Concealed vs Open carry - Page 4
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 115

Thread: Concealed vs Open carry

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    This nasty topic rears it ugly head again. Will Mao Bama Care cure this or should we JUST DO THE RIGHT thing and shoot it and put it out of our misery. Me thinks the latter.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by telpinaro View Post
    Actually, I just heard of an attempted gun store robbery a couple months ago. Guy came in armed with a baseball bat, smashed a case and tried to grab a gun and run. Clearly, this did not work out well for him. I don't think he died, but he's probably not going to be trying that again.
    You'll notice I said "...so few..." when referring to gun store robberies. I probably should have said the same thing about armored truck robberies too because armored truck robberies do happen every once in a great while, but the point is the same - exceedingly few OC'ers are targeted, first or otherwise, just because they are OC'ers. And if the guy you speak of above didn't die, it only goes to prove that even the threat of dying for what you're trying to steal can't fix stupid.

    Otherwise, I CC too. I definitely get that trying to navigate the laws that change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction makes it tough to feel like you really have a choice. I didn't have a choice until just a couple of months ago (new, revamped carry laws went into effect here then), and we have a state preemption law which makes it impossible, or at least illegal, for individual cities or counties to make laws that vary with the state laws.

    I also get the "I don't want to draw attention to myself" reason for choosing CC over OC. What I don't get, and never have, is the using myths that are so easily debunked as reasons for not OC'ing. I don't get making adversaries of OC'ers because someone perceives some "element of surprise" by CC'ing, and when OC'ers debunk that kind of idiocy, they get accused of nefarious intent, or just looking for confrontations with cops by choosing their method of carry for themselves. I'm not addressing your attitude at all telpinaro, because I don't perceive an attitude from you, but in nearly any one of these threads you can find an adversarial kind of discourse between dedicated OC'ers and committed CC'ers, and my perception is that the overwhelming majority of myths and/or misinformation and/or contentiousness comes from the CC "side" of the equation.

    I will definitely at least try OC'ing here in the coming weeks/months. I haven't heard about any trouble or incidents of any kind since the new law allowing it went into effect, but I also haven't heard about anyone starting to do it on a regular basis around here either. Not sure how willing I am to be a "pioneer" who effectively deals with cops on a daily basis. In fact, not drawing attention to myself, for me, would be specifically about cops. I do not want to deal with them any more than absolutely necessary. Whatever I decide to do now that I have a choice, I will never go out of my way to make adversaries out of OC'ers. That's the weirdest thing about this subject to me.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #33
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Just curious... in as much as you have found one instance where the bad guy took out armed guards who were expected to be there (which isn't exactly the same as taking out a random citizen open carrier who unexpectedly happens to be in a store) have you also researched how many concealed carriers were targeted by bad guys because they appeared unarmed?

    The thing is... if we are intellectually honest... we will take both sides of the equation and honestly compare them against each other before making any decisions.

    So... how does open carry's supposed being "shot first" compare to concealed carry's "attacked because they appear unarmed" statistics?

    Please provide cites and/or links to actual factual incidents/studies/statistics to support your contention.

    I'm actually not being a jerk... I just would like actual facts instead of the same old oft repeated myths.
    I guess you are forgetting the Navy Yard shooting, in which the shooter went after those who were armed first before going after the unarmed, so there is more than one such scenario.

    As for concealed carriers who were targeted because they appeared to be unarmed, that cannot be researched, and I am not aware of any mass shooting in which a concealed carrier who was in possession of their firearm at the time was killed. The profile of the typical shooter tells us that they are going to go where they believe there are defenseless victims; those shooters will avoid clearly armed personnel, and there is no way for them to know if someone in the crowd is armed. During the Aurora theater shooting, one or two CPL holders were killed, not because the shooter targeted them because he thought they might be armed, but because the concealed carriers were as defenseless as everyone else because they obeyed the theater's gun free zone signs.

    To be honest, though, even though I cite these examples, I take this approach because it makes sense to me from a tactical standpoint, not because there is a preponderance of evidence to support my position. As has been said before, the typical shooter is looking for defenseless victims and will avoid clearly armed individuals. However, there are also outliers - the few shooters who don't fit the profile - who took on targets that they knew to be defended. In those instances, they went after the armed personnel first, and then after the unarmed.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I choose to CC because of tactical considerations. If I am a bad guy, before hitting a target the first thing I'm going to do is recon it. I'm going to look for potential defenders. Guess who I am going to take out first?
    You would really risk trying to take out an armed civilian if you were going to commit a crime? Why wouldn't you just wait till they left so you had less risk in your way?

    I mean, when I plan on doing anything, if I see an obstacle that I know will be gone in a brief amount of time I'll wait. I would want to say that's common sense, but this viewpoint of taking on armed people first when you wouldn't have to comes up far too regularly...

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    I'll say again........Family member was with the DOJ. Actual office was crime statics and under his direction generated the annual report of crime statics. Upon questioning him this exact question, his response after research was NONE reported. Not saying the Gov't has it right and manipulates statics but saying he would have reported if reported to their office.
    -
    Has anyone Google man killed by open carrying?
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I guess you are forgetting the Navy Yard shooting, in which the shooter went after those who were armed first before going after the unarmed, so there is more than one such scenario.

    As for concealed carriers who were targeted because they appeared to be unarmed, that cannot be researched, and I am not aware of any mass shooting in which a concealed carrier who was in possession of their firearm at the time was killed. The profile of the typical shooter tells us that they are going to go where they believe there are defenseless victims; those shooters will avoid clearly armed personnel, and there is no way for them to know if someone in the crowd is armed. During the Aurora theater shooting, one or two CPL holders were killed, not because the shooter targeted them because he thought they might be armed, but because the concealed carriers were as defenseless as everyone else because they obeyed the theater's gun free zone signs.

    To be honest, though, even though I cite these examples, I take this approach because it makes sense to me from a tactical standpoint, not because there is a preponderance of evidence to support my position. As has been said before, the typical shooter is looking for defenseless victims and will avoid clearly armed individuals. However, there are also outliers - the few shooters who don't fit the profile - who took on targets that they knew to be defended. In those instances, they went after the armed personnel first, and then after the unarmed.
    Mass shootings on military bases or other places that are protected by armed guards have completely different kinds of evil coming after them. With no recourse to death, it doesn't matter what method of carry against those shooters, they won't be "surprised" by a concealed carrier or deterred by open carriers . If these killers catch up to you before your firearm is drawn you will probably loose against them. Open carrying holds no power in those instances either.

    But, when I did what you did and listened to both sides and made my decision, it was on what I felt worked the best the most of the time, as nothing is absolute.

    It's quite simple to see the difference between oc and cc being chosen, just go look at thearmedcitizen or any other concealed carrier wins website, the stories far outweigh open carriers win story. That right there tells me, the risk of having my life ruined is much greater if I were to conceal carry.

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I guess you are forgetting the Navy Yard shooting, in which the shooter went after those who were armed first before going after the unarmed, so there is more than one such scenario.

    As for concealed carriers who were targeted because they appeared to be unarmed, that cannot be researched, and I am not aware of any mass shooting in which a concealed carrier who was in possession of their firearm at the time was killed. The profile of the typical shooter tells us that they are going to go where they believe there are defenseless victims; those shooters will avoid clearly armed personnel, and there is no way for them to know if someone in the crowd is armed. During the Aurora theater shooting, one or two CPL holders were killed, not because the shooter targeted them because he thought they might be armed, but because the concealed carriers were as defenseless as everyone else because they obeyed the theater's gun free zone signs.

    To be honest, though, even though I cite these examples, I take this approach because it makes sense to me from a tactical standpoint, not because there is a preponderance of evidence to support my position. As has been said before, the typical shooter is looking for defenseless victims and will avoid clearly armed individuals. However, there are also outliers - the few shooters who don't fit the profile - who took on targets that they knew to be defended. In those instances, they went after the armed personnel first, and then after the unarmed.
    According to the part of your post I put in bold for emphasis wouldn't those concealed carriers who appear unarmed fit the profile of an unarmed victim the typical shooter would be looking for while the open carrier who is obviously armed would NOT fit the victim profile?

    As for the Navy Yard shooter and any number of mass murdering shooters that went where the preponderance of folks would be unarmed and the armed guards would be planned for.... what has that got to do with you and me and Joe everyman open carrying during their daily life being targeted and shot first by a "typical shooter" robbing a convenience store?

    Regardless .... you actually gave the best reason that OC's deterrent value outperforms CC's tactical "element of surprise" value when you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    As has been said before, the typical shooter is looking for defenseless victims and will avoid clearly armed individuals.
    Ok... about that "tactical" superiority of concealed carry... please refer to post #5 in this discussion.

    Edited in the interest of clarity.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Or, the criminal could just think, "Why would I want to attack that guy that has the capability to kill me with when I can wait 5 minutes for him to leave, or go down the street one block and choose one of the 99.5% of the remaining population that isn't visibly carrying a gun and appears to be a much easier target?" Criminals are lazy and cowards - not necessarily stupid. I have no desire to save any taxpayers' money by being judge, jury and executioner. My goal is to protect my family, and their best protection is to give the criminal as little reason as possible to choose me as a target. Concealed carry does nothing to dissuade the criminal away from me, it only allows me to defend myself after they have attacked.

    I've often wondered if some people who carry concealed have hero fantasies and a latent desire to rid the world of bad guys. I don't wonder so much about that anymore, after reading some of these comments I am sure it is true.
    I agree with all you posted except the last. For some of us CC is the only legal option for now. Some of us are fighting it but I think the media more than the politicians are defeating us.
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-...-governor.html

    At least Piers Morgan is getting fired!
    Chief

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    As far as "tactical advantage" goes, how does having a gun that is less accessible and usually has fewer rounds and a shorter (less accurate) barrel give you an advantage unless your goal is to be a hero or a martyr?
    Chief

  11. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    You'll notice I said "...so few..." when referring to gun store robberies. I probably should have said the same thing about armored truck robberies too because armored truck robberies do happen every once in a great while, but the point is the same - exceedingly few OC'ers are targeted, first or otherwise, just because they are OC'ers. And if the guy you speak of above didn't die, it only goes to prove that even the threat of dying for what you're trying to steal can't fix stupid.


    Blues
    I had noticed. And I agree with your reasoning as well (all of it, not just that)... but the story was just too funny not to share!

    I did hear one interesting reason for CC... Say someone wants to rob a store, and someone who OC's is there and determines that there is no threat to life (for whatever reason) and decides not to get involved. Possibly there with his kids and has the priority to get out without being noticed. Another customer sees his gun and asks loudly (as he's frightened), "Why don't you DO something?!" The OC'er has now been volunteered to intervene whether he wants to or not, and possibly made the whole situation worse.

    Granted, the scenario is rather unlikely, but it is possible. An instructor who has a young son gave that explanation as one of several for why he prefers CC to OC, and that's the one that stuck with me since I'd never heard it before.
    Modern Whig
    "Government is not meant to burden Liberty but rather to secure it." -T.J. O'Hara

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast