subject and I am fairly sure a vast majority of atty's in the state would recommend against it, the laws can change on any day. An instructor knows that a charge may cost one the permit they are indeed training for and that makes "don't do it" quite likely the response I would give.

Please also note, IMHO this is exactly why they have put the jigsaw puzzle into place and fight to keep it in place. As long as they keep it hard to do, they will prevent the people from doing it. It is not about what is right or just, it is about power and application of that power and the best way to apply power is subversively where compliance is not demanded but is programed through facilitated confusion, a fairly common ploy.

Thanks Shooter for reaffirming what I've been saying about it being LE numbers. What most often ignore out of the LEOKA manual is the offender mentality. The first broadcast gave a glimpse into that, sadly some disregarded what was actually said and twisted the intent and content.

The offender mentality is absolutely vital since the civilian stats don't exist. Offenders interviewed said it was an opportunity that presented itself and was used to capitalize to escape. For most the intent was not to kill and the LEO issue was irrelevant, the same would have occurred if it had been a civilian according to research interviews.

However, even with those stats being LE and the job playing a major factor those stats cannot be ignored.

REALteach4u said:

The offender mentality is absolutely vital since the civilian stats don't exist. Offenders interviewed said it was an opportunity that presented itself and was used to capitalize to escape. For most the intent was not to kill and the LEO issue was irrelevant, the same would have occurred if it had been a civilian according to research interviews.

However, even with those stats being LE and the job playing a major factor those stats cannot be ignored.

Click to expand...

Take a good long hard look at the part in bold and perhaps you will understand exactly why they should be totally dismissed. Civilians very rarely capture criminals and hold them so the escape question clearly would never apply to civilians, so then ask yourself the simple question, why was it asked if it will never apply? To be able to present statistics to represent your position and that is what was done.

Far too often that is exactly the problem with statistics, the goal is defined and then the questions developed to meet the goal.

An example: If I want to prove support for anti-abortion then I word the question to meet that goal like "Do you think there is ever a reason to kill a child?" I can be almost guaranteed to have 100% NO responses.

The same thing could be done for open carry. The media did it with Darrow adding the adjectives "crowded, at eye level to a child, etc" those were used to skew the event and a boat load of folks would say that they do not think that should be allowed from that angle. Turn it into the reality of what OC bans mean, you can no longer carry your rifle from your house and put it in the trunk if your car is parked on the street.

If the post disgrace or blathering channel 2 were to poll it they would say "Should a man with warrants be allowed to carry a firearm into a crowded store and scare children just because it is his right?" and "Should the police be able to demand ID and question a person doing this?" And whammo you have some real nice statistics that clearly define the vast majority of Americans are willing to dispose of their 2a and 4a protections.

Unless I am misunderstanding the parameters of the discussion then affirming it is law enforcement data only proves its irrelevant. Police officers are not targeted because they open carry. They are targeted because they are enforcing the law. Since your statements and the data support the hypothesis that the criminal only wants to get away; logic would steer a person in a direction where a criminal would be less likely to approach ANYONE knowingly carrying a firearm. They would simply not commit the crime in their presence so there was no need to get away.

REALteach4u said:

LMTD,


Please folks, don't try to argue that CCW instructors or those who hold CCW permits are against OC (even partly), because that starts the argument that OC folks are against CCW and that clearly is NOT what this is about. It IS about understanding your choice of carry method and TRAINING for that choice.

Click to expand...

From Matt Canovi himself:
There are several personal defense dangers to open carry:
A bad guy (or bad girl nowadays) sees your gun, and they know you have something of great value, and people are killed for far less. So, you have brought undue attention to yourself and made yourself a target. Furthermore, since they know you have a gun, there is no need to take any changes; they will attack you from behind or do a group attack without any warning and easily overpower you and take your gun, because the vast majority of the people carrying defensive handguns really have very little if any firearms retention training or close quarter combat training. Furthermore, if they are armed already, they will just nonchalantly walk by you and shoot you in the head, so they can take your gun. This is easier than you think, because you will have no idea what their thinking or what’s coming. And, if you’re in a store, when they're getting ready to rob it, once they see the gun, they just decide to shoot you first, before they commit the robbery. In the past, there have been several armed bank security guards who were shot to death by bank robbers, as soon as they entered the bank, so my scenario is not that far off.

at this link: http://thegunshowradio.com/firearms-forum/?mingleforumaction=viewtopic&t=15

HE SAYS HE IS AGAINST OC. So drop the smokescreen. I have talked to many instructors. I was looking into getting my CCW. But not a SINGLE one in the 9 I talked to passed the smell test on this. It threatens your livelihood.

AND

Who says OC folks are AGAINST CCW? What are you talking about??? I think CCW is a great idea, but I prefer OC. I could have my CCW in nothing flat if I chose to. I just don't like needing to ask permission or applying for a permit to do something that is an innate right, not a privilege.

Where are the stats about OCers who have been crime victims?? I have never been able to fid a SINGLE incidence on the web, although there must be at least one or two anomalies...

I can agree with you that training is important. I am a veteran and have experienced alot of training in many disciplines which has led me to understand the value of muscle memory, especially in an emergency. I practice unloaded draw and dry fire almost every day (which reduced my 10 yard one arm unsupported shot group to about an inch, dry fire practice works!) and burn at least 3 boxes of ammo a month, more when I work overtime

But let's not pretend there are not CCW instructors who discourage OC. I have never experienced otherwise, even though there may be some who support it.

Clearly there is absolutely no point in carrying on this conversation as none seem to want to see the conversation for what it was intended. Why everyone likes to ignore LE statistics is incomprehensible as it's been said over and over that they are LE stats BUT, they cannot be ignored as they give us all insight to the offender mindset.

I found it interesting that the folks spouting on this board have failed twice now to call the show and provide valuable input on the subject, yet they continue to spout.

Peterarthur, it's unacceptable the way you're twisting Matt's words and I can do exactly the same thing to your post.
"HE SAYS HE IS AGAINST OC. So drop the smokescreen. I have talked to many instructors. I was looking into getting my CCW. But not a SINGLE one in the 9 I talked to passed the smell test on this. It threatens your livelihood." Oh, if that's not an attack on CCW and CCW instructors then I don't know what is; clearly you're anti-CCW.

The fact is that it isn't an attack upon CCW and it would be wrong to twist your words in such a fashion, so stop doing it to others. The truth of the matter is that some OC folks feel threatened by anyone who mentions OC and CCW in the same sentence and those same folks honestly believe there is some underlying agenda when there truly is not. If someone points out that you're readily identifiable as a potential deterrent to a criminal and that stands the risk of bringing harm your way simply for OC'ing it's perceived instantly as a threat or being anti-OC from the "other crowd". Then point out that CCW doesn't present the same visibility issue and it's like hanging a weak animal in front of a hungry lion.

Get over yourselves and get with the program here! If you cannot support both sides then you're a threat to both sides as you'll attack those on the other side of the team; the same team at that.

REALteach4u said:

Clearly there is absolutely no point in carrying on this conversation as none seem to want to see the conversation for what it was intended. Why everyone likes to ignore LE statistics is incomprehensible as it's been said over and over that they are LE stats BUT, they cannot be ignored as they give us all insight to the offender mindset.


Get over yourselves and get with the program here! If you cannot support both sides then you're a threat to both sides as you'll attack those on the other side of the team; the same team at that.

Click to expand...

Trying to apply LE statistics to civilians open carrying lacks any merit what so ever, especially when those surveyed clearly indicate it was an act that was not planned and the goal was escape. Criminals do not have to escape from me or other civilians and only the truly stupid try to apprehend them without LE training. Ignoring the statistics because they do not apply is not a ploy to discredit you or any other, it is simply a matter of fact, they do not apply. The only insight they give us at all is how the offenders respond to LE or how they MIGHT react to a civilian who was ALSO trying to DETAIN them, hence the verbiage ESCAPE.

The only pointless part of the conversation is your insisting they apply in any way. I have given you my thoughts on the TYPE of oc in discussion, you ignored it, you yourself stated it was about escape but then ignore that it does not apply.

You also have ignore what I stated which was clearly that far less than 1 percent of all criminals openly carry a firearm in a holster, it simply does not happen, they are even known as concealing without one a great percentage of the time which is why they shoot themselves a lot.

I could easily point out that OC is far far more dangerous than CCW because of the number of police officers openly carrying that shoot themselves, but that would not apply either since any given officer likely un-holsters his weapon under stress and re-holsters during that stress, something a vast majority of civilians have NEVER done.

What is wrong with this thread is not hard to spot, goal fired you into defense mode over Mr. Canovi and because you work for him your position is understood. Since I spoke up about spam you assume that I seek to disparage Mr. Canovi or at least that is how you are coming off, I suspect as much anyway.

If you want to believe that about 3% of the folks attacking police officers were openly carrying a firearm in a holster, you are welcome to do so, but just because it is printed in a training manual that they were "openly carrying a firearm" does not mean the same thing whether you, Mr. Canovi or any other want to believe it. Take yourself a statistics class, learn how they are manipulated then come back and show me data gathered using good science and I will bite right into it.

Using your number, well lets see, if we say 6 million folks in mo, now lets apply 10% are criminals, aka 600,000 now lets use 2.5% instead of 3 since it was slightly lower, hmmmm 15,000 criminals open carrying firearms in MO.... not on your best day. The St. Louis Metro area has approximately 1/2 of that population but a larger percentage of the criminals and I can assure you on any given day there is no where near 100 folks open carrying let alone over 7500.

By your standard of 3% and the LEO training manual, every single LEO in the area should spring from his car and draw down on me!

No sir, you are bent out of shape based upon your own desire to defend the PERSON due to an early on attack of sorts and because of it you have closed your own mind to any level of reasonable discussions on it. I was actually going to try and catch the podcast today to try and form an opinion around it, but there seems to be no need, you are hellbent on how it HAS to apply, so hellbent you seem to fail to comprehend that in no way what so ever does it apply.

This is TOTAL BS!

You pretended this was an OC/CCW discussion!

That was a waste of 13 minutes.

That was nothing more than Mr. Canovi trying to defend himself after making the very post in goal's comment and you sitting there trying to help him. No wonder you are tweaked over it, it was a massive fail and now that it is being discussed, it is shown to be a total fail.

I am not sure you guys would have liked it if I had called in, this exact same discussion would have been had over the radio.

peterarthur said:

.......I was looking into getting my CCW. But not a SINGLE one in the 9 I talked to passed the smell test on this. It threatens your livelihood.......

Click to expand...

There ARE a few of us out here that truly support whatever mode of carry you deem correct for you, though we are probably far and few between.

cshoff said:

There ARE a few of us out here that truly support whatever mode of carry you deem correct for you, though we are probably far and few between.

Click to expand...

There certainly are and there are more than it appears due to the neutrality issue as well.

I personally do not believe it has anything to do with money making issues and a lot more to do with the pain in the hind end that it is to openly carry in Missouri.