Why Open Carry is a bad Strategy - Page 27
Page 27 of 50 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 494

Thread: Why Open Carry is a bad Strategy

  1. #261
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,425
    Perhaps this will put a bit of a different perspective on the never ending CC vs OC controversy?

    When exposing a concealed gun for the purpose of stopping an attack already in progress it would be reactively using the deterrent effect afforded by the sight of a gun, which is literally OC at that point, to stop the attack that has already begun. Why would I say that it is OC? Well, once what used to be a gun being carried concealed is exposed, regardless of the reason it becomes exposed and no matter how briefly, it becomes an openly carried gun.

    Openly carrying a gun for the purpose of deterring, of stopping, an attack even before it begins would be preemptively using the deterrent effect afforded by the sight of a gun to stop the attack before it even starts.

    In both cases the deterrent effect of the sight of the gun stopped the attack. The only difference is whether the attack actually is happening and stopped because the gun was seen..... or never did happen because the gun was seen.

    Personally I consider the preemptive route far superior to the reactive one.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Perhaps this will put a bit of a different perspective on the never ending CC vs OC controversy?

    When exposing a concealed gun for the purpose of stopping an attack already in progress it would be reactively using the deterrent effect afforded by the sight of a gun, which is literally OC at that point, to stop the attack that has already begun. Why would I say that it is OC? Well, once what used to be a gun being carried concealed is exposed, regardless of the reason it becomes exposed and no matter how briefly, it becomes an openly carried gun.
    You're missing one fine point, however. When you draw your concealed firearm to stop an attack, as you are doing so you are supposed to yell at the top of your lungs, "SURPRISE!" Then it will never be known if it was the sight of the gun, or the element of surprise that stopped the attack...
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #263
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,425
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You're missing one fine point, however. When you draw your concealed firearm to stop an attack, as you are doing so you are supposed to yell at the top of your lungs, "SURPRISE!" Then it will never be known if it was the sight of the gun, or the element of surprise that stopped the attack...
    I used the "Nice explanation".... here is the not so nice explanation:

    -->Rant begins.

    Let me see..... flashing a CC gun so the bad guy can see it in order to deter the crime already in progress is the special superman "element of surprise" but OC'ing so the bad guy can see it and deter the crime before it begins is silly, offensive, counterproductive, and attention whoring.

    Why can't CC purists understand that when they "show" their gun for deterrence purposes then they aren't CC'ing anymore but are, even if briefly, OC'ing and taking advantage of the deterrence factor provided by OC'ing? You know... gun covered up equals CC but the instant the gun is exposed equals OC regardless of the reason it was OC'd... or even for how long it was exposed.

    Not to mention the hypocracy of CC'ers cutting down OC's deterrent factor then relying on the very same thing when they expose their CC'd gun in order to deter a bad guy but calling it the super special "tactical element of surprise". I mean... C'mon folks!

    Rant ends<--

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Why can't CC purists understand that when they "show" their gun for deterrence purposes then they aren't CC'ing anymore but are, even if briefly, OC'ing and taking advantage of the deterrence factor provided by OC'ing? You know... gun covered up equals CC but the instant the gun is exposed equals OC regardless of the reason it was OC'd... or even for how long it was exposed.
    I don't think you will find maybe 5% of CC purists who would admit to showing their gun to deter a crime. 95% of the time they draw their guns in preparation to take the final action to defend themselves against a potentially life-threatening attack. In the vast majority of cases where a gun is presented in self-defense, the attacker is scared off without a shot being fired. What I don't understand is this: if the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, why are the vast majority of criminals scared off by the sight of the gun? If the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, then why would a little bit of "surprise" scare them off?

    The truth is the vast majority of criminals don't want to get shot at any more than you or I do. When there is 99% of the population available who do not show that they have the capability to shoot at the criminal, there is absolutely nothing for the criminal to lose by simply waiting for that 1 visibly armed guy to walk on by and pick an easier target.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  6. #265
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,425
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I don't think you will find maybe 5% of CC purists who would admit to showing their gun to deter a crime. 95% of the time they draw their guns in preparation to take the final action to defend themselves against a potentially life-threatening attack. In the vast majority of cases where a gun is presented in self-defense, the attacker is scared off without a shot being fired. What I don't understand is this: if the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, why are the vast majority of criminals scared off by the sight of the gun? If the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, then why would a little bit of "surprise" scare them off?

    The truth is the vast majority of criminals don't want to get shot at any more than you or I do. When there is 99% of the population available who do not show that they have the capability to shoot at the criminal, there is absolutely nothing for the criminal to lose by simply waiting for that 1 visibly armed guy to walk on by and pick an easier target.
    The part I bolded....

    Exactly, and it doesn't matter if the CC'd gun is merely "shown" or "presented" it was the sight of a gun that caused the bad guy to change his mind and break off the attack. So why do anti OC CC'ers not understand that if it is the sight of the gun that breaks off the attack already underway why wouldn't the sight of an OC'd gun prevent that same attack from starting in the first place?

  7. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I don't think you will find maybe 5% of CC purists who would admit to showing their gun to deter a crime. 95% of the time they draw their guns in preparation to take the final action to defend themselves against a potentially life-threatening attack. In the vast majority of cases where a gun is presented in self-defense, the attacker is scared off without a shot being fired. What I don't understand is this: if the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, why are the vast majority of criminals scared off by the sight of the gun? If the vast majority of criminals are not afraid of getting shot, then why would a little bit of "surprise" scare them off?

    The truth is the vast majority of criminals don't want to get shot at any more than you or I do. When there is 99% of the population available who do not show that they have the capability to shoot at the criminal, there is absolutely nothing for the criminal to lose by simply waiting for that 1 visibly armed guy to walk on by and pick an easier target.
    Careful Navy,
    You're showing way to much common sense again.
    You know how talk like that can infuriate the "antis".

  8. #267
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Carolina USA
    Posts
    1,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    The part I bolded....

    Exactly, and it doesn't matter if the CC'd gun is merely "shown" or "presented" it was the sight of a gun that caused the bad guy to change his mind and break off the attack. So why do anti OC CC'ers not understand that if it is the sight of the gun that breaks off the attack already underway why wouldn't the sight of an OC'd gun prevent that same attack from starting in the first place?
    Now, there you go Bikenut.
    You know how such talk really ticks off the "antis".
    I sure wish you guys would stop it!

  9. I don't think anyone is "cutting down" OC - the majority of the CC people (or at least those in my area of knowing) would really PREFER OC BUT - and this is the big BUT - the law where we live expressly prohibits OC leaving us with no alternative except to CC. Further I do not think any CC person is using the gun to "surprise" or "deterrence" - one only reverts to pulling or "showing" the gun if there are prepared to use said gun to stop something. In my state to just pull the weapon out to "surprise" someone unless they or someone is actually being threatened with bodily harm would amount to brandishing a firearm and is punishable under the law.
    We would all like to be able to OC and I think you are missing the point of law disallowing that privilege in our state. A bit of common sense, please, and less finger pointing and name calling would be nice.

  10. #269
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,425
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpor View Post
    I don't think anyone is "cutting down" OC - the majority of the CC people (or at least those in my area of knowing) would really PREFER OC BUT - and this is the big BUT - the law where we live expressly prohibits OC leaving us with no alternative except to CC. Further I do not think any CC person is using the gun to "surprise" or "deterrence" - one only reverts to pulling or "showing" the gun if there are prepared to use said gun to stop something. In my state to just pull the weapon out to "surprise" someone unless they or someone is actually being threatened with bodily harm would amount to brandishing a firearm and is punishable under the law.
    We would all like to be able to OC and I think you are missing the point of law disallowing that privilege in our state. A bit of common sense, please, and less finger pointing and name calling would be nice.
    If a CC'er "shows" or "pulls" their gun in preparation to stop an attack already in progress and the sight of the gun ends the attack (no shots fired bad guy runs) then it was the sight of the gun that stopped the attack.

    If an OC'er carries their gun in plain sight and the sight of the gun prevents an attack then it was the sight of the gun that stopped the attack from even starting.

    So why do some CC'ers miss the point where the key element isn't some mystical magical "tactical element of surprise" but is simply the result of the bad guy seeing the gun? I would think the simple fact that it is the sight of the gun that does the deterring either exposed from CC during the attack or preventing the attack by continuous exposure with OC and not the method of carry would be some of the "common sense" you were calling for in your post.

    It would also seem to me to be "common sense" to do as much as possible to avoid the attack than to be behind the curve and be forced to respond to the attack.

    And for those unfortunate folks who live in places where OC is illegal..... first of all are you aware that a concealed carry permit (a permit is NOT a right but is an allowed by the government privilege) is the very worst kind of infringement the 2nd Amendment refers to with "shall not be infringed"? Secondly... why aren't folks in your State actively fighting to change that state of affairs? Other States have instituted "Constitutional Carry" just recently... so can yours if you want it bad enough.

    Edited to add:
    Just for clarity... I legally OC and CC every day everywhere I go so I'm not against CC. I am against perpetrating the myths against OC though.

  11. Use it or lose it!

    This is the primary reason I founded Idaho Open Carry, "If you don't use it, you will lose it!" Open Carry is the first line of defense against the anti-gun left and the first casualty in states where OC'ers donít practice their Open Carry rights. Look at California; 98% of their citizens had not idea that they had the right to OC without bullets and now even that it is totally gone. And now the anti-gun left is trying to put even tighter restrictions on their CC. A CC'er just mentioned to me that he's against OC because it makes people nervous. That plays right into the anti-gun sentiment. It makes people nervous because they are not used to it, and if they are not used to it, they won't oppose its being banned when it comes up in their State legislature; and that's when the camel's nose enters the tent, and soon the rest of its body will eventually follow. It takes courage to OC, and we do it as the primary defense of the 2nd Amendment. Seeing an OC'er makes me proud of our Constitutional rights in this country and it makes me feel safer.

Page 27 of 50 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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