Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

I can prove it for the lack of evidence showing otherwise counselor

Claiming a lack of evidence for the opposite view does not prove yours.

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

And you can't use as evidence the dumbo who lacked situational awareness and allowed a teen to get behind him, steal his gun and then chased him knowing that the stolen gun had bullet in the chamber. If you try using that then you are using the same tactics as the left when they tried to apply the Sandy Hook shooting to the availability of guns.

Seems like fair game to me. Just because you don't like the fact that an OC'er did, in fact, have his gun taken from him doesn't make it not true.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

I can prove it for the lack of evidence showing otherwise counselor and the overwhelming evidence that CCers are the ones primarily reported as shooters outside of home and business defense. There are a dozen search engines that will substantiate my claim and none proving proving that it is "nonsense".

I rest my case.

If you're resting your case, you've lost. You have provided little, virtually no, data backing up your claims.

Your last post is literally "prove me wrong but you can't use a case that proves me wrong". Silliness.

You've made concrete statements claiming certain statistics and facts but provided NO evidence to back up those statements.

When asked to provide evidence, you present more statements of fact without evidence backing either them or your previous statements.

[Dashunde]

Wrong. Show us the body. There is no evidence that an OCer has taken a bullet first.

Your becoming entrenched and not reviewing the info provided here already.

Read this article.
Not only was the OC'er killed by his own gun - the sole objective in this theft/murder - but that same gun was used 7 hours later to kill a second person.
The attacker didnt have a gun when he snatched the OC'ers pistol.

[glh17]

I seriously doubt anyone has good statistical evidence as to who a bad guy would shoot first. How would you ever know the number of crimes deterred by open carry compared to conceal carry?

Nevertheless, common sense tells me that a bad guy would rather chose an unarmed person over an armed one, other things constant. The bad guy would still have to be careful in the case of the unarmed because of the possibility of conceal carry. But, common sense also tells me that if the bad guy goes into a room of unarmed as well as armed people, the obviously armed would warrant first attention.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

Can you prove that they will shoot you first?

I didn't state for a fact that he would. I only said that open carry gives the criminal more information to consider in the process of making such decision. You, yourself, have said that open carry conveys information.

[Dashunde]

^Right.

Just as a OC may dissuade a crime, it may also persuade the criminal to act upon the OC'er first if they are determined - it goes both ways.

You cant assume that OC helps to prevent crime, while ignoring that you may be the first victim if the criminal proceeds.

[Tom Servo]

Wrong. Show us the body. There is no evidence that an OCer has taken a bullet first.

You were given links to the Blaine Tyler story, in which that exact thing happened.

And you can't use as evidence the dumbo who lacked situational awareness and allowed a teen to get behind him, steal his gun and then chased him knowing that the stolen gun had bullet in the chamber.

Why is Mr. Tyler suddenly disqualified from being used as an example? His lack of situational awareness is hardly unique in general, nor is it unique among those who openly carry.

It may be inconvenient, but there it is. Proponents of open carry long claimed that things like this never happen because criminals will be petrified with fear at the sight of someone carrying a pistol. Well, it happened. We could all learn something from it.

If you try using that then you are using the same tactics as the left when they tried to apply the Sandy Hook shooting to the availability of guns.

And here we are, with the ad hominems.

First off, "the left" were not the only ones pushing legislation. We strongly frown on such simplistic political stereotypes.

Second, it's a cheap shot to compare experienced, pro-2A individuals advising caution and prudence to those who want to exploit a tragedy to push an anti-gun agenda.

I would be offended, but I've gotten the exact same accusations from the pro-OC crowd on these same points numerous times over. They have a great deal of emotional investment in a questionable practice, and when the utility of that practice is threatened, the mud starts flying.

If we (or anyone else) is to be convinced, you need to use verifiable facts to drive your points home, and you need to stop castigating your allies.

[Frank Ettin]

In any case, IdahoCarry, you billed this as "a comprehensive response to critics [of open carry]." I don't see that you've lived up to that billing.

[IdahoCarry]

In any case, IdahoCarry, you billed this as "a comprehensive response to critics [of open carry]." I don't see that you've lived up to that billing.

Not to a CCer who opposes OC and is prejudiced against it; so you would not qualify to sit on the jury counselor. I am appealing to those who have no prejudice and are willing to weigh evidence as it is presented. I did present evidence, but you said that it doesn't qualify because I didn't provide links to chapter and verse. As I said earlier, later this week when my public event is finished, I am more than willing to provide the evidence that even a prejudiced juror would have to accept.

[Evan Thomas]

Not to a CCer who opposes OC and is prejudiced against it; so you would not qualify to sit on the jury counselor.

Er, no. You specifically targeted your thread at critics. Here's a definition of "critic:"

Someone who does not like something and states their opinion about it:

Critics say the plan is short-sighted and dangerous.
critic of: She has been the strongest critic of the government's tax proposals.

That's more or less synonymous with someone who opposes it.

That's the "jury" you yourself said you were addressing, so it's a bit disingenuous to turn around now and say that such people don't count.

[IdahoCarry]

That's more or less synonymous with "... someone who opposes it."

That's the "jury" you yourself said you were addressing, so it's a bit disingenuous to turn around now and say that such people don't count.

Not to sound Clintonian, but, it depends on what the definition of "to" is.

preposition
1.
(used for expressing motion or direction toward a point, person, place, or thing approached and reached, as opposed to from ): They came to the house.
2.
(used for expressing direction or motion or direction toward something) in the direction of; toward

Obviously I meant it as "toward", however, the jousting has proven fruitful because it has provided me with opportunities to gather opposing arguments and be prepared for my debate with our sheriff on the radio next month. He too opposes Open Carry even though it has been legal here since we became a state. He is not a Constitutional Sheriff, something we hope to rectify the next time he runs.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

Not to a CCer who opposes OC and is prejudiced against it; so you would not qualify to sit on the jury counselor. I am appealing to those who have no prejudice and are willing to weigh evidence as it is presented. I did present evidence, but you said that it doesn't qualify because I didn't provide links to chapter and verse. As I said earlier, later this week when my public event is finished, I am more than willing to provide the evidence that even a prejudiced juror would have to accept.

This is the very problem that I have with folks in the OC Movement. Anyone who asks for actual facts is the enemy, prejudiced, unqualified to judge.

Absolute silliness. The OC Movement is like an undisciplined teenager. Their parents are idiots and the enemy and all they want is to talk to their friends who will not judge and simply be cheerleaders for their every move.

Fact is, we are not the enemy. We are your true best friends, wanting what's good for you because we're invested in you and what's good for you is good for us.

Like the teenager though, you want to ignore and belittle us because you know better. You can't consider that maybe we've been down that road and found your arguments lacking. You can't consider that it's facts that we want rather than emotion, speculation and baseless rhetoric.

I have no doubt that you'll tell all your friends in the OC movement that TFL and it's staff are the enemy and we oppose you. Fact is, we're not the enemy. I personally have no objection whatsoever to what ever kind of carry any person might choose to do. I think it's an issue of freedom and personal choice.

You might consider that when we question your baseless rhetoric it might be for the purpose of helping you realize the problems in your argument so that you can make a better argument. It's not to hurt OC, it's to help OC activists to make better, more coherent, factually correct and convincing arguments. It's to expose faults in your thinking and statements that might have you reexamine your opinions in the light of true, logical, accepted debate practices so you don't look foolish when you confront the REAL enemy, the anti-gun movement.

TFL exists to advance responsible firearms ownership. "Responsible" includes the very real responsibility to police our own and protect and enhance the public perception of gun owners.

The OC Movement carries no such responsibility. It's goal is only it's own promotion and that pursued without any apparent perception that it may be doing more harm than good to not only it's own goals but to gun owners as a whole.

[IdahoCarry]

One of John Lott's hypotheses in More Guns - Less Crime was that prevailing concealed carry meant that anyone might have a gun; and therefore a criminal couldn't know whether a particular potential victim was or was not armed. Lott suggested that lack of knowledge was likely to have a "chilling effect" on criminal behavior.

We had 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho last year. Obviously not too "chilling" to the people who committed these crimes in light of us having one of the highest percentages of CC licenses per capita.

[44 AMP]

I am more than willing to provide the evidence that even a prejudiced juror would have to accept.

I'm afraid you can't do that, councilor, no one can.

We had 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho last year. Obviously not too "chilling" to the people who committed these crimes in light of us having one of the highest percentages of CC licenses per capita.

Question; how does the actual number of crimes against persons (and just what is that anyway?) relate to a percentage per capita of CC licenses?

I don't see the relevance

[IdahoCarry]

1. This is the very problem that I have with folks in the OC Movement. Anyone who asks for actual facts is the enemy, prejudiced, unqualified to judge.

2. Absolute silliness. The OC Movement is like an undisciplined teenager. Their parents are idiots and the enemy and all they want is to talk to their friends who will not judge and simply be cheerleaders for their every move.

3. Fact is, we are not the enemy. We are your true best friends, wanting what's good for you because we're invested in you and what's good for you is good for us.

4. Like the teenager though, you want to ignore and belittle us because you know better. You can't consider that maybe we've been down that road and found your arguments lacking. You can't consider that it's facts that we want rather than emotion, speculation and baseless rhetoric.

5. I have no doubt that you'll tell all your friends in the OC movement that TFL and it's staff are the enemy and we oppose you. Fact is, we're not the enemy. I personally have no objection whatsoever to what ever kind of carry any person might choose to do. I think it's an issue of freedom and personal choice.

6. You might consider that when we question your baseless rhetoric it might be for the purpose of helping you realize the problems in your argument so that you can make a better argument. It's not to hurt OC, it's to help OC activists to make better, more coherent, factually correct and convincing arguments. It's to expose faults in your thinking and statements that might have you reexamine your opinions in the light of true, logical, accepted debate practices so you don't look foolish when you confront the REAL enemy, the anti-gun movement.

7. TFL exists to advance responsible firearms ownership. "Responsible" includes the very real responsibility to police our own and protect and enhance the public perception of gun owners.

8. The OC Movement carries no such responsibility. It's goal is only it's own promotion and that pursued without any apparent perception that it may be doing more harm than good to not only it's own goals but to gun owners as a whole.

Let's take these one at a time.
1. I did not say he was not qualified to judge because he asked for facts. I said that he was unqualified to judge because he has a bias against OC.

2. Who are OC's "parents" and where did I call anyone and idiot or refer to them as an enemy? And why would I post on this forum if all I wanted to do was talk to my friends. I was looking for a good argument but name calling (silliness, undisciplined teenager) has not emanated from me in this forum.

3. I have never insinuated CCers were an enemy because more than 500 of my members CC as do I. However, I would like to see an example of your being our "true best friends" since all of the staffers here have taken my post as a personal affront rather than an opportunity to discuss the points raised.
I enjoy the opportunity to respond and look forward to evidence of your being our "true best friends" by seeing one of the staffers saying something positive about OC.

4. Again "teenager"? I did provide facts and will provide more facts as I promised to do when my event comes to an end later this week.

5. Why would I make disparaging comments about TFL when you obviously have CCers who OC on this page. And even if you didn't, I enjoy the discourse.

6. "baseless rhetoric"? All of my points are based on fact and experience and, if I'm not ejected from this forum, we will prove that over the next couple of weeks.

7. That is why I am on this forum.

8. "The OC Movement carries no such responsibility."
This last statement neutralizes your previous 7 points. You obviously have not been around many Open Carry groups. I would encourage you to go to this link and check out our rally at in the Capitol rotunda this year that had nearly 1000 in attendance. More than half of these folks OCed, many with long guns. We had numerous legislators who were there and it was partially because of these two well attended rallies that we were able to pass pro-gun legislation last year and will probably pass 3 of the 5 we are presenting this year. Check it out: https://www.facebook.com/braden.stor...2440549&type=3

[IdahoCarry]

I'm afraid you can't do that, councilor, no one can.

You sound a little prejudiced even before all of the evidence has been presented. I don't think you qualify for this jury?

[Dashunde]

What evidence?
I havnt seen one shred of it so far.
The giant first post didnt contain anything but claims, no evidence, all of which should have been presented with the first post, not 3 days or a week later.

Idaho's crime rate is lower than most everywhere, about 2 points below the national average of ~4.0/1000... why the big analysis and push for OC to deter your nearly non-existent crime-per-capita in the first place?

OC makes sense for riding horses, being in unpopulated areas with large animals, being a LEO or soldier, and so on, but those tangible reasons for OCing have gone completely unmentioned in your lengthy list of suspect reasons to defend OC.

You'd be much better served by arguing the practical virtues of OC instead of claiming it silently whisks away criminals.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

We had 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho last year. Obviously not too "chilling" to the people who committed these crimes in light of us having one of the highest percentages of CC licenses per capita.

And how many would there have been without concealed carry?

Of course no one can know that. And open carry is legal in Idaho.

So there is no way to draw any kind of meaningful inference about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of concealed carry (or open carry) from crime numbers.

What your post does illustrate is your tendency to misunderstand/misuse data.

[Tom Servo]

You sound a little prejudiced even before all of the evidence has been presented.

And you aren't? Everyone's going to have some bias on this.

However, Brian, Frank and I have the experience and data to back up what we're saying. You don't appear to. That's the problem.

It's also what we're trying to help you with. If you were to go to a real debate with an anti with your opening points, you'd get eaten alive. They've researched their points and they've got custom-massaged data. Even when they're being less than truthful, they make working the crowd an art. You have to arm yourself with facts, not opinions.

Trust me. I've been there.

[IdahoCarry]

What evidence?
I havnt seen one shred of it so far.
The giant first post didnt contain anything but claims, no evidence, all of which should have been presented with the first post, not 3 days or a week later.

Idaho's crime rate is lower than most everywhere, about 2 points below the national average of ~4.0/1000... why the big analysis and push for OC to deter your nearly non-existent crime-per-capita in the first place?

OC makes sense for riding horses, being in unpopulated areas with large animals, being a LEO or soldier, and so on, but those tangible reasons for OCing have gone completely unmentioned in your lengthy list of suspect reasons to defend OC.

You'd be much better served by arguing the practical virtues of OC instead of claiming it silently whisks away criminals.

Obviously you skipped from the first page to the last because you missed the 2 posts of evidence on page 2.

If you read my entire post, you would know that my closing statement is my primary purpose for Open Carrying, and it is working in Idaho.

[IdahoCarry]

And how many would there have been without concealed carry?

Of course no one can know that. And open carry is legal in Idaho.

So there is no way to draw any kind of meaningful inference about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of concealed carry (or open carry) from crime numbers.

What your post does illustrate is your tendency to misunderstand/misuse data.

The point being, there were 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho and I wasn't one of them, nor were any of our OC members.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

The point being, there were 17,523 crimes against persons in Idaho and I wasn't one of them, nor were any of our OC members.

Can you demonstrate causation? Or are you content with correlation?

[IdahoCarry]

[QUOTE]

And you aren't? Everyone's going to have some bias on this.

Of course I have a bias, but for both CC and OC. Your staffers have a bias against OC.

However, Brian, Frank and I have the experience and data to back up what we're saying. You don't appear to. That's the problem.
They've researched their points and they've got custom-massaged data. Even when they're being less than truthful, they make working the crowd an art. You have to arm yourself with facts, not opinions.

Show me their research, show me the data. I've presented some of mine on page two and I will provide more, but, if you've got the cards, lay them out there.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry

Show me their research, show me the data. I've presented some of mine on page two and I will provide more, but, if you've got the cards, lay them out there.

You've done no such thing. You've presented a list of studies from which you pulled a couple of facts which you then remove from their context and about which you make unwarranted assumptions.

We are NOT against OC. Isn't that the EXACT point I made in my last post while predicting EXACTLY how you would portray us?

It is indeed, and you've proven me correct.

You can not adequately prove your point using established rules/criteria for factual debate so you decide that anyone who doesn't agree with you is the enemy.

Classic tactic of the OC Movement. We're not new to this. Been down this road before.

[Dashunde]

Obviously you skipped from the first page to the last because you missed the 2 posts of evidence on page 2.

If you read my entire post, you would know that my closing statement is my primary purpose for Open Carrying, and it is working in Idaho

Of course I've read along, my posts are scattered throughout...

Frank already debunked the Wright/Rossi study as it applies to your assertion that OC deters crime.
The rest of those citations were met with a "Phooey" because there's no links to them, we cant review them, and 9 of the 13 listed are over 10 years old going back to 1997.
Listing 13 aged articles in journals without the actual text is far from qualifying as any sort of evidence.
You showed up empty handed and have remained that way.

I managed to read through your entire post. There are so many faulty lines of logic in-the-moment perceptions its hard to decide which to refute first.
The notion that OCing will somehow "naturalize" the population to seeing guns everywhere is foolhardy at best, and likely to stir those who oppose you into action against your cause at worst.

In the end, you've shown up here on your first post making broad, assertive, unsubstantiated and romanticized opinions presented as fact.
You spent a lot of time typing up that first post, but you didn’t do your homework.
You should have studied this place more before posting.