Open Carry: Personal Comfort. Potential Crime Deterrent, orTarget Creation?

Gil223 said:

If you OC in WalMart do you believe that somebody considering committing an armed robbery may be deterred by the sight of your handgun...

Click to expand...

According to interviews of criminals, nearly all of them say knowledge of someone in the vicinity who's carry a firearm is a show-stopper. They'll either wait until the OCer leaves the area, or they'll leave the area.

...or that it will make you the primary target of that person?

Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, absolutely not.

Do you feel that others in WalMart may be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly displayed handgun in that environment?

Click to expand...

Let's reword this: Do I feel that others in WalMart may be made uncomfortable by the sight of an honest, law-abiding citizen engaging in a Constitutionally-protected activity?

Do you really give a care what other people may feel by your (perhaps singular) obviously armed presence?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do care. But if they're "alarmed" by it, then my concern is one of pity for their having been brain-washed by an uber-liberal media. The courts have consistently ruled that an observer's "alarm" has no bearing on the legality or illegality of an activity such as exercising one's 2A rights. People are alarmed by chihuahuas, whether they're yapping or being quiet. That doesn't make carrying a chihuahua illegal.

Gil223 said:

:idea: This thread is more or less a "feeler" to see what the membership thinks about the practical aspects of open carry. Other than as a Constitutional right, what impact do you believe open carry of a handgun has upon society at large?
If you OC in WalMart do you believe that somebody considering committing an armed robbery may be deterred by the sight of your handgun, or that it will make you the primary target of that person?
Do you feel that others in WalMart may be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly displayed handgun in that environment?
Do you really give a care what other people may feel by your (perhaps singular) obviously armed presence?

The reason I chose WalMart is because I recently observed an individual engaging in OC in my local WalMart. It didn't bother me at all, because (I figure) anybody openly carrying a handgun probably isn't about to do anything criminal simply because of the unquestionable attention that such a move brings upon them. I'm fairly certain that there are folks who disagree with that position, but I'd like to see what everybody here thinks.

Click to expand...

No matter your method of carry, are YOU prepared and trained to react IF any of those situations presents itself? If your answer is NO, then consider it a wake-up call and take the opportunity to train on firearm retention simply for the reasons you noted above. There are no civilian statistics to truly validate OC and/or CCW as a deterrent, the cases are few and far between.

SavageOne said:

Here is at least one documented case of OC working as a deterrent.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

Click to expand...

It's a bit one-sided to present just that side of the conversation, so I'll make the counter clarification for everyone else. OC'ing and robbed at....wait for it...gunpoint.

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

Fortunately, some dumb criminals have a hint of intelligence and won't risk an encounter with another armed individual in that kind of environment. It's the dumb criminal with no sense of fear that we all might be armed that worries me. Kind of like the Glock commercial found here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE

I generally OC in the summer, and CC in the winter. Why? comfort. Same gun, same holster, difference is coat, or no coat. Been the same way for over 40 years.

I greatly prefer OC. Why? educating the public, and giving the BG a chance to just leave this old man alone. In the last 40 years this stratigy has worked perfectly. I never been mugged (even on S 1st in Seattle).

BTW: if I am in Seattle I will intentially OC, even if I have a light coat on. I think it is safer. I would rather not encounter a BG, v. having to defend myself. I don't go to Seattle much, and even less so now that I live on the dry side, but I do occationally find myself there.

hermannr said:

BTW: if I am in Seattle I will intentially OC, even if I have a light coat on. I think it is safer. I would rather not encounter a BG, v. having to defend myself.

Click to expand...

This. I'm not a hero, and I don't play one on TV. My goal is to avoid clearing leather at all costs, so I would much rather have a dirtbag choose a softer target and never know he sized me up in the first place.

ManInBlack said:

This. I'm not a hero, and I don't play one on TV. My goal is to avoid clearing leather at all costs, so I would much rather have a dirtbag choose a softer target and never know he sized me up in the first place.

Click to expand...

You bet. I am retired, and I had Polio when I was 6, so even now I am not as mobile as some. Yes, I did recover enough that I can walk, but as stated...give the BG an opportunity to make an "informed" choice.

Makes me think of that California mugger that was shot by the 75 year old man in ID a few months ago. He told the cops when he gets out of prison, he is going back to California where he doesn't have to worry about old men being able to fight back.

Open Carry is the first line of defense against the anti-gun left

In the states that allow Open Carry, Open Carry is the first line of defense against the anti-gun left and the first casualty in states where OCers don’t practice their Open Carry rights. When states successfully outlaw Open Carry, as just occurred in California, restrictions on concealed carry and gun ownership in general is their next target.
If Open Carry makes citizens and law enforcement nervous, that is because OCing is not practiced and promoted enough in that area.

Use it or lose it!
Tony Snesko, Founder
Idaho Open Carry
"Only the good guys open carry"

Again though, we either have the same (and complete) Bill of Rights available to ALL American citizens -- regardless of their state of residence -- or we don't. All states are supposed to be members of the Union, and that means all states should hold certain things in common -- things that identify their citizens as Americans.

Since some states do NOT honor the (complete) Bill of Rights, that's discrimination, and the SCOTUS needs to DO ITS JOB and "correct" states (such as horrible Hawaii) that presently DO discriminate and therefore deny rights that are SUPPOSED to be held in common by us all, individually and collectively.

If not, then we have little in common binding the nation -- or "Americans" -- together...which may partly explain America's increasingly "progressive" decline.

cloudcroft said:

Again though, we either have the same Bill of Rights available to ALL American citizens -- regardless of their state of residence -- or we don't.

Since we don't, then that's discrimination, and the SCOTUS needs to DO ITS JOB and "correct" states (such as horrible Hawaii) that presently DO discriminate and therefore deny rights that are SUPPOSED to be held in common by us all, individually and collectively.

Click to expand...

Alternatively, and preferably, in my opinion, we should go back to the original constitutional, republican design of this country and make the [vast majority of the] federal constitution apply only to the federal government, as intended. Let the ninth and tenth amendments rule. Allow the states to be laboratories of democracy, and may the freest, most efficient rise to the top, and the most oppressive, most collectivist sink to the bottom and eventually be kicked out of the union!

Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Click to expand...

Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Click to expand...

Government is most responsive when it is at the most local level possible. Why should citizens in Idaho be able to tell citizens in Massachusetts that they must allow permitless open carry? The principle of self-determination demands that the people of each state be allowed to determine their own standards. There is no constitutional provision, outside of the four crimes explicitly mentioned by name (piracy, bribery, counterfeiting, treason), for the federal government to be involved in criminal law at all.

ManInBlack said:

Alternatively, and preferably, in my opinion, we should go back to the original constitutional, republican design of this country and make the [vast majority of the] federal constitution apply only to the federal government, as intended. Let the ninth and tenth amendments rule. Allow the states to be laboratories of democracy, and may the freest, most efficient rise to the top, and the most oppressive, most collectivist sink to the bottom and eventually be kicked out of the union!





Government is most responsive when it is at the most local level possible. Why should citizens in Idaho be able to tell citizens in Massachusetts that they must allow permitless open carry? The principle of self-determination demands that the people of each state be allowed to determine their own standards. There is no constitutional provision, outside of the four crimes explicitly mentioned by name (piracy, bribery, counterfeiting, treason), for the federal government to be involved in criminal law at all.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, in part: HOWEVER! The thing is the "bill of rights" is not just for the US government, or the states, it was written for that lowest level of Government,,,,the PEOPLE. They first 10 ammendments are the rights of the PEOPLE, not the government. That means NO government can infring on these rights of the PEOPLE (throughout the nation).

WA and ID are not telling IL they have to allow some form of self protection carry, the constitution says the PEOPLE have the right to arm themselves for their personal self protection, and also so they can help defend the state. Interestingly enough, IL state constitutional provision for self defense is almost identical (in it's wording) to the ID state constitutional provision...

The local understanding of the US 2A is the what/why the state constitutional 2A provisions were worded as they were.

...and of course, it's a God-given right -- the right of self defense (as even animals in nature have that right, if animals can have rights...PETA notwitstanding) -- so no government GRANTS anyone rights, it can only AFFIRM them.

So the right of self-preservation is the ULTIMATE right, since if one is dead, no other rights matter.

Other the philosophical reasons (which have been well-delineated by others above), there are two good practical reasons to carry openly rather than concealed: (1) It is more comfortable. Belts and holsters made to conceal firearms are of necessity compromises and are less good at distributing the weight than belts and holsters which were made without having to consider conceal-ability. (2) It is faster to deploy a handgun from a "duty belt" than from under an article of clothing. Obviously, when your life is in danger, speed matters.

Interestingly, these are exactly the same reasons that police officers carry openly! Next time you encounter a LEO who objects to citizens carrying openly, ask them why they carry openly. The answer (after the dodging and equivocating) will be "comfort and speed." Those reasons are just as valid for a citizen as they are for a police officer.

Cavalryman said:

Other the philosophical reasons (which have been well-delineated by others above), there are two good practical reasons to carry openly rather than concealed: (1) It is more comfortable. Belts and holsters made to conceal firearms are of necessity compromises and are less good at distributing the weight than belts and holsters which were made without having to consider conceal-ability. (2) It is faster to deploy a handgun from a "duty belt" than from under an article of clothing. Obviously, when your life is in danger, speed matters.

Interestingly, these are exactly the same reasons that police officers carry openly! Next time you encounter a LEO who objects to citizens carrying openly, ask them why they carry openly. The answer (after the dodging and equivocating) will be "comfort and speed." Those reasons are just as valid for a citizen as they are for a police officer.

Click to expand...

+1

Do you feel that others in WalMart may be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly displayed handgun in that environment?

Click to expand...

I used to work at a cellular phone repair center for one of the major service providers... as you can imagine nobody coming to see us was ever happy because they only came to see us when their phones weren't working. Frequently we had to tell people that there was nothing we could do for them because they had in some way damaged their phone beyond repair (most often by exposure to liquid) and frequently they'd still be under contract and not eligible for discounted phones so they were looking at having to spend $200+ to replace their phones. People blew their tops all the time... and I mean all the time, every day every one of us would get chewed out by some a-hole that couldn't understand that it's not our fault that they damaged their own phone. Once, and only once someone (a woman) came in while OC'ing a revolver. One of my co-workers expressed to me that she was afraid to help this lady because she might go off and shoot her, I jumped at the opportunity to help her because as I told my co-worker, anyone that's OC'ing is going to be level headed, and in fact the lady was very courteous and calm. In addition, no other customers blew their tops while she was OC'ing either, I guess because they assumed she might have been a LEO or something. At any rate, that story just gives a couple of different perspectives and I think it actually helped change the mind of my coworker about OC.

JTHunter said:

There are two reasons I can think of to CC instead of OC.

1. Until more "sheeple" get used to it, why panic the poor dears.

2. BG sees you and your gun and thinks about adding it to his collection of "clean" guns, or what he can get for it. He sneaks up behind you and either gets the drop on you or just bashes your head in before you are able to react.

Even "situational awareness" has its limits.

Click to expand...

Why list it as 1 and 2? you have only listed one reason: the carrier is an idiot.

Maybe, but if the criminal trying to get the OCer's gun is "idioter" (new word: meaning "more than just your standard idiot") the OCer should be okay. ;-)

And yes, "situational awareness" does have its limits...but it's better than being in condition White all the time.

Cheers...

Daylen said:

Why list it as 1 and 2? you have only listed one reason: the carrier is an idiot.

Click to expand...

har har har

gunns said:

har har har

Click to expand...

Tip yer waitresses, I'll be here all week...

Just for consideration, I wonder if the armed off-duty (but wearing his official PD uniform as most police department require) police officer some stores hire for security, does that make the store less likely to get robbed or not?

Would he be singled-out and targeted?

Would bank guards also be targeted? Are most of the bank robberies done in banks with an armed guard or no armed guard present?

On TV, cops & guards are targeted, but are they in reality?

I mean a cop is the "ultimate" and most obvious OCer of us all.

While an officer, while in the line of duty, may be killed with his own gun (I think the number was 7 last year), you take the number of LEOs in the US today that OC (yes, I am talking about Homeland security too) that number is extremely small, like when compared to the number of people mugged in Chicago, WDC or NYC every day. And that "7" officers was the FBI number for the whole year 2010, and that was for the whole of the US...FBI statistics.

I personally have never been able to verify one incidence of an lawfully armed OC civilian being killed, by someone else, with his own weapon, in OR, WA or ID, ever. (these states I know, I'm pretty sure you can say the same about the whole US. The one case in WI several years ago has been debunked as a fairy tail, and the latest the guy was CC not OC)

With odds that slim, I would OC for the deterent effect. Much more provable argument. No, I was never fed the "Boggie man behind every door" lie when I was a kid...