Touchy subject

[WhiteFeather93]

Now I am sure this is going to go right down the middle with some people.

Open Carry vs Concealed Carry: Pros and Cons.

If you live in a state where OC is prohibited than this does not apply to you. If you live in a state where CC is prohibited than this does not apply.

But for those of you whom like myself live in a state where you can lawfully do both and it is not full of risk, by all means chime in because this one is eating away at me.

I live in a small rural farm town community. There is one traffic light in the whole town and one blinker.:p I carry a rather large and hard to conceal 1911. There is not a lot of crowding at the local markets. I don't run into huge mobs of people like someone might see on a NY city street. Therefor there is not much in the idea of risk involved if I were to decide to OC. I may, may get hassled by the local LEO's a couple of times. But for the most part I don't think many people would even bat a eyelash. So some of the benifits?

No dressing around your sidearm.
Easy access.
The ability to carry whatever you want.
And the possibility of shedding light for someone interested in the purchase and carry of firearms.

What are some of the cons?

Possible LEO problems.
Everyone knows you have a gun.
Offending someone and risking getting kicked out of a place of buisness.
*No OC in State Parks, School grounds, Goverment Bldgs. (In Pa at least)
*In some of these areas its illegal to carry in any fashion.

So what other benifits and cons are there? I'm sure there are gonna be a bunch of posts concerning the loss of surprise. And its not quite as
tacty-cool. But I want everyone to be honest with themselves.
How would you like the freedom to reach for the top shelf and not worry about your t-shirt coming up because its 90 degrees outside and you really want that specific can of Speghetti O's. How many people here work outside, in or on a farm area and its a hassle to keep that pistol wedged in your pants so tight it leaves a imprint on the softer part of your belly. And is being hasseled worth maybe enlightening somone about the world of firearms?
So please be honest and if you so choose, tear me a new one. But lately OC seems more and more appealing. Your thought>?:D

[Mantua]

IMO, open carry makes you look like a cop (well, unless you're obviously not :D). Maybe like a security guard with a gun, anyway. And people are less likely to do illegal things around cops, and to a lesser extent armed security guards. On the other hand, if someone's determined to rob THAT particular 7-11 at THAT particular time, you've just gone and made yourself a target.

[timothy75]

I open carried once but didnt like it. Way too much attention for my taste. I felt like a pretty girl, everyone was staring at me. If you dont mind attention however go for it.

[Highwayman]

Personally, I wouldn't open carry. It brings too much attention to the individual, especially when law enforcement is involved. I also don't like any would be criminals knowing I have a firearm prior to me employing it in self defense. The cards are already on the table.

I live in TN, where our carry laws are rather nicely written in my opinion. It never says you can't open carry, but it also never out right says you can. Basically, it's written so that if someone catches a glimpse of your firearm as you're "reaching to the top shelf", you won't lose your license. However, legally I can walk out on the street with an open carry and, provided I have my permit with me, I am well within my rights.

My preferred carry choice is an OWB pancake holster with an unbuttoned overshirt. It's comfortable, quickly accessible, and I avoid scaring "the sheep". I also have a very small waist, and IWB just doesn't work well for me. I have an IWB rig, which I use if the situation dictates, but I prefer my belt holster.

That being said, you are in a bit of a different situation. The town I live in is decently large and there is no way I could ever get to know ALL of the law enforcement officers. You mentioned your town is very rural, so if you were able to get to know all your local LEOs, it might not be a problem for you. Again, this would only apply around your local town, but if that's your primary place of carry you might be alright.

Just my two cents.

[snail]

Well when I am at work (armed security) I open carry, and when I am not I open carry. I use the same triple retention holster for both work and off time. To me, if you are going to open carry it is just a matter of minding your surroundings ALL the time. I have gotten used to the looks/comments. In my case I got used to open carry in some really rough areas(security), so I figure I am alright in my suburb town. I guess it comes to personal preferance, but I am an "open" kind of guy:cool:

[ATW525]

What's concealed on your person is your own private business. Once it's worn openly for all to see it becomes everybody elses' business. Store owners and managers will be within their rights to ask you to leave the premises, and random people who see you may occassionally call the police to report a man with a gun. It's not worth the hassle if you ask me, but your situation may be different.

[ksh]

I am traditionally a person who open carries. I conceal carry when the law requires and/or the circumtances dictate. I use an OWB high ride holster because of my robust figure, IWB rigs just don't work and are extremely uncomfortable. I carry a firearm, first and foremost, for the reason of self defense and the defense of my family.

Am I worried about "becoming a criminal's target"? Sure, I always am (that's why I carry a firearm), but on the other hand, there is no evidence or cites to indicate that there is a high probability of this occurring simply because one openly carries their firearm.

Secondary to my primary carry reason is political activism, public education, and desensitization. Our rights to carry firearms have been wittled away over the years....people have become wrapped up in their own lives and more ignorant of their rights....people have become scared of firearms because all they see in the movies is guns used irrepsonsibly and never out in public.

Unfortunately, we are not going to have our rights reinstated by hiding our firearms from view. Those rights that are not utilized are the ones that will be targeted first by government. We must do our part, as Americans, to ensure that the freedoms we have are not reduced by our government.

By carrying a firearm, I put myself in a position where I can discusss laws and rights with fellow Americans. I am able to educate these fellow Americans on their rights and responsibilities apart from those responsibilities of a family person or church goer. Of course, there will be people who scoff at the idea that I carry a firearm and no amount of reason can help those people understand the reasons for doing so, but there are more Americans concerned today than there ever were. We have a responsibility to our nation to ensure we are an educated populace so as to prevent government from taking advantage.

As a result of our rights being stripped away, often times, the only exposure fellow Americans get to firearms are on TV...in the news, movies, shows...where firearms are irresponsibly handled. This adds to public fear of firearms. When our fellow Americans begin to see responsible Americans carrying firearms and handling themselves and their firearms responsibly, they begin to realize, albeit slowly, but surely, that firearms are not a scary object.

Just my .45

[WhiteFeather93]

Bravo Ksh!

Those were exectly my thoughts elaberated! :D:)

As responsible gun owners we should help educate the poplulous. And are freedoms are being stripped more and more everyday. OC is a previlage and an honor for some considering that many countries do not allow any firearms let alone for you to carry them on you in the open. Yes I agree there is a higher chance of getting hassled by the police but be honest. You are getting hassled because you are doing something that is not done very much anymore. If everyone else in your area OC'ed would you have that problem? And I know there is a lot of fear about being a target and criminals picking you out of a store. But honestly what are the odds of that? Is there any data that suggest that? If you go on YouTube or any of those video sites I think you'll agree that the majority of those videos of people robbing the local 7-11 are just running in off the street and waving a piece. They expect everyone to be unarmed. And if you enlarge the target area you add more danger. Its gonna be hard to rob a grocery store with all those isles and what have you. I am not down playing all criminals but that majority is not that edgucated. And I have never seen data that consistantly shows someone OC'ing getting picked off before a robbery.

[Thumper]

I think open carry is great if you're honest enough with yourself that it's not some weird ego thing.

I think too many younger gun owners confuse "different" with "special."

If you aren't dressed well and you're carrying openly, especially in PA, you aren't helping the cause.

[Magdaddy]

If I was a criminal, definately would shoot anyone with a gun while I was in the act of a crime. Also with my size and strength, it would'nt take much for your gun to become mine, then you've supplied the BG with a weapon to do you in. Why give up the element of supprise ?

[Capt Charlie]

Ya know, it's a shame that this even has to be an issue today.

When I was in my late teens / early 20's, I lived in the middle of town. I didn't have a car, so in order to do any shooting, I had to ride a bus to the city limits and hike from there out to a safe area.

I boarded the bus with my .22 revolver riding comfortably on my hip... in plain sight. Nobody even gave me a second glance, and a few, including the bus driver, even asked me what make & model I was carrying.

I also never gave a thought to carrying it as a defensive weapon. No need back then.

Today, even though open carry is perfectly legal in Ohio, other passengers would probably scream like little girls and jump out of the windows, and I'd probably be arrested for inducing panic.

Sign of the times, folks. Sign of the times :(.

[Spade Cooley]

I'm not sure but believe Hillary and Nancy Pelosey might object to open carry.

[Rmstn1580]

With a lot of people going crazy about "Ohhh, guns kill people! They're evil!" I would suggest CC. Open-carry attracts too much unwanted attention, from people who want to whine and complain to the cops, and to criminals.

[ksh]

I think too many younger gun owners confuse "different" with "special."

I think this has more to do with maturity than age. I constantly receive compliments about my son's maturity and intelligence.

I allow him, under my supervision, to handle and use the firearms I own. He has proven to be responsible in this arena. He started shooting my firearms at the age of 9.

If you aren't dressed well and you're carrying openly, especially in PA, you aren't helping the cause.

I think this differs given circumstances...in a rural area where the population is mostly farmers, I don't think dress is an important part of carry and how one presents themselves. Suburban areas may differ because the culture differs. I think the proper attitude while carrying a firearm shows in one's posture and confidence and can overcome the jeans and t-shirt look. Granted, gang banger dress certainly would arouse most of our own attention, but typically, those that dress in this fashion have less posture and confidence.

If I was a criminal, definately would shoot anyone with a gun while I was in the act of a crime. Also with my size and strength, it would'nt take much for your gun to become mine, then you've supplied the BG with a weapon to do you in. Why give up the element of supprise ?

If you were a criminal with your current level of awareness and training (assuming you have training in the use of your weapon and close quarters combat situations) that many gun owners possess, then yes, I can see you eliminating the greatest threat early.

It's important to realize that large size and strength can be countered with a properly trained person. In my experience, most gun owners I know are well trained. Pulling a firearm from one of these people is not going to be easy.

Of course, one must add the caveat that if one is going to carry a firearm, whether OC or CC, one must take the personal responsibility to prepare their mind for what could potentially happen. One must also train and train regularly in order to remain proficient. Carrying a firearm is a basic human right. However, in exercising one's rights one must also exercise the equivelant responsibility to ensure that they handle that right effectively. IMO, this is one aspect of basic human rights that people forget about.

[UTOC-45-44]

"If I was a criminal, definately would shoot anyone with a gun while I was in the act of a crime. Also with my size and strength, it would'nt take much for your gun to become mine, then you've supplied the BG with a weapon to do you in. Why give up the element of supprise ?"


Well...,

#1 My OC is a Kimber in a Serpa holster
#2 My 629 Chambered in 44mag (which would be CC)would meet U between the Eyes:eek: ( This would be my Element of SURPRISE :eek:to You:D)

Do you FEEL lucky ??? Do You ???:D

[thepreacher]

+1 to ksh

You are doing a great job of conveying my exact thoughts.

I would like to add a few things though:

1. 'look like a cop' - - Are only cops allowed and supposed to carry? Besides most would consider a cop a 'good guy'. I consider myself a 'good guy' so in that regard IDK???

2. 'Cards are on the table' aka 'tactical advantage' or 'Bad guys attack me'- - Anybody storm the gate of a military installation? No? Why not then? Because there are soldiers behind the gate. Same applies to attacking an armed person. Sure maybe I am not as well armed as the military post, but chances are high that it would end bad for the attacker.

3. 'Everyone will see it' - - Most people who say this, have never practiced it. If you OC once, of course everyone was looking. That is the way your mind works. The first time you CC'd you thought everyone knew then too, didn't you? Even though it wasn't true, your mind was in a heightened state.

4. 'Cops hassling you' or 'people calling 911' - - Very true and it happens. But, the percentage is small due to #3 issue, most don't notice. However, like ksh stated, somebody has to stand up for the rights of the populace. I do not mind this if people get educated and will continue as an 'activist'.

5. 'Asked to leave a business' - - That is fine with me. It is your business and you are free to do that. If it is a corporation and an uneducated manager or store clerk, then I will leave and address this through the computer and telephone. Educating people is part of it, but educating at the right time is very important.

I have heard some who CC when they do not have time to 'deal with OC activism'. I understand this reasoning and applaud everyone for taking the responsibility to be a caring and armed citizen, however they choose.

I personally feel that CWL is a form of owner registration and see that could be a disadvantage if the tide ever swings into craziness-land.

[Doug.38PR]

I can see a time and place for either one, and it should be your choice. I think restricting to concealed carry only puts you at unnessessary legal risk if the gun is accidentally seen (you know: "omghs, he has a gun" "sir you failed to conceal the gun, you are in trouble")
It's just a matter of time and place. I wouldn't walk through a crowded area in open carry, someone might try to grab it. But then I would feel inclinded to open carry in the woods or if I was stranded in a rough neighborhood one night (intimidation factor).
It's not really a question of pros or cons, it's more where and when. It's relative and should be subject to common sense.

Today, even though open carry is perfectly legal in Ohio, other passengers would probably scream like little girls and jump out of the windows, and I'd probably be arrested for inducing panic.



LOL! That's quite an image. It is a sad state of affairs though. Sad but funny.

[JunyTuck]

Capt. Charlie,
Wow your post brought back a lot of fond memories. When I was ten, lived in a small town in N.E. Iowa. I had a single shot .410 and a .22 rifle given to me by my parents.Hunting squirrels and rabbits was just something everyone did. Ten was the age at which most boys graduated from a BB gun to a real gun. I mowed lawns, shoveled snow and had a paper route to buy ammo with. To hunt we would walk thru town with are guns over our shoulder, until we reached a place to hunt. Not one person ever questioned anything and you could hunt virtually anywhere,ie no posted property or leases. It was just considered a normal right of passage.
If you did that today, well I think you get the idea! I know this post sounds like an old guy telling his grandkids how he walked 10 miles to school thru 4ft snow drifts and it was 40 below.
Just glad I had the opportunity to grow up then. Ahhh, the really good ole days!

[revjen45]

If I lived in a rural area in state where OC was legal and I was carrying a long barelled revolver I would probably do it. If you're going to openly carry, it might as well be a Mossy Persuader or CAR-15 on a sling.

[ATW525]

2. 'Cards are on the table' aka 'tactical advantage' or 'Bad guys attack me'- - Anybody storm the gate of a military installation? No? Why not then? Because there are soldiers behind the gate. Same applies to attacking an armed person. Sure maybe I am not as well armed as the military post, but chances are high that it would end bad for the attacker.

There's a problem with that comparison. It's pretty easy to avoid a military installation if you don't want to attack one, however a bad guy may not know about the gun on your hip until he's already committed to the crime. Standing in line with your gun hanging out for all to see could go extremely badly for you if a group of armed men in ski masks bust through the door to execute a take over robbery.

[Southern_guy]

If you carry concealed, you can take it in to places that it wouldn't be approved of.

[jurassicnarc]

After 28 years in DEA, I believe all are better served when the weapon is concealed. Forget all this stuff about 'printing'.....most of the time mine is just jammed in my belt, sans holster, with nothing but a rumpled t-shirt or an open sport shirt or (in rainy weather) a windbreaker. For 17 years, until policy toward magnums changed, I comfortably carried a Smith 29-2 with a 6 1/2" barrel without a holster...........and I NEVER had trouble getting it out in plenty of time. Most folks are too busy thinking about what they need to do next, to continually scan others for the presence of a gun. I have followed BG's into bank lines and stood two feet away and never got a second look except maybe for my physical size. Do not laugh at this next....If you are comfortable, your AURA is not picked up by others. If you feel on edge, you radiate those negative feelings. No Joke. So stuff it and forget about it....but for God's sake don't continually 'pat' it or adjust it....you might as well wear a sign on your forehead. :D Oh, and when the dukey hits the blades, often I was able to handle it without ever drawing it out. Peace be unto you...............

[Magdaddy]

"Well...,

#1 My OC is a Kimber in a Serpa holster
#2 My 629 Chambered in 44mag (which would be CC)would meet U between the Eyes ( This would be my Element of SURPRISE to You)

Do you FEEL lucky ??? Do You ???"

If your blind sided by a BG and Dazed or even knocked unconcious because you pose a threat to his scheme because of open carry, your concealed back-up will probably be found at the hospital as they strip you for the cat-scan or emergency surgery. Alot of people can rip a phonebook in half with their bare hands, you don't think your sherpa holster can be torn off your belt ? BG's don't practice self-defense, they practice ruthless offense. But I know everybody on the net is a highly trained ninja or straight outta the matrix. I'll always believe that a supprise attack will be atleast 5x as devastating as the ole look em' in the eye an charge technique, just my .02 and thats probably a little expensive for my opinion.

[tony pasley]

There is a time and place for either. I have carried both ways, twice when I was carring without cover over weapon I stop robberies. I know this because the badguys decided to leave where I was and went several miles away and aattempted a different store. I have even had a D@mn yankee call the law. When the officer showed up he ask me about some one with a gun while we talked the yankee just looked stupid.

[Dwight55]

Because of the "sheeple heads in the sand" attitude of great numbers of local people, . . . I would not personally OC here in central Ohio.

In the backwoods of KY, . . . I have and would again, . . . thar's thangs in them thar woods what's difrunt from Alum Creek State Park.:eek:

I am not at all comfortable, . . . and haven't been since I left Long Xuyen, RVN, . . . with open carry. I don't care who knows I have my CCW, . . . but to just flop down the street with a 1911 hanging out in a hand carved leather thigh holster, . . . nahhhhhhhhhh!

May God bless,
Dwight

[mattro]

The primary reason I carry is for protection. Why then give a huge tactical advantage to the bg?? Bg's are counting on a bunch of unarmed sheeple, which I want them to think I am. If I am in a bank or convenient store that is getting ready to be robbed, there is definetely a chance the bg is going to see my OC. I ahve just become his first target, or he will stick a gun in my face and demand I hand him my gun.

I ccw to have an advantage, why would I give alot of that advantage up. I want every advantage I can get. Why spend alot of money, train, train and train, go through the hassle of carrying - just to give up some advantage.

The lost advantage might be small in most situations, but it could be huge in other situations. I have seen several robberies on Utube where the bg waits in line at the cashier before committing to the crime. What if I am in front of him in line oc?? - if he is dead set to commit the robbery he will put my lights out. Not likely, but possible.

I agree and applaud the argument to oc because it is a right, and to educate people, and I am not the slightest bit worried about LEO (they can kiss my *ss). But, I dont like the loss of tactical.

When the hostage taker in a bank tells us all to lie on the floor and be still, I want him to think I am another umarmed sheeple. HUGE advantage. When the bg goes from one person to another in a fast food joint to collect their goods, I want him to think I am unarmed - HUGE ADVANTAGE. When the punk on a dark sidewalk points a gun or knife at me and my wife and says give me your wallet and purse - I dont want him to see my OC.

I IWB a full size 1911 in a comp-tac ctac holster. It is extrememly comfortable. All day long, don't even know it is there. My Gunsite instructor recommended it
http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=78481366913b58ac317b72ccb1818956


OC = Too little to gain, too much to loose. IMO

[ksh]

WhiteFeather93 and thepreacher: Thanks for your kind words.

I am certainly in agreement with everyone the each mode of carry has it's merits and different scenerio's call for different tactics. It's just a fact of life (or death :) )

I am not strictly an OC type of guy. I will CC when I feel necessary, when law requires, and/or when circumstances dictate.

The primary reason I carry is for protection. Why then give a huge tactical advantage to the bg?? Bg's are counting on a bunch of unarmed sheeple, which I want them to think I am. If I am in a bank or convenient store that is getting ready to be robbed, there is definetely a chance the bg is going to see my OC. I ahve just become his first target, or he will stick a gun in my face and demand I hand him my gun.

Exactly! BGs are counting on a bunch of unarmed citizens. The BG will see what he expects, under most circumstances. I will grant you the possibility that a BG has a chance to see your OC and you then become a target. Where are your cites detailing the probability of such a scenario to exist compared to the advantages of BG not attacking you (or another) based on the fact that he sees your OC? How do you know you've become his first target? Perhaps it is now that he/she realizes it wasn't such a great idea to pick this target and then decides to take off.

The lost advantage might be small in most situations, but it could be huge in other situations. I have seen several robberies on Utube where the bg waits in line at the cashier before committing to the crime. What if I am in front of him in line oc?? - if he is dead set to commit the robbery he will put my lights out. Not likely, but possible.

Again, I must ask for cites that show that the lost advantage is not worth it in a majority of scenarios. I often decide on the method of carry depending on data I have read and researched. I have not seen any compelling data that dramatically adjusts my attitude on OC vs. CC.

I don't have any cites to back this up, but if you're in a scenario where a BG/robber is behind you in line and he is waiting patiently for his turn to rob the place, I would be willing to bet that he'll perform the robbery exactly like he stood in line...quietly. A note will be passed and tellers are trained to do what they're told by robbers (I know, because I worked at a bank for several years). I do know that most bank robberies are not a violent take over robbery. Most bank robberies are a BG passing a note to a teller.

With that said. This is a far better experience in an OC vs. CC thread I have seen in a great number of forums. I have found in a lot of pro-2A forums that the CC crowd is downright hostile towards those that prefer OC. I commend you folks for keeping this thread civil and pleasant.

I've not been on this forum for very long and thus far I am pleased with the experience.

[WhiteFeather93]

I second that! Thank you everyone for keeping this simple. Like I had stated in the beginning I was sure this would be a down the middle argument. I would like to see some more opinions from some LEO's and retired LEO's.
I will agree with some that you do give up a advantage in some situations. I think what confounds me the most is the lack of data for either. I would have to say the better part of this statement is based in assumptions.

You have to assume that Person A: Walks camly into a bank/store and asses the situation and looks for hazards and potetial problems. This would not be ideal for OC.

Person B:Runs into the store to hold up the clerk and does not take into account anything but a time constraint to get in and get out. Good for both OC and CC.

Person C: Camly walks in store/bank sees OC and decides its not worth the risk leaves.
Personally that is a great reason to OC. And although CC would be alright the less I am in that situation the happier I am.

Person D: Walks into Bank/Store and decides that there should be no witnesses. Doesn't much matter then.

There are so many things you have to add to the equation that it gets quite mind boggling.
Are you in a isle? Are you checking out? Is this a bank, Store? Are you in a office at the bank? Do you have cover? Are you right or left handed? What side of you is being viewed from the outside? I would love to see some convincing data on both CC and OC and their effects on the criminal mind. Like someone had pointed out, it is very hard to forget what you have learned to remember the nothing that inhabts many of the criminals on the street today. Am I out of line to say that the average bank/7-11 robber is between 15 and 21? Have they had formal training at that point? Have they had any training? Yes there are some very smart criminals out there. And I will be the first to admit not to plan on dumb criminals. But there is no concrete evidence to suggest that either gives you a advantage over the other.

I would like to say that OC is a freedom for now. And that freedom could easily be taken away by word from your own mouth. People in Ohio or Main or anywhere are afraid of such things because it is not practiced. As some have stated it is shunned and often ridiculed. Why some would hand over such a great freedom is beyond me. But by edgucating people and OC'ing once in a while maybe I can make where I live a much gun friendly-er place. I may not know what a criminal thinks. But I am sure that if a criminal walked down the street and every person in the town had a sidearm strapped to their hip for all to see. I doubt very much that they would be willing to risk even stealing a Snikers bar.

Again thank you all for keeping this civil and not on a locked thread list.

P.P.S. I hope I didn't speak too soon.;)

[Wildalaska]

I think open carry is dumb and counterproductive to the image of gun owners. So is the term sheeple.

I also wonder why you feel the need to carry a full size 1911 (and a spare mag too, may I ask?) in a place where there is one light etc...Mayberry?

Capn Charlie, your scenario is different. This isnt 20 years ago though. In fact, my dad in the 1940s used to hitchhike with rifles in the Bronx. It meant nothing back then.

WildlotsofthingsweredifferentthenAlaska

[re_kenney]

This was a fascinating post to read.
It made me think. Cudos to all how posted!

I live in Texas. Here we are required to "keep it secret, keep it safe".
However, if I could carry open I would, primarily because it would be easier to carry a larger weapon (I'm now relegated to a Glock-36, S&W 340PD or PPK) and it would be (in most cases) easier to access the weapon.

Any political statement I might make in so doing would be an added bonus. However, I've resigned myself to the fact that our sheepish population will never get it.

Great Post!

[Capt Charlie]

Capn Charlie, your scenario is different. This isnt 20 years ago though.
20??? Better double that, Ken. ;) :D

[ArizonaTRex]

I also open carry on a regular basis. When in groups of people, at the bank, waiting in line at the local stop and rob I will conceal to maintain that "tactical" advantage. So far my experiences with open carry have all been positive and I do enjoy the chance to discuss why I carry. One thing I have noticed, when carrying open I am more hyper vigilant to my surroundings, which ain't such a bad thing. If I am in a situation with a BG HE already knows his plan, I want to be able to join the party as quickly as possible! I figure am playing the odds-that if a confrontation arises that I will be able to get my weapon out in a timely fashion, use it properly and with cause. I also play the odds by keeping a spare tire in my trunk (which I haven’t used in over a decade) fire extinguisher in the kitchen that I have never needed and TWO spare magazines for my full size 1911. When it comes to protecting my family-I don't gamble so I perfer to stack the deck in my favor-and sometimes open carry is the edge I prefer.

[Wildalaska]

I also play the odds by keeping a spare tire in my trunk (which I haven’t used in over a decade) fire extinguisher in the kitchen that I have never needed and TWO spare magazines for my full size 1911.

Satistically you are more likely to have a flat than be needing a gun LOL

20??? Better double that, Ken.


Just for you Charlie, a new thread ;)

WA

[ArizonaTRex]

Wildalaska- If I had my druthers, I'd prefer to the rest of my life not ever do either! :) (And why is it I had more flats as a teenager than the rest my adult life?)

[bigghoss]

I don't regularly carry but when I do I OC since I haven't got my CWP yet. and actually whenever I did get a reaction it was positive.

[Highwayman]

I'd also like to second (or third, maybe?) everything whitefeather and ksh have said about the postings on this thread; they are productive rather than argumentative and, thusly, counterproductive.

This, like many details of carrying a firearm, all comes down to personal preference. Both sides (for lack of a better word, because we're all really on the same "side" here, right?) make good points. Am I going to switch to open carry? Not anytime soon in my town, but again, that's my preference. Now, when I'm out in my woods, that's another story...

Thanks again to all those that have posted.

[thepreacher]

2. 'Cards are on the table' aka 'tactical advantage' or 'Bad guys attack me'- - Anybody storm the gate of a military installation? No? Why not then? Because there are soldiers behind the gate. Same applies to attacking an armed person. Sure maybe I am not as well armed as the military post, but chances are high that it would end bad for the attacker.

There's a problem with that comparison. It's pretty easy to avoid a military installation if you don't want to attack one, however a bad guy may not know about the gun on your hip until he's already committed to the crime. Standing in line with your gun hanging out for all to see could go extremely badly for you if a group of armed men in ski masks bust through the door to execute a take over robbery.

If the BG doesn't know I have one, am I any different than your carry? Wouldn't this give me the 'tactical advantage' ?

And I hear this argument all the time that somehow 'OC is going to make you a target'. Isn't that why you carry? Regardless of how you carry, you are strapped for the primary reason of self-defense/personal security.

ksh wrote:
Am I worried about "becoming a criminal's target"? Sure, I always am (that's why I carry a firearm), but on the other hand, there is no evidence or cites to indicate that there is a high probability of this occurring simply because one openly carries their firearm.

Unfortunately, we are not going to have our rights reinstated by hiding our firearms from view. Those rights that are not utilized are the ones that will be targeted first by government. We must do our part, as Americans, to ensure that the freedoms we have are not reduced by our government.

I find it funny that somehow wearing a vest or jacket could make someone, somehow more aware of their surroundings and thus, better that I am without a vest/jacket.

'Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.'

This applies to any armed resistance. I avoid stop and go places like the plague. And with pay at the pump, I rarely have to go into a 'nicer' convenience store.

I challenge anyone here to cite the 'OC citizen gets terminated by BGs' stats. I would love to see these as I believe this scenario if a figment of wild imaginations.

I OC to fight for our rights.

I do not want to be 'arguementative' but, I would like you to consider how statements like 'flopping around with a fullsize gun in a custom rig' could strike at someone, rather than make your point.

I do agree 'we are all on the same side' basically. I just don't like being portrayed as some goofy clown, while a 'CHL' somehow seems to make an IQ go up by 50 or more points

[ATW525]

If the BG doesn't know I have one, am I any different than your carry? Wouldn't this give me the 'tactical advantage' ?

No. With the gun displayed openly you lose the tactical advantage in a "take over" robbery situation. The deterent power of your firearm means nothing because the robbers will not be aware of the presence of the firearm until they have already charged through the door in ski masks with their guns drawn and the see the gun openly displayed on your hip. At that point they have the upper hand (their guns are in their hands, yours is in it's holster) are more likely to shoot you dead than call off the robbery they have already committed themselves to.

[Highwayman]

Preacher, I hope I didn't come across as thinking I am more intelligent because I don't open carry. Again, I believe it is a decision based on preference, not intelligence.

For me, it is one's mindset while carrying that I tend to care more about than how they actually carry their firearm.

All of you know what types of people I'm speaking of. I believe it was touched on earlier in the thread, but it's those that carry for ego purposes or other reasons than for self defense (and defense of one's family) that bother me. Those people tend to carry with the "I dare you" attitude. THAT is asking for more trouble than simply open carrying.

[WhiteFeather93]

Highwayman I think you have hit on a point that does often give a bad opinion of anyone who OC's simple because some have done it for that reason. But then there are those who CC for the same reason. I don't think IQ has anything to do with either. As mentioned before its a lot of preference. There is no data that suggest that either will give you anything over the other its all assumption. What I do see that I personally like is that by OC'ing I have a chance to edgucate people about firearms. We all have this fantisy of living in a country where firearms are accepted and the laws keep criminals from guns and not us. But I don't see many taking strides to obtain that. I'm not saying that by OC'ing you will but it does seem to have a more positive effect on people.

Wildalaska you stated that OC'ing is dumb and makes us look bad. May I ask your reasoning behind that?

I know its rude to answer a question with a question so I will answer yours in turn. I do not carry a spare mag. If 7+1 of Horneday TAP in the chamber isn't enough then I have far more problems than just an ammo shortage IMO. Why do I carry a 1911? Well the short of it is sentimentle. My Father USMC a vetran of Vietnam told me many stories of that particular pistol saving his life many of times. My Grandfather USMC Rest his soul had many stories involving that pistol during WWII and Korea.
The long of it is I train hard with that pistol. I am comfortable with that pistol. I like its styling and features. It is accurate, It is easy to clean and take care of. I have had no problems as of yet with said pistol. It has a Life Time Warranty, I could go on and on but I don't think its on topic for this thread. I guess I carry that pistol for the same reasons you carry you particular pistol. I don't want to beat this to death and Capt Charlie please if I am getting out of line I have no problems with shutting down this thread.
I would like to know if anyone disagrees with my statement about the candy bar?

[ksh]

There is no data that suggest that either will give you anything over the other its all assumption

Unfortunately, this appears to be a correct statement. To date, it seems as if there hasn't been any reason or interest in collecting this data. There are plenty of studies on defensive firearm use in the states, however, none of those studies focus on OC vs. CC. In fact, in some general sources I found via Google, it appeared that studies involving defensive handgun use by concealed firearms didn't really begin to develop until the 1970s and 80s.

Those studies do indicate that an average of around 80%* of defensive firearm uses are people with concealed firearms. These studies leave open questions like "What percentage of these inicidents would not have occurred if the victim were openly carrying?" or even a more applicable question which is harder to answer..."How many incidents have never occurred due to the perspective victim openly carrying a firearm?".

So, in the presence of a lack of data, it is correct to assume that everyone's opinion is conjecture based on their own beliefs and preferences.

* Study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz on "Defensive Gun Use"

[Wildalaska]

Wildalaska you stated that OC'ing is dumb and makes us look bad. May I ask your reasoning behind that?

First of all I apologize, I left out the words "Absent extraordinary circumstances"

I know its rude to ask a question with a question but in your part of the world, (which seems wonderful) would you consider wearing a metal umbrella on your head if you were statistically more likely to get struck by lightening?

Or, more appropo, would you carry around a tire iron since in your area it is MORE LIKELY you will see a falt tire than a target.

This thread hasnt popped up in a while (or as usual I ahvent been looking) but my usual answer is that open carry marks one as either a Rambo or a radical besides being tactically suspect.

And folks, we dont carry guns to "educate" the sheeple, this sheep doesnt want to eductated by anyones agenda.

WildsurefiresbuggingmetodayrealbadAlaska

[thepreacher]

Highwayman,
You did not seem that way to me. I did use your words 'cards on the table' but, have heard it described by others the same way. I was simply posting my opinion on some of the 'reasons' against open carry.

To clarify my position:

I am not a ninjitsu or bad-ass, nor do I have the ego for it. I do not try to go out of my way to offend people, it is not a factor in my method of carry, so I hope I haven't done that here. That is not my intention in either instance.

Some people are not sheep, just uninformed and they are asking the questions. I carry a 'pistol', some people choose to make it a 'question generator'. So, these folks seem to want to be informed and usually thank me for my answers to their questions.

I personally have never been neither 'attacked by BGs' nor 'detained by LEOs' because of my method of carry. This makes me feel as though it may not be a 'big deal' to most people here.

I do consider myself to be intelligent, but I probably couldn't belong to MENSA. Basically 'I can read and stuff'. Average Joe Public.

I do not feel that either way is a definite, clear-cut and superior option to the other. Each has it's advantages in one scenario that soon becomes a disadvantages in another one. You choose for yourself which one is comfortable to you and please allow me the same freedom of choice.

ARMED is the option, and on that I think we all agree. :)

[SGHOTH]

Whitefeather

If you are comfortable with oc then enjoy it while you can. I moved to the area 23 years ago and since then the population in my township has more than tripled. Berks county is next, it is only a matter of time.

I would not oc in my area given the number of refuges from Philly who now live in the suburbs (former rural). I therefore limit my carry to cc and I am comfortable with that choice. I can't imagine you going to Zerns in that rig. :D

[Highwayman]

Highwayman I think you have hit on a point that does often give a bad opinion of anyone who OC's simple because some have done it for that reason. But then there are those who CC for the same reason.

Whitefeather, you are absolutely right, and I should have clarified in my post. People that carry with ego in mind are not limited solely to those that open carry. I have a couple of friends who's decisions to carry are based entirely on ego. You can see it in the way they act and how they talk about carrying. (I'm working on one, and he is getting much better about being subtle.). Both of these friends conceal carry.

Again, it's not HOW one carries, but the MINDSET one has while carrying.

ARMED is the option, and on that I think we all agree.

Amen Preacher. Amen.

[ksh]

Oh my....the irony :p :D

Wildalaska said:

I think open carry is dumb and counterproductive to the image of gun owners. So is the term sheeple.

Wildalaska later said:

And folks, we dont carry guns to "educate" the sheeple, this sheep doesnt want to eductated by anyones agenda.

BTW, I disagree that our fellow Americans don't want to be educated by anyone's agenda. I, personally, have had the opportunity to have pleasant discussions with multiple fellow Americans on their own rights.

Where you are right is where your statement applies to the hardcore and/or ardent anti-rights activists who cannot be reasoned with.

[Hallucinator]

I think things are different in a rural community than in an urban community. People in a rural community generally have some touch with reality vis a vis firearms. However, it's where the two worlds intersect that the problems begin. Urban people get hysterical about firearms (until they get mugged).

In places like Arizona where there is both CCW and OC, I would imagine there's massive amounts of confusion.

I live in Connecticut right now, where there is no OC; but I plan to move to Tucson the next year. I think I'll continue to carry concealed, because I don't want everybody to know I have a gun.

[WhiteFeather93]

would you consider wearing a metal umbrella on your head if you were statistically more likely to get struck by lightening?

Or, more appropo, would you carry around a tire iron since in your area it is MORE LIKELY you will see a falt tire than a target.


Question B: Yes I do carry a Tire iron around in my jeep incase somebody needs a helping hand. And as it stands now I do not go out looking for targets.

Question A: Yes... Provided you could prove that there are statistics out there that confirm such a hypothisis. And it would edgucate those around me to the dangers of playing out in a thunderstorm.

Unfortunetly I do not see how that relates or answers my question.

Yes I have carried at zerns. And no I would not OC at zerns that is a rather crowded place and as I have stated OC is not for everywhere.

I am not tryingn to persuade anyone who does not wish to OC to try it. And I hope everyone understands that I do not parade around my town like Rambo and what have you. This is not a movie nor is it a joke to me. I had a question that I could not work out within myself. So I turned the members here to help me understand. As I said in the begginning I wanted cons and pros.

For all those that are interested or maybe view OC in a different light because of some of the conversation held here. http://www.opencarry.org is an amazing website to visit. They offer information on all 50 states. You may want to check them out to get a better understanding than what has been provided here.

The bottom line here is that the edgucation of people willing to learn and who a interested should not be put off by rumors, inclinations and confrontation. I for one didn't not go into the idea of OC'ing as being a good thing. But there have been many statements concerning OC and after trying it once or twice and having positive results I will continue to do so. I thank everyone for their opinions and thoughts and for keeping this civil and not a arguement.

[Hawkflyer]

I have read the entire thread and found it to be very interesting.

When I was growing up, I hung out with a lot of older guys who were very involved with the NRA. In those days the organization was populated by a lot of current and former Border Patrol Agents. Many of these guys had been in more than a few gunfights during their careers. To the man, they all said that the guy who walks away from the fight will always be the guy who maintains his cool, and delivers controlled, aimed fire on his opponent. Now I suppose it is possible that gun-fighting has changed since then, but I don't think so.

I have seen literally hundreds of robbery videos. Not on Utube or my space or cops, but first hand examination of the actual tape from the crime scene. The days of Bonnie and Clyde take over style bank robberies are all but gone. By far and away the way this is done today, is a quiet note to the teller. Only if the robbery goes south does it turn into a hostage situation.

The same holds true for robbery of convenience stores. These are mostly crash and grab, but if a gun is used, it is almost universally visible before the robber enters the store, Equally universal is the focus of the robber on the cashier, and they will almost always wait until there are not any customers around. Usually the customers that are there are allowed to scatter, and run away. This is what the robber expects, and in fact the confusion is usually part of their plan.

With that as a backdrop, there is absolutely no evidence that OC makes anyone more of a target than CC. In the almost impossible event of a takeover, while you are in the store as a customer, you would be far better served by rapid unobstructed access to your weapon, than by having it buried under your cover garment. The police know this simple fact, and that is why they OC instead of CC. Uniformed LEOs are already targets because of their uniform, but they are also a deterrent for the same reason.

The same holds true for someone in OC mode. Robbers do not want trouble. They want the money, and to get away. They will check the store out before they begin, and if they see your gun, they will wait for you to leave. There are a lot of cases when a LEO had left a store only moments before it was robbed. This was not a mistake or luck, it was planed that way by the robber.

In a Lubbys style or VT type mass murder attempt the faster you can get to your weapon the faster you could defend yourself and shut the incident down. OC or CC will play no part in making you a target as everyone in sight is destined to be a target.

The way a person carries a firearm is a personal matter with a lot of variables involved. I agree with the idea that the more people see of lawful citizens carrying, the more it will come back into acceptance. Does it raise some eyebrows? in some cases yes as is evidenced by some of the reactions in this thread. But in many more there is absolutely no attention paid whatsoever ever. Can it instigt a LEO interface? Yes, but if you are lawful, and polite, these pass uneventfully in most cases.

Personally I carry OC or CC indiscriminately. I apply equal situational awareness either way, and that level of awareness is always very high. The idea that someone might attempt to take the weapon is always a possibility, and I watch for that. But I have yet to see any case reported where that has happened either. Is it more common for police to have that issue, but this is almost universally while they are attempting to handcuff a suspect. In other-words they are already in or very near to a scuffle with a suspect when it happens. That is not an armed citizen scenario. If you are scuffling you gave up your advantage long before your gun was seen by your opponent.

To sum up. Criminals are predators. Like all predators they look for weak targets. There is no supporting evidence for the concept that an alert, aware person becomes a target by OCing. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and some research, that supports the concept that a person in OC mode, might deter or delay a criminal until the citizen leaves, or the criminal leaves looking for a softer target, just as is the case with LEOs in OC mode. That research says that over 2.5 million crimes are deterred by the mere presence of a firearm in the possession of a law abiding citizen every year, with no shots fired.

If the weapon is concealed there is NO deterrent value whatsoever, and a criminal is actually encouraged to proceed with the crime. The only true advantage to CC over OC is that it will allow arriving police to avoid the mistake of shooting the wrong armed person, which is a possibility if they arrive on the scene of a crime in progress. But this is also not very common.

As for alarming citizens, the more they see armed citizens, the less alarm it will produce. But OC or CC is a personal choice, driven by the needs of the individual.

Regards

[WhiteFeather93]

But welcome to the forum!! And bravo on the book there. I appriciate the comment and I hope you enjoy many of the other rousing posts on this forum. I thank you for your insight and the time you spent. And again welcome!:)

[Wildalaska]

there is absolutely no evidence that OC makes anyone more of a target than CC.

And there is absolutely no evidence that it makes one less...

So we are left to opinions, which are based on ones own reality.

WildandminesurelydiffersfromyoursAlaska

PS Attention "guests" who may read this Board...there are a significant number of gun owning folks here and in real life who look askance at willy nilly open carry to satisfy ego needs, no matter how high falutin their personal rationale is.

[thepreacher]

+1 Hawkflyer

alaska -
opinions vary - we could agree to disagree or just shout insults across the way. But insulting I do not think is very productive.

[Wildalaska]

But insulting I do not think is very productive.

Dont know who I "insulted "except for folks carrying for their own ego needs :)

WildandisthetruthinsultingAlaska

[Hawkflyer]

This "ego" question has been raised a few times in this thread. The fact is that there are at least as many CC carriers that carry to satisfy their ego as there are OC carriers. I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.

The actual question was, is there any evidence that OC deters crime verses CC. The fact is that CC is NOT a crime deterrent, it is a method of firearms carry designed to take an opponent by surprise. If the criminal does not know you have the weapon how could he possibly be deterred by its presence. There is a lot of data that supports the idea that OC IS a deterrent. Why do you think armed security patrols and LEOs open carry? It is a deterrent, and if an incident occurs they can activate the weapon faster and easier. But neighborhood patrols, and visibility patrols, are all about deterring crime. The deterrent is not the presence of a human, the deterrent is the presence of a human that is KNOWN to be armed.

In fact there is a distinct possibility that CC promotes crime by providing a feeling of security to the criminal. Many people who CC feel invulnerable, and they will go places that they would not ordinarily go because they are armed and feel safer. This places them into situations that they would not encounter if they lived within the self preservation fear zone that results from being totally unarmed.

If one is carrying for self defense, the best defensive tactic would be to avoid ANY situation that would produce an armed conflict in the first instance. Most gunfights begin with at least enough conversation for the participants to get angry at each other. It seems to me that most people would be somewhat more polite talking to an armed man than an apparently unarmed man, and most criminals would avoid the encounter in the first place. So the possibility of having to use a weapon for defense would be reduced if it was out there before the encounter starts.

Most of the objections to OC I have seen here relate to the surprise value and tactical advantage of CC verses OC. You only need that tactical advantage and surprise if your plan for a conflict is based in the intend to use the gun to solve a conflict after it starts. Given the forgoing premise, it might be concluded that the actual purpose of CC verses OC is to provide the opportunity for a surprise attack rather than simply avoid conflict for defensive purposes. So it would follow that CC is really about allowing an opponent to escalate a conflict and providing the opportunity to shoot that opponent by surprise, rather than avoiding the conflict in the first place.

I CC and OC indifferently. Because of this I do not worry about printing, or if people know I am armed. The largest difference between OC and CC is that OC demands a level of situational awareness that most CCers are not trained for and do not have the desire to apply in daily life. It is often said God created all men but Sam Colt made them equal. This is only true if everyone is armed, and everyone else knows it.

Regards

[xnavy]

Hawkflyer,

First welcome aboard. I agree with your point of view fully. I too beleive that OC is a deterrant to crime. I do not have the privledge in Texas to OC unless on my own property, but I would welcome open carry in Texas with OPEN ARMS.

[Hawkflyer]

Thank you for your kind words.

I was just in your wonderful state a couple of months ago. I was amazed to find that even PRINTING a weapon is an offense. In TEXAS of all places. What a surprise to discover that the Bowie knife is also illegal in Texas. I thought the Bowie knife was almost an Icon of the state, and it is all but illegal to own.

At least my Virginia CHP was good enough to allow me to carry while I was there. Arkansas was a different matter. I s really amazing how a person has to plan major elements of a cross country drive around all the laws of the several states.

Regards

[mattro]

Everyone wants data to show cc has a tactical advantage over oc. imo, it is common sense that cc has tactical advantage. simple, if forced to use lethal force, the element of suprise could be huge. Not in every situation, maybe not in most situations but definetely in some situations, which is enough for me. I don't train for only the situations i can see on a video or see statistics on; I try and train also for the worst case sceneios. A slightly slower draw from concealment but always from with an element of suprise, to me that is an awesome trade off in favor of cc.

No doubt oc has deterrence advantages, but that is not my job or goal. Giving up my 'suprise' by allowing a bg to see i am carrying before I know he is about to harm or kill someone is not worth the deterrent advantages. If by oc, I deter 100 crimes, but lost a huge tactical advantage in 1 crime, I have lost ultimately and it is not worth the 1 I could have won if i had that advantage.

I would invite anyone taking a self defense classes from a highly regarded trainer, to ask their opinion of the tactical advantage or even the common sense between cc and oc. I am sure you would find an overwhelming percentage would facor cc.

I dont want my friends, coworkers, next guy in line at store to know I am carrying.

[Wildalaska]

The fact is that there are at least as many CC carriers that carry to satisfy their ego as there are OC carriers.

Thats true, but this thread is about OC

I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.

O really...tell that to folks who may be scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed simply to satisfy an adolescent "look at me"....

WildisthatinflammatoryAlaska

[Xenia]

I would invite anyone taking a self defense classes from a highly regarded trainer, to ask their opinion of the tactical advantage or even the common sense between cc and oc. I am sure you would find an overwhelming percentage would favor (sic) cc.


Since OC is not allowed here it might not be a big issue but I asked about this in my CCW class, because I was thinking that showing a gun would be a great deterent.

But the point raised seems very valid to me. Showing a gun could raise up the risks in the situation at times. (Some people might react to that as a challenge instead of a deterent.)

Since I am not a sharp shooter or the fastest draw, I would likely loose in a gun fight. So, cover and surprise are best for me. Therefore, it appears that concealed would be better for me.

But I don't have a problem with open carry for others. I think in OC states it should be a choice. If someone wants to conceal they should be allowed to.

[Hawkflyer]

Wildalaska-

Actually the thread is about "Touchy Subjects". and I am guessing the OP has actually found one.

I view the ego question in the context of this thread as an issue that is raised when there is no reasonable response to a point by an opponent in the discussion. It is really an irrelevant side issue, and it is of course intentionally inflammatory.

O really...tell that to folks who may be scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed simply to satisfy an adolescent "look at me"....

Yes really. And I don't think many other Law Enforcement professionals would find your characterization of their motives for OC accurate or pertinent either. But since the issue seems to be important to you, with apologies to those who expected this thread to stay on topic, lets discuss it for a moment.

If people are "scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed" by the sight of a gun, then they have an unnatural fear of an inanimate object. That fear has NOTHING to do with the motivations of the person carrying the firearm. So if impact on the public of OC is the issue, the motivation of the carrier is irrelevant. Moreover, your contention that ego is the underlaying purpose of the carrier is an unsupported, gratuitous assumption. It is even more so since you seem dedicated to apply that motive to me, and we have never even met. You could not possibly have any idea what motivates me to carry either OC or CC beyond irrational projection of your own motives onto me. While ego may be the driving force for your carry of a firearm, it has nothing to do with my motives.

I suspect because you are uncomfortable with open carry, you project that view onto others as well, and assume that everyone will be frightened by the sight of a firearm. Those of us who do OC, can assure you that people do not run from us screaming, GUN, GUN, LOOK THERE IS A GUN!

To be sure we do see SOME people who stare, still fewer will actually ask about it, and most OCers take the time to teach about the carry issue, and firearms rights. While it has never happened to me, I understand that very rarely someone will call the police, and in almost all Virginia jurisdictions they will be told that OC is perfectly legal, and that is the end of it. 99.9 percent of the time people do not even notice.

I have a CHP and as I said before I carry OC and CC quite indifferently, depending on MY needs at the time. If you choose to cut your carry options in half that is your choice. I choose to expand my options, and exercise my rights as I see fit, so long as I do not infringe the rights of others. People have a right to choose not to carry a firearm, but when out in public, they do NOT have the right to not see others doing so. If the sight of a gun in possess of a lawful citizen disturbs them then they should divert their view and seek counseling for their affliction.

Regards

[Hawkflyer]

Xenia-

While accuracy, speed, cover, movement and power have a great deal to do with successful gun fighting, the importance of these elements are rarely fully equal. The most important is accuracy. A bullet placed on target is worth hundreds that miss. A large powerful bullet placed on target is of greater value than a smaller one in the same place. Getting the firearm into action quickly is important, but not at the total disregard of accuracy. I could go on but you get the idea.

OC is not perfect for all situations. But then neither is CC. A person must assess a lot of factors before deciding, and this assessment is done before and during any excursion. It is not unlike a lot of other factors involved in carrying a firearm. There is much to learn, and prepare for BEFORE a person assumes the responsibility of carrying ANY deadly weapon.

You have to assess your particular situation, get trained (you have started this process but it never really ends), pick a reasonable firearm for your purposes, determine a reasonable carry mode for your situation, equip your self for your needs, and in short do what is right for you. I would agree that CC is appropriate in certain circumstances. But OC is better at times as well.

If you are afraid that if someone sees your weapon and that disadvantages you in some way, by all means CC. But if you are not able to control a cover garment while drawing, this inhibits your draw, and throws the balance of elements required for self defense we are trying to achieve in favor of your opponent. If you do not have time to seek cover, or there is none, or you ability to move is limited, then the advantage you gained by concealment will actually shift, not to neutral, but to a negative.

No one is saying that OC is perfect in all situations and so everyone should carry that way. What a number of us here ARE saying is that it is not anymore negative than CC, and there is no reason for people to be critical of those that decide for their own purposes to OC rather than CC. What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry, and how closed minded CC only people are to this concept.

Why would any reasonable person simply ignore 50% of the available options for solving the personal defense question, when there is no actual evidence that other options are not at least as reasonable a choice. By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying. These days a fanny pack is a dead give away, so is a jacket during a 95 degree 80% humidity day here in Virginia.

Regards

[Wildalaska]

And I don't think many other Law Enforcement professionals would find your characterization of their motives for OC accurate or pertinent either

We arent talking law enforcement we are talking civilians.


But since the issue seems to be important to you, with apologies to those who expected this thread to stay on topic, lets discuss it for a moment.

OK lets (and it is on topic)...heck I have already gone over this 20x over the years, might as well do it again.

If people are "scared, upset, made nervous or disturbed" by the sight of a gun, then they have an unnatural fear of an inanimate object.

BS...and you know it....so try this one....you are out a 5 am on a deserted street and you see a dreadlocked Rasta walking towards you and he has...hmm a double shoulder rig with twin chorme Desert Eagles...do you go just a teeny weeny itsy bit condition yellow?

If you are honest?

Now think of soccer mommy buying infant formula in the local Food Lion when in walks rambo?

Unnatural fear of the inanimate object? or natural concern for her safety from a baltantly armed unkown person?

Moreover, your contention that ego is the underlaying purpose of the carrier is an unsupported, gratuitous assumption. It is even more so since you seem dedicated to apply that motive to me, and we have never even met. You could not possibly have any idea what motivates me to carry either OC or CC beyond irrational projection of your own motives onto me.

I mean if the shoe fits wear it, but I dont recall referring to you.

I suspect because you are uncomfortable with open carry, you project that view onto others as well, and assume that everyone will be frightened by the sight of a firearm. Those of us who do OC, can assure you that people do not run from us screaming, GUN, GUN, LOOK THERE IS A GUN!

Im not uncomfortable with open carry at all..I just find the motives of many open carriers suspect...

exercise my rights as I see fit, so long as I do not infringe the rights of others.

Thats right! I have a gun and everyone elses feelings be damned! Even if it is totally inappropriate, MY ego needs triumph

If the sight of a gun in possess of a lawful citizen disturbs them then they should divert their view and seek counseling for their affliction.

Nice...

O and how to they KNOW you are a lawful citizen. In their view, you might be a nut case. Ah what the heck, they need help anyway.

Unlike the guys carrying guns in public :cool:

hey this isnt the wILD wEST, ITS 2007!


WildSHOULDERHOLSTERaLASKA

[JohnKSa]

I was amazed to find that even PRINTING a weapon is an offense. In TEXAS of all places.Incorrect.

"(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun."The fact is that CC is NOT a crime deterrent...Incorrect. Studies have shown that when a CCW bill passes in a state, violent crime decreases. NOT because criminals see people walking around with guns but because they DON'T KNOW WHO is walking around with guns.

In fact, even those who choose not to carry reap the benefits precisely because of the inability of criminals to discern who's armed and who's not.In fact there is a distinct possibility that CC promotes crime by providing a feeling of security to the criminal.Demonstrably false.What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry...Yes--while asserting that it does nothing to prevent crime and may actually promote crime...remarkably open-minded of you!By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying.Incorrect from a legal perspective--at least in my state. And also incorrect in general if your examples of "someone being able to tell you're carrying" are fanny packs and a cover garment. There are some people who operate at this level of awareness, but the idea that the average person out there is going to see a fanny pack or a cover garment and call 911 to report an armed person is not based in reality.

It might cause an observant crook to respond as if he thought the person were armed. According to you, that's always a good thing. ;)So, cover and surprise are best for me.I can, just off the top of my head, think of two situations where the fact that a gun was concealed made the difference between life and death.

Concealed weapons offer the defender the option of choosing if/when/where to respond. Sometimes that is very important. OC doesn't allow that option and may, in fact, result in the pre-emptive action by the criminal to prevent any option of response.

[thepreacher]

First of all, I am a citizen not a civilian.

:)

Also, tactical is defined as 'related to combat'. Therefore, in a 'combat' situation, many factors are involved, thus many things can be an advantage in some situations that are a disadvantage in others. There is no clear 'tactical' advantage, as every situation is unique.

And lastly, look up crime rates for the 'Wild Wild West' and you will see that it was actually one of the safest times in our countries history. Why? I'm not certain, but it could be due to the fact that almost every man was 'packing openly'.

But it is 2007 and mostly, from my personal experience with OC, most people never notice.

Jim Bowie moved to Texas from Louisiana. Louisiana is where the knife originated.

[Wildalaska]

And lastly, look up crime rates for the 'Wild Wild West' and you will see that it was actually one of the safest times in our countries history. Why? I'm not certain, but it could be due to the fact that almost every man was 'packing openly'.

OK convert me, give me the stats.

WildimwillingtolistenAlaska

[WhiteFeather93]

:( I kinda feel like this is turning sour...

Wildalaska I respect your experience and thoughts, but because I started this thread I kinda do feel like many of these ego comments and the guest comment was directed at me. I apologize if I gave off an air that I was an ego crazed lunitic. I just wanted a nice civil discussion on the topic of OC and CC and some cons and pros to doing both.
I do CC and I also OC. I have had great results due to both. The best thing about OC IMHO was when I had two gentlemen approach me. One off duty Police Officer and another Gentlemen. They asked me how well I knew the carry laws and I told them what I did know and gave them references and both men were astonished. They were not aware of PA's carry laws in reguards to OC and CC and were quite pleased to hear about them. It is situations like that make OC'ing very positive to me. The entire argument about ego does apply to this post because I do feel that there are people who carry period with ego in my mind. I know people personally who carry for such reasons and all the reasoning I can try doesn't matter.
This thread is about CC as much as it is about OC. And when I said there are people who CC for their ego I was not just making that up. There are many people who feel that if they CC no one know they have a sidearm and a robber will burst into the store and they will be caught off guard and that person will have saved the day.
Personally I don't want to be in that situation. I don't want to ever have to pull my sidearm.
Every type of carry has a place and a time. And each has merits both good and bad.

If by oc, I deter 100 crimes, but lost a huge tactical advantage in 1 crime, I have lost ultimately and it is not worth the 1 I could have won if i had that advantage.


I have the utmost respect for that statement and you. I don't think it is anyones job who does not feel comfortable, save the LEO's to ensure demestic tranquility. With that being said I do not share that comfort level. I feel it is my place to do what I can to help my fellow man. I do carry a tire iron to help somebody with a flat tire. I do help the Mrs. at the store with three kids load her grouceries. I try and help where I can because that is my nature. It has nothing to do with ego it has to do with compassion. Everybody will complain that things are not picturesc in this Country but nobody cares to do anything about it.
I have no proof that clearly states that OC will deter crime. If you OC or CC you are carrying a tool that may someday save your life or the lives of those around you. And that is what is most important.

Thank you everyone for your imput there has been a lot said and a lot learned. Please do not feel that you have to carry in any manor in which you do not feel comfortable. I feel comfortable when I OC and feel fine when I CC. I enjoy my freedom and safety that I have. And I sincerely hope that you do too.

[Wildalaska]

I just wanted a nice civil discussion on the topic of OC and CC and some cons and pros to doing both.


For OC (in most circumstances)

Pros...none.
Cons...tactically suspect, can be psycologically suspect, upsets other folks.

WildymmvAlaska

[Capt Charlie]

OK folks, I got a request to reopen this thread, so I reviewed it in more detail (I admit that due to a lack of time, I sometimes speed read these threads. Simply can't get to 'em all in detail.), and I have to agree that closing this was a bit premature.

With apologies to Whitefeather, et. al., I'm reopening it, but please, keep it civil and impersonal (when referring to egos ;).)

[CyberSEAL]

Tough argument. I prefer concealed carry over open. I like to have the element of surprise in my favor, plus you never know who might be casing you without your knowledge.

[Hawkflyer]

Someone asked for information on crime rates from the old west verses today showing that things are more dangerous today. While there is little question that it was actually safer in the old west per capita, people are often mislead by the western TV shows of the 50's and 60's. Let me be among the first to begin to post links to supporting information in this thread (I am hoping to set a trend here). There are a lot of sources for these statistics, but I offer the following because it is also an entertaining read -

Old West Crime (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102438/posts)

The nice short answers from WildAlaska while easy to read, are really more indicative of personal bias against OC, and are unsupported statistically. There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed. If you know of one please provide a link, many of us are very interested in that issue.

In contrast, NRA has may authoritative studies showing that the mere presence of a firearm has stopped MILLIONS of crimes each year. The presence of the weapons, not the method of carry, is the determining factor in all of those cases. Yet clearly these arms were ALL visible to the Bad guys at the moment the crime was stopped. The element of surprise created by producing the weapon from a concealment, while certainly present in about 20% of those cases, was NOT attributed as the determining factor in stopping the crime.

Criminologist James Wright of the University of Massachusetts conducted a study of 1,800 convicted felons (http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html). His study revealed the following: 57 percent of the felons interviewed said they were frightened by an armed citizen; 53 percent said they would not commit a crime if they believed a citizen was armed; and 60 percent indicated they were more concerned about being shot by an armed citizen than by the police. The bottom line is, bad guys are afraid of guns in the hands of a citizen.

Nobody is suggesting that everyone should be forced to OC. But it does seem that some are suggesting that everyone should be forced to CC. It has been stated with some enthusiasm that ALL OCers are ego driven people who do not care about anything but their own egos. The racially charged characterizations used as examples actually say a lot to me about the views on this issue. While everyone is entitled to their own views, I do not share them in this case or the methods for profiling people on the street depicted in the example. But to be fair Northern Virginia has a very high level of ethnic mixing, so a variety of people are commonly seen armed, and we are more used to that. But to each his own.

The fact is, ALL people have rights. Among those rights, is the right to freely exercise their rights as they choose. So long as the exercise of the rights of one person do not infringe the rights of another, there is nothing wrong with that.

I have a friend that was injured in VietNam, leaving his face terribly disfigured. When he is out in public people are often repulsed by his appearance. People point at him, children have run away as he approached, and he has actually been asked to move to less public parts of restaurants to avoid disturbing others around him.

WildAlaskas examples taken to there logical extremes would have my friend forced to cover his face in public, or not go out at all, because his insistence on moving freely in society is, alarming to others. Should he be banned from restaurants, and public streets, because his presence and appearance disturbs and frightens others?

This guy has rights. While the people around him have the right not to look at him, they do not have the RIGHT not to see him in public, and they do NOT have the right not be frightened by their own prejudices. The same holds true for my sidearm, or a sidearm carried by someone who may be frightened of by mere sight. I have the right to carry it as I choose within the laws of my state. People who do not like to see it do not have to look, and they do not have the right to impose their fears on me, outside of the requirements of the law.

That is not ego, that is America. I am very concerned about the idea that an individual exercising there rights in a lawful way, would be called an egotist for doing so. That is not how things work in the United States I am sworn to protect and defend. People have rights, and they have the freedom to use those rights. Since we have already agreed that people sometimes do carry for ego purposes, irrespective of the carry method, ego has nothing to do with it. Being a free person in a free society has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Now I won't deny that things are likely very different in the far north west. But one thing that I have NOT seen in this discussion, is that in Virginia there are cases where OC is not just a preference but in fact it is required by law for any person carrying.

One specific example is carry into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages. Also if a person does not have a CHP, OC is legally required for carry. Many people here can legally carry a firearm at 18, but they are not allowed to obtain a CHP until they are 21. Many of those people are in the service. I think if we can trust them to defend our country with an M16 we can trust them to carry a sidearm and exercise the freedoms they are fighting and dyeing to defend.

In the case of carry into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages on the premisses, people do have the option of disarming and leaving the weapon in the car, where it could be stolen. Most of us who carry for self defense purposes do not disarm, but instead simply switch to OC, for the duration of our visit. The Lubbys restaurant incident and others, taught us why disarmament is a bad idea. When the law requires OC, alarmed citizens do not have a bone to pick with me, their argument should be with the legislature that forces the weapons to be carried openly.

No one is suggesting that OC is for everyone at all times. All we are suggesting is that it should not be excluded as a carry option for those that require or prefer it, and it should not be used to denigrate or demonize the people who choose that method of carry. I carry CC and OC as I believe the circumstance warrants, and I believe others should do so as well. There was a time that I was an ardent CCer, so I am quite familiar with the arguments against OC, but experience and research have proven to me that many of these arguments are simply not supported by the facts.

Regards

[JohnKSa]

There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed. If you know of one please provide a link, many of us are very interested in that issue.I don't think you've looked very hard. Here's the result of a few minutes work with an internet search engine.

http://www.packing.org/community/general/thread/?thread=16369

The link to the article no longer works but the text of the article is still there.

A man open carrying a handgun had is stolen from him
Man robbed in the Centreville area

About 4:10 a.m. Sunday, July 30, officers were called to the area of Newton Patent Drive and Newton Tavern Drive. A 21-year-old Centreville-area man was robbed while walking on Newton Patent Drive. Two suspects approached the victim from behind, and placed a metal object up to the victim’s head. The suspects took the victim’s hand gun which he was openly carrying. The suspect’s then fled the area. The victim was not injured.

The suspects were described as black males wearing dark clothing.

Anyone with information about this incident or these suspects is asked to call Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS (8477) or the police non-emergency number at 703-691-2131.
Here's another link to the same article:

http://heritagecrossing.info/crime.htm

It's not surprising that we don't see a ton of these reports.

1. Open carry is not widely legal in the more populated areas of the U.S.
2. Even where it is legal it's not commonly done.

Your stats are interesting but should be turned around for a complete picture...

According to the stats you quoted, 43% of felons are NOT frightened by armed citizens and 47% WOULD commit a crime even if they knew the victim was armed. Given that guns are a very valuable black market commodity, I think it's not much of a stretch that the felons who would (per your statistics) commit a crime even on an armed victim would see a person openly carrying as a potential source of a free firearm. Especially since the article above proves that at least two felons made the same (not so difficult) leap of logic...All we are suggesting is that it should not be excluded as a carry option...Would you mind explaining who "we" is?

[Xenia]

Xenia-

While accuracy, speed, cover, movement and power have a great deal to do with successful gun fighting, the importance of these elements are rarely fully equal. The most important is accuracy. A bullet placed on target is worth hundreds that miss. A large powerful bullet placed on target is of greater value than a smaller one in the same place. Getting the firearm into action quickly is important, but not at the total disregard of accuracy. I could go on but you get the idea.

OC is not perfect for all situations. But then neither is CC. A person must assess a lot of factors before deciding, and this assessment is done before and during any excursion. It is not unlike a lot of other factors involved in carrying a firearm. There is much to learn, and prepare for BEFORE a person assumes the responsibility of carrying ANY deadly weapon.

You have to assess your particular situation, get trained (you have started this process but it never really ends), pick a reasonable firearm for your purposes, determine a reasonable carry mode for your situation, equip your self for your needs, and in short do what is right for you. I would agree that CC is appropriate in certain circumstances. But OC is better at times as well.

If you are afraid that if someone sees your weapon and that disadvantages you in some way, by all means CC. But if you are not able to control a cover garment while drawing, this inhibits your draw, and throws the balance of elements required for self defense we are trying to achieve in favor of your opponent. If you do not have time to seek cover, or there is none, or you ability to move is limited, then the advantage you gained by concealment will actually shift, not to neutral, but to a negative.

No one is saying that OC is perfect in all situations and so everyone should carry that way. What a number of us here ARE saying is that it is not anymore negative than CC, and there is no reason for people to be critical of those that decide for their own purposes to OC rather than CC. What I find astonishing is how willing people who OC are to support BOTH modes of carry, and how closed minded CC only people are to this concept.

Why would any reasonable person simply ignore 50% of the available options for solving the personal defense question, when there is no actual evidence that other options are not at least as reasonable a choice. By the way, CC is not really CC if someone can tell you are carrying. These days a fanny pack is a dead give away, so is a jacket during a 95 degree 80% humidity day here in Virginia.

Regards

I certainly understand. I can't open carry... it is not legal here. But I don't have a problem with those who can.

I don't know what I would do if I lived in a state that allowed open carry. I know I am not very good at quick drawing no matter what.

I disagree with open carry being about ego or other alterior motives. I guess there could be someone who carries for those kind of reasons.... there are all types of people... but I wouldn't make that assumption myself.

[USNavy_233]

Unless I'm in my house or on my own property, I don't OC, even though it is legal in my state. The reasoning for me is simple. MAYBE seeing my gun will convince an attacker/robber to go else where but, I don't know that for sure. MAYBE the attacker/robber will specifically target me because of my gun but, I don't know that for sure.

What I DO know for sure is:
If the attacker/robber decides to find another victim for whatever reason, the odds are greatly in his/her favor of being successful because their next victim will likely be a sheep.

If the attacker/robber decides to attack/rob me, the odds are greatly in favor of there being one less attacker/robber on the street tomorrow to victimize more citizens.

For this rationale alone, I don't OC. And just to make sure my point here isn't misunderstood. Yes, I am saying that I would rather have an attacker/robber target me than target another defenseless civilian. At least I know that I have properly prepared myself, mentally and physical, to survive such an encounter. I can’t make that same claim for anyone else’s son, father, husband, daughter, mother or wife out there.

[thepreacher]

Thanks to Hawkflyer for 'Wild Wild West' stats.

Thank you John for the one case of a guy getting attacked and his gun taken away. I see it could happen, I'm just curious about the details. There are factors that could turn this story in a different direction though. It is possible this fellow was targeted specifically for his weapon.

I do not know this area where it happened. Perhaps someone here does. Also, I wonder why he was there and who he is and what he was doing.

I could go walk around New Orleans at 4AM and ask a few of the upstanding individuals there what they think about all of this.

You think I should take my piece or not take it. How about method of carry? I do not think any of that will really matter in that area if I do not pay attention.

I normally try to avoid places and situations where I could get robbed, raped and killed. I think we all do that to some extent. Both carry methods have the same disadvantage of being 'mugged' if we do not stay aware of our surroundings.

[Hawkflyer]

According to the stats you quoted, 43% of felons are NOT frightened by armed citizens and 47% WOULD commit a crime even if they knew the victim was armed. Given that guns are a very valuable black market commodity, I think it's not much of a stretch that the felons who would (per your statistics) commit a crime even on an armed victim would see a person openly carrying as a potential source of a free firearm. Especially since the article above proves that at least two felons made the same (not so difficult) leap of logic...

First let me point out these are not MY statistics, they are statistics that resulted from the research of a well known researcher. I merely cited them. A rather fine distinction, but I am certain it would be important to the researcher. They also happen to the the same statistics that are regularly used in support of CC, and firearms ownership in general.

It is not truly statistically valid to turn them "inside out" as you have for a lot of reasons. In order to use them inside out you must presume answers to questions that were never asked in the study. The result of which is that the 47% DID NOT say they WOULD commit a crime, they said that they were not particularly afraid of an armed citizen. The 60% who said they were more afraid of being shot by a citizen, does not leave 40% who were not afraid of being shot by a citizen, it leaves 40% who were probably more concerned about being shot by a LEO. But in any case a significant portion did say they would NOT attack an armed citizen.

From my point of view, I do NOT want to shoot anyone. If I can prevent the situation from ever arising 53% percent of the time, then I have moved over half way to that goal, with no change in my life style. A significant portion of the remaining 47% of the time, I can mitigate by avoiding certain areas, maintaining situational awareness and other control measures.

I also read the police report that was cited with high interest, and I thank you for citing it. I could not find any others. I would point out that the original premise of my challenge was to find an incident where someone was "taken out" first because they displayed a weapon in OC mode. That was the discussion leading up to the question I posed. But I will concede that someone did find a report where OC MAY have had some role in a crime, if you will concede that from the facts provided in the report, it is not clear that the individual was targeted specifically because his gun was visible. I also have some questions concerning this persons situational awareness, and being out in that area at that time of night. Centerville is 6 miles from my house so I do know that area well. But to be fair you did find a single case.

Much has been made about the tactical advantage of CC. I concede that point but only insofar as actually surprising someone for the purpose of startling them and possibly having to shoot them is concerned. All of this happens AFTER an incident has begun.

But the total focus on tactical advantage ignores strategic issues completely. As a self defense strategy, I would prefer to avoid the use of the firearm in the first place. But if that cannot be done, there is a significant tactical advantage in not having to deal with draw from cover, speed of action (draw), having one hand free during the first part of the draw, and a number of other subtile issues that have been glossed over in the discussion to reach the conclusion that only OC has tactical advantages.

It is interesting to note that at least in Virginia, there is no element in the required training for a CHP to demonstrate draw from cover. In contrast, many of these same classes do require draw and fire from a holster. It would seem that if OC were a problem, the legislature would have put some requirement for this in the law. Moreover, I have not found anyone who was ever told during their class that OC was a problem and should be avoided. I do not wish to imply that many instructors would not council against OC, they do. But they always start that council with the words "In my opinion..."

As we see here opinions on OC and CC can and do vary. I do not expect to convince people who believe that only CC serves their needs, to abandon it in favor of OC. What I would hope we can accomplish together, through this discussion, is to clear the air and agree that just because someone chooses to OC, that fact alone does not make that person an evil egotist bent on terrifying the public.

I firmly believe that both forms of carry have a place in self defense, and that the choice should be left to the individual. I CC and OC as I see the need, and I am not driven by ego in either case. IMHO, to demonize people for their choice only splits the self defense community into two factions, and weakens us as a group, in defending our right to self defense. What prompted me to enter this discussion, were the blanket statements I saw to the effect that OC has no purpose at all, and should not be done or condoned. While it may not have a purpose for a particular person, it has purpose for a lot of others, and there is no rational reason to condemn the method or the person who employs the method in such general terms.

Regards

[JohnKSa]

...if you will concede that from the facts provided in the report, it is not clear that the individual was targeted specifically because his gun was visible. would point out that the original premise of my challenge was to find an incident where someone was "taken out" first because they displayed a weapon in OC mode.You said "There is not ONE single documented case where a criminal has ever targeted a person for simply being armed."

I spent a few minutes searching the web and found a case. Now it seems that you're implying that since the victim wasn't killed and because we can't prove what the criminals were thinking that it doesn't count.

The victim was carrying openly and was approached from behind by two persons who took ONLY his gun. Sure we could come up with a lot of reasons why they mugged him other than the obvious--but why? And the fact that he got lucky and was not injured or killed has no bearing on the relevance of the situation.

At the VERY LEAST, this is a case of a person carrying openly who was targeted for a crime. The openly carried gun didn't deter the crime and was, in fact, almost certainly the MOTIVE for it since it was the only thing taken.It is not truly statistically valid to turn them "inside out" as you have for a lot of reasons.I note that you chose to use the statistic I DIDN'T turn inside out as the rationale for not doing so. In fact, the reason you state is the reason I didn't use that particular statistic.

The other two are much clearer and that's why I used them.

Simply reading the statistics you cited makes it clear that while a signficant portion of felons said they were frightened by an armed citizen, over 40% responded differently. And while a significant portion indicated that they would not commit a crime if they believed a citizen was armed, almost half (47%) of the felons interviewed made no such statement.

Furthermore while it may be rare for criminals to "target a person simply for being armed", there are numerous accounts of gun store robberies which indicate that criminals are CERTAINLY willing to go up against armed citizens to steal guns.

So, who's more of a deterrrent, a guy walking down the street alone with a gun on his hip or several armed citizens behind the counter of a gun store? Because we all know for a fact that the latter is insufficient deterrent to prevent criminals from attempting robberies.I firmly believe that both forms of carry have a place in self defense, and that the choice should be left to the individual.I'm not talking about banning OC. I'm not even saying that it has no place as a useful self-defense tool. I'm simply responding to the incorrect/unsupportable/illogical assertions made about OC and CC.

[WhiteFeather93]

Capt Charlie no need for Apologies I probably would have closed it down at the point too. It wasn't until afterwards that we got some data and now even that has become somewhat of an arguement.

The only thing I'm gonna say to all of the statistics in question is that it was opinion based. There is a big difference between actual data and a questionare. These felons where questioned on how they would act. Data like that is no data at all. No offense meant but I could sit here and say that I would rob someone with a gun but when it actually came time to perform said act I'm sure I would find an excuse not to.

JohnSka I thank you for your imput although I am curious as to your opinion on the matter. Do you have personal thoughts on it?

I have sifted and looked at almost every website I can think of. And to date I have no actual data on OC detering crime or for that matter CC deterring crime. There are things one can note but no actual data.
Philadelphia is currently trying to sue the state for more gun control. Their argument is that the state is ruled by "Rural Legislator". And of all cities they are arguing that New York has less homicides than Philly because of the ability to write their own ticket as far as gun control is involved. I found no data the proves such a theroy.

Now I am not going to argue that OC has a tactical advantage. Or that it deters crime because I have nothing to back it up. Some may say its common sense and some may site other reasons but I myself have no ammo for the argument. OC has a time and place. You have to be extra carful and more aware than when you CC and so it requires more of you.

But I will advocate that OC has an edgucational benifit not generally shared with CC. You can share information with people when you CC but no one notices and so questions go un-asked. I have had personal experience with questions while OC'ing. And with any question asked I give answers and references. There are folders now that you can print out like this one,
http://paopencarry.org/PennsylvaniaGunRights.pdf
that help you explain and share information on gun laws and rights. Now you might feel that I am making gun owners look bad by toting it around on my hip for all to see. But if I am sharing knowledge I fail to see how that has any negitive effect. The truth regardless if you carry or not, is that we are in a constant struggle for our rights. And for me the 2nd amendment is a great cornerstone but I think reguardless of where you live every person who takes a breath should have the God given right to defend himself. Sometimes that does require stepping on toes. Sometimes that requires hassle and time and maybe you do not feel like sacrificing these things. That is fine and I do not expect everyone to throw down what they are doing and jump into this. But I do ask that you do not hinder my freedom because you feel it is inappropriate.

[dakota223]

concealed carry im taking the course for it this weekend ohio has a open carry policy but you forget one thing you carry a gun in the open and the law gets called its then inducing panic wich is a felony in ohio

[WhiteFeather93]

I am unsure as to the legallity of that but here is what I found concerning Ohio's law and statues.

Article I, Section 1.04

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

2917.31 Inducing panic.

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

(B) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to any person conducting an authorized fire or emergency drill.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inducing panic.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (9) of this section, inducing panic is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Now some may argue that number (5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender. Could be interprated that way however you would not be "creating a condition" the people who made a big deal out of what you were doing would be "creating the condition".

Opencarry.org is full of information in your state and many others so I would reference them for more information. But in ending all I have to say is that your state is on the border of not allowing OC and if you want that right you and others will have to make a stand fight for that right. Or you will loose it and CC will be your only option... For a while anyway.