Do firearm training schools recommend open cary?
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Do firearm training schools recommend open cary?

  1. Question Do firearm training schools recommend open cary?

    I have read many of the posts regarding open carry and have a question for members. Are there any well-known firearms training schools that advocate open carry? If so, which ones? Here are my personal views. As a concealed carry permit holder, I have the responsibility to make the best tactical situation in every situation----whether I am actually involved in a defensive encounter or considering potential responses to such an encounter. Open carry removes my element of surprise if I were ever involved in a defensive encounter. In addition, it may be a provocative trigger for mentally ill individuals who have paranoid delusions. I worked in outpatient public mental health for over 20 years and I know that there are plenty of such individuals on the street. I cannot imagine a good firearms training school advocating open carry unless you know that the the element of surprise is not and will not be a factor.

  2.   
  3. #2
    I recently queried the range master I've come to know a bit at Front Sight about OC v. CC. He is a retired corrections officer (spent most of his 30 years in max security prisons). His viewpoint was CC was the way to go. I argued the advantages of OC, as I saw them (focusing basically on the deterrent effect) but his focus was on the "criminal mind" and noted that we make a mistake in assuming that "they" think like "us". He noted that hard-core BGs are not phased at all by the average OC civilian and wouldn't hesitate to just blow 'em away. His bottom-line was that OC civilians are just setting themselves up for being the first one shot.

    FWIW.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by MONTANA View Post
    I have read many of the posts regarding open carry and have a question for members. Are there any well-known firearms training schools that advocate open carry? If so, which ones? Here are my personal views. As a concealed carry permit holder, I have the responsibility to make the best tactical situation in every situation----whether I am actually involved in a defensive encounter or considering potential responses to such an encounter. Open carry removes my element of surprise if I were ever involved in a defensive encounter. In addition, it may be a provocative trigger for mentally ill individuals who have paranoid delusions. I worked in outpatient public mental health for over 20 years and I know that there are plenty of such individuals on the street. I cannot imagine a good firearms training school advocating open carry unless you know that the the element of surprise is not and will not be a factor.
    Dude, WHY? WHY WHY WHY Would you start this here? lmao..

    To answer your question, I don't know of any schools that make money off of concealed licenses advocating open carry.

    IMO- everyone talking about the "element of surprise" has seen too many Seagal movies.

    In some circumstances, sure it would be helpful to have the "element of surprise". IE: In a robbery where you're a patron in the store at the time.

    However, unless you're Rob Leatham I highly doubt you'd be able to draw from concealment by the time the BG puts his sawed off to your head and makes you a memory. If you were open carrying maybe the BG would :
    A: Wait until you leave
    or
    B: Choose a different source

    Everyone including criminals take the path of least resistance. Why rob a guy with a gun when they can wait for you to buy your pink snow bunny candy and then rob presumed unarmed folks?

    The element of surprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic. Police rely on this to serve warrants. You will need DEFENSIVE tactics. You're REACTING to an OFFENSIVE event, and therefore the element of surprise is useless.

    I guess the look on the muggers face would be priceless when he yells at you from 21' away to give up your wallet and instead you pull a gat (haha - sorry had to use some G Slang) but I'd rather the guy try to rob someone else- again path of least resistance.

    As far as it provoking people that's not my responsibility.
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ClearSightTactical View Post

    ...has seen too many Seagal movies.
    Come on, we all know deep down in our souls that there really is no such thing as TOO MANY Seagal movies!!

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Ga9mm View Post
    Come on, we all know deep down in our souls that there really is no such thing as TOO MANY Seagal movies!!
    LMAO man you're right I have to admit Seagal is freakin bad ass! I love his movies.
    Quick to the gun, Sure of your grip. Quick to the threat, sure of your shot. - Chris Costa

  7. #6
    Don't know about most but I think Ayoob is more in favor of concealed. I think I read that in one of his articles but I am not positive.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. I'm for law-abiding American citizens having the right to choose how or if they carry. I personally am not comfortable with open carry FOR ME in populated places; I'm comfortable with concealed. That's what works for me, now, but that could change.
    I would like us all to have freedom of choice on this and everything else that does not directly infringe on the rights of others.
    One sad part of the state of our culture now is that we have to fear opinions influencing or inspiring laws that erode or take away our rights. What we say truly may be used against us.

    Sorry to get political and crabby. Anybody want any cheese with that whine!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by ClearSightTactical View Post
    Dude, WHY? WHY WHY WHY Would you start this here? lmao..

    To answer your question, I don't know of any schools that make money off of concealed licenses advocating open carry.

    IMO- everyone talking about the "element of surprise" has seen too many Seagal movies.

    In some circumstances, sure it would be helpful to have the "element of surprise". IE: In a robbery where you're a patron in the store at the time.

    However, unless you're Rob Leatham I highly doubt you'd be able to draw from concealment by the time the BG puts his sawed off to your head and makes you a memory. If you were open carrying maybe the BG would :
    A: Wait until you leave
    or
    B: Choose a different source

    Everyone including criminals take the path of least resistance. Why rob a guy with a gun when they can wait for you to buy your pink snow bunny candy and then rob presumed unarmed folks?

    The element of surprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic. Police rely on this to serve warrants. You will need DEFENSIVE tactics. You're REACTING to an OFFENSIVE event, and therefore the element of surprise is useless.

    I guess the look on the muggers face would be priceless when he yells at you from 21' away to give up your wallet and instead you pull a gat (haha - sorry had to use some G Slang) but I'd rather the guy try to rob someone else- again path of least resistance.

    As far as it provoking people that's not my responsibility.
    Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation openly carrying a firearm during normal daily activities, than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I communicate. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by MONTANA View Post
    Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I am communicating. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. You come strolling through the park with your open carry. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you in "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.
    I don't see this, MONTANA, if I'm following the argument correctly. Suppose I'm carrying concealed and the wind blows my jacket open, ol' Daniel sees my weapon, thinks I am the FBI which he thinks is is stalking him and...shoots the kid. My fault? Nah...

    We certainly do have to recognize the responsibility we have in carrying (either OC or CC) but I don't think we can hope to mitigate any/every possibility, particularly where the outcome depends on other people's behavior.

    Do I understand correctly that, in your opinion, anyone who open carries, is completely wrong, defensively and/or tactically?

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by MONTANA View Post
    Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation openly carrying a firearm during normal daily activities, than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I communicate. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.
    The dead child is due to the actions of "Daniel", and is his respnosibility alone. We do not have the power to control the actions of others. Weather it be Daniel reacting to the OC firearm or the fact that you're wearing a dark blue 5.11 shirt, it was Daniel who fired the fatal shot. It was Daniel who decided to start shooting, it ws Daniel who failed to hit his intended target, therefore the dead child is the responsibility of Daniel and Daniel alone. Just as any of us would be responsible for where a bullet goes in a ND situation or if we fail to properly assess a backstop and our shots go beyond our intended target, it would be Daniel who is responsible for the death of the child in this case.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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