The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 22, 2013, 08:14 PM   #51
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,619
The Lott Mustard study has been pretty much debunked. Bad science that might have been caught if the work had been peer reviewed.

That the work was never submitted for peer review and instead published as pop science, before anyone got their hands on the study, was the first thing that set off alarm bells for me.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 08:55 PM   #52
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
So, Tom, do you believe it should be illegal or that it's an unwise practice? I think there's a big difference between the two.
Although not directed to me, I think it is a great question. The bigger question, I think, is whether Government has any right to regulate how we bear arms. I believe Tom is right that open carry is "a practice that causes public-relations issues, has no measurable protective effect, and may be unsafe." Is it then a right guaranteed by the 2 Amendment?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 09:18 PM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
So, Tom, do you believe it should be illegal or that it's an unwise practice?
I don't want it to be illegal, and I'd fight to keep it legal. At the moment, I simply think it's an unwise practice.

However, if folks keep "pushing the envelope," neither I nor anyone else may have a say in the matter.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 09:25 PM   #54
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by K_Mac
...The bigger question, I think, is whether Government has any right to regulate how we bear arms...
That's a big question that will take time to be more fully answered in the courts. I strongly suspect, however, that based on well settled principles of constitutional jurisprudence, some regulation will be sustained by the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota.potts
...do you believe it should be illegal...
The reality is the in places where open carry is legal, it will most likely remain so. That is, of course, unless it becomes sufficiently obnoxious to enough people to cause them to elect politicians who will enact laws banning the practice.

And in places where it is illegal, it will most likely remain so. That is unless the thought of the practice were to become sufficiently acceptable to enough people to cause them to elect politicians who would enact laws making it legal; or until a court so acts.

And perhaps we should take some time to reflect on the fact that legal practices found obnoxious by enough people have a way of becoming illegal. And so we have noise abatement laws and laws in some places prohibiting you from parking your RV on your property in a manner visible to a public road.

Public relations and understanding effective ways to influences the attitudes or people are important.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 09:42 PM   #55
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics

I agree with a lot of the points made about OC, that it's a public relations nightmare that makes ALL gun owners look bad. I support OC where legal, but I would never OC to make a point or because I assume the bad guys will leave me alone. I'm all for CCW, well, because I think it gives me a tactical advantage. Until OC activists see that it's causing more harm than good, 2A rights will go nowhere imp
gaseousclay is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 10:49 PM   #56
IdahoCarry
Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
Quote:
3. Not Idaho but in Wyoming, Mr. Drennen was OC'ing and then still attacked. He shot his attacker and guess what OC was used by the prosecution as an indication of premeditation. Oops.
The prosecution will use anything and everything but bogus charges, as with Zimmerman, don't work. How many CCers shoot people every year? Look not only at the prosecution rate but the civil costs of those shootings. The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer. I don't want to be prosecuted, I don't want to be sued, I don't want to shoot anyone. That is why I OC.
IdahoCarry is offline  
Old October 22, 2013, 11:10 PM   #57
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
...The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer...
Another unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some evidence.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 08:15 AM   #58
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,691
Truth be told, yes... OC'ing probably does ward off or dissuade garden variety opportunistic criminals. Those who weigh risk-vs-reward or those who have minimal confidence in their abilities will probably stay away.

Alternatively, OC'ing can/will attract the very worst of the worst - the fearless, the confident, perhaps the smartest most cunning and calculating of them all.

While OC'ing may keep 100 "reasonable" criminals away, its also going to attract one that would view your gun as a prize, not a deterrent... I don’t know about the rest of you, but that is the one I want to pass right on by me and my ccw.
I'll take my chances with the rest...
Dashunde is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 09:12 AM   #59
Colt46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 828
I live in Santa Clara County(California)

We are a May Issue State. Our Elected Sheriff's have a long history of not issuing permits to people not associated with the legal system. If you are not a judge or work for the DA's Office you are SOL. The current Sheriff even refuses to accept applications in direct violation of law. Even though it's illegal there is no way to penalize, fine or charge her with these violations.

If you want to get a permit you should investigate the 'Sheriff's Advisory Board'. It seems to be a fundraising outfit to purchase goodies for her department that normal funding cannot. Can you say illegal slush fund?
The only people not affiliated with the courts or DA's office that have CCW permits belong to this outfit.
People started Open Carrying to protest this corruption and this 'brandishing' of firearms is what frightened the public into allowing the a-hats in Sacramento into banning even unloaded open carry of handguns.
I've never been a proponent of Open Carry, but I can understand why some people do it.
Colt46 is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 09:33 AM   #60
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
IdahoCarry, as you can see, when it comes to proving factual claims, we have very high standards here at TFL. Opinions of all flavors are welcome, but if you claim something as cold, hard fact, you need to be prepared to back it up.

Deterrent effects: I find claims of deterrent effects somewhat troublesome. When you sit down and think about it, in order to prove a deterrent effect, we'd have to find:
  1. Someone who wanted or planned to commit a crime; but
  2. Did not do so; and
  3. Is willing to discuss their reasons for not having committed the crime.
While there have been some studies of inmates, as noted above, it seems to me that there almost has to be some degree of unmeasurable deterrent effect.

However, even if I assume some degree of unmeasurable deterrent effect, I hardly think that
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
[OC] is kryptonite to the bad guys.
If it really were "kryptonite" to bad guys,
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
. . . . Have you ever walked through the hood? I was a private investigator and process server in Washington DC and walked through groups of bad guys on their turf almost daily where I was warned my them, "You'd better be walking sideways here". You don't challenge the BG's place of dominion. They take it as an insult to their dominance. You might make it for a block or two, but those 10 and 11 year old punks looking or creds would kill you and then take your gun. All Open Carriers should use "Wisdom & Prudence" before deciding whether to OC or CC.
It sounds to me like you're not really convinced that OC prevents attacks. It sounds to me more like you're convinced that it sometimes prevents attacks, perhaps from more cautious, or less aggressive, predators among us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
My Open Carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well informed decision; an opportunity not provided by me when I Carry Concealed.
Your open carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well-informed decision as to who he needs to shoot first, too.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:01 AM   #61
Revoltella
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
...The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer...
Another unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some evidence.
That's a straw man argument. How can you know the unknowable? How do you measure things that didn't occur?

Last edited by Spats McGee; October 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM. Reason: To clarify quotes
Revoltella is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:07 AM   #62
Revoltella
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
Quote:
Your open carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well-informed decision as to who he needs to shoot first, too.
Do you have evidence of that?
Revoltella is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:11 AM   #63
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revoltella
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
...The probability of an OCer having to shoot someone is exponentially lower that a CCer...
Another unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some evidence.
That's a straw man argument. How can you know the unknowable? How do you measure things that didn't occur?
Nonsense.

IdahoCarry claimed something to be true. If one claims something to be true, he has he burden of proving it. He can't then claim that he doesn't need to prove it because there's no way to do so.

If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:16 AM   #64
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revoltella
Quote:
Your open carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well-informed decision as to who he needs to shoot first, too.
Do you have evidence of that?
Well I don't like to speak for Spats, but I might have put it a little differently, but to the same general effect, as follows:

IdahoCarry, you claim that:
Quote:
My Open Carrying gives the criminal the opportunity to make a well informed decision; an opportunity not provided by me when I Carry Concealed.
I can just as validly point out that your open carry gives the criminal useful information to decide who to shoot first.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:30 AM   #65
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
In retrospect, I think the most accurate statement of my position is that OC provides BG with information that he might not otherwise have and in so doing, might simply allow him to formulate a more effective plan. That might or might not include shooting the OC'er immediately. For example, a BG might steal the OC'ers gun, then shoot the OC'er when pursued.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:41 AM   #66
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
In retrospect, I think the most accurate statement of my position is that OC provides BG with information that he might not otherwise have and in so doing, might simply allow him to formulate a more effective plan. That might or might not include shooting the OC'er immediately. For example, a BG might steal the OC'ers gun, then shoot the OC'er when pursued.
I think that's a useful perspective.

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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:47 AM   #67
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.
But can you prove he has no business saying it with a peer reviewed study?

That's a joke.

So, the objection isn't that he failed to produce evidence, but that he asserted something that isn't especially susceptible to a solid conclusion based on data.


IdahoCarry, I don't agree with all of your conclusions about OC, but those responding to you here are doing you a service by pointing out where you've over-reached. Whether and how one carries involves many variables and prudential considerations, so categorical assertions will build unnecessary weakness into your arguments.

It does strike me as consistent with reason and experience that ordinary OC, not rationally construed as a threat by any normal person, should serve to educate and acclimate populations to an idea everyone on this thread already knows - mere possession of an arm is not a threat to the safety of another.

It may also be possible that routine OC in a population might serve as a reminder to a person contemplating a violent criminal act that the response to his act might not leave him in a better position. I did not believe that is particularly susceptible to statistical proof, but that does not make it an unreasonable position (though I find Lott's reasoning on CC more persuasive on the issue of criminal deterrence where CC is common).

I believe that many people who have carried in populated urban and suburban areas, at least in my part of the country, do not welcome any of the added attention that would accompany OC.

If the basis for OC is prudential, educational and social, it may be a considerable distraction to otherwise sound and persuasive arguments to introduce categorical or statistical claims.
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 10:57 AM   #68
Vireye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 201
I have Open Carried, but there are very specific circumstances under which I'll do so.

I live in PA, which is an Open Carry state. I live in a fairly rural area. And I will *always* carry where it is legal to do so.

99% of the time I'm in public view, I carry concealed. I don't want the added attention, and I don't want to deal with ANY level of uncomfort of the general populace. I.e. the staring and questioning while I'm trying to get my groceries.

If I'm on my property or walking the dog, and I don't feel like concealing due to weather or some other reason, I won't. I've walked my dog along the trail here plenty of times with my sidearm and not gotten a second glance.

***

I used to live in CT. Also an open carry state. Totally different vibe. Because of the incidents there, people are WAY more sensitive to firearms. If I open carry in PA, I get maybe one or two people who look actually *alarmed* as opposed to what almost looks like a "Huh. I wonder why he's doing that?" look on. In CT, I open carried once, with a friend, to prove a point. He has incredibly gung-ho about open carry, pro-2A, to hell with everyone who doesn't like it, etc etc.

I suppose this can't be "proven", but you could *fee* the tension. I counted at least a dozen people in the little convenience store who actively stared at me, some with obvious distaste, and a handful left the store outright as soon as I walked in. The fact that someone didn't call the police was shocking.

(Note: when I OC'ed in CT, I always carried a memorandum from the State Troopers stating that it was legal to do so. Too many people unfamiliar with their own state laws....)
Vireye is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 11:25 AM   #69
IdahoCarry
Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
Quote:
I can just as validly point out that your open carry gives the criminal useful information to decide who to shoot first.
Can you prove that they will shoot you first?
IdahoCarry is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:00 PM   #70
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,691
This is getting silly.
While there are dumb criminals everywhere, its common sense to figure you standing there with an exposed gun (and no badge) will be the first to take a bullet.

Furthermore, you may get conked over the head with the nearest wine bottle by a criminal who had no intention of commiting a crime until he laid eyes on your gun.
Dashunde is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:02 PM   #71
IdahoCarry
Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
Quote:
Nonsense.

IdahoCarry claimed something to be true. If one claims something to be true, he has he burden of proving it. He can't then claim that he doesn't need to prove it because there's no way to do so.

If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.
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.
IdahoCarry is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:05 PM   #72
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
the overwhelming evidence that CCers are the ones primarily reported as shooters outside of home and business defense
Thats simply because there are many thousands of us carrying concealed compared to a scant few who OC.
Dashunde is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:08 PM   #73
IdahoCarry
Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
Quote:
This is getting silly.
While there are dumb criminals everywhere, its common sense to figure you standing there with an exposed gun (and no badge) will be the first to take a bullet.
Wrong. Show us the body. There is no evidence that an OCer has taken a bullet first.

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.
IdahoCarry is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:11 PM   #74
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 609
Frank and Tom have said everything I was going to say, so I will sit back and eat popcorn before the lock.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old October 23, 2013, 12:13 PM   #75
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,240
The fact seems to be (and I don't have a study to refer to) that perception creates its own reality.

There are a number of widely recognized "facts" we use to shape our opinions, about everything, really. In general conversation, citing studies and references isn't often done. However, on a board like this, when you make a claim of something as fact, you best have the "ammo" to back it up, and is best when you provide it with your claim of fact, and your reasoning why it is "proof".

Things can be real and true, without studies saying they are. And a study saying something is real and true is not a guarantee of it being real and true, only that a study said it was. Some will accept any study as the bedrock of the earth. Others are more skeptical.

Growing up in the (then, mostly) sane part of New York state, I saw a lot of open carry. Between late October and early December. Quite common, in those far off days, to see one, or even a group of people in a diner, an hour or so before dawn, wearing holstered sidearms, having coffee, or breakfast. Nobody so much as batted an eye. Permits were a requirement to own, and there was no permitted concealed carry.

Can't speak for all, but none of the people I knew or met in those days openly worried about being a target because they were carrying a pistol on their belt. Also it generally wasn't a personal defense thing, a lot of those holstered pistols were longer barreled magnums.

We make a lot of common sense assumptions, things like criminals don't obey the law, open display of valuable items makes you a potential target for theft, people being surveyed respond accurately and honestly, etc...

Lots of things. Some of them are true. Some are true in some degree. Where we differ, mostly, is in what degree is applicable, or so I believe.

Conceal carry is a deterrent. Its not a panacea. Open carry is also. And for the basic reason even bad guys don't want to be shot if they can avoid it.

I think that is common sense. Open, because its there, and shows it. Concealed, because potential attackers cannot tell who is armed, and who is not.

But, while the horns of eland might dissuade the individual hyena, they alone do little against the pack, or a single hungry lion.

And as studies show, its tough to prove a negative....

Today, other than hunters and others carrying in the back country, open carry, particularly in urban settings is seen by many as a political statement. And, it is, to one degree, or another. Even if that's not the intent of the person carrying. Perception...

We are gun people. We know not only what guns can do, but what guns ARE. The rest of the country does not know what we do. All they know is what they have been taught by generations of constant brainwashing by our entertainment industry (and in that, I include "news" reporting).

Some people go into a virtual panic if they see you wearing a gun. Interestingly, those same people can see the same guy, with the same gun, but if he's wearing a shiny piece of tin on his shirt, they don't bat an eye. Again, perception.

open carry is, I believe, a right. Its the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". The fact that it is a right does not mean it is always prudent. I feel concealed carry is prudent, excepting those places where law forbids it.

I also believe that while studies can provide useful information for consideration, basing law or policy on them alone is a poor practice.

People lie. People in an anonymous study can lie freely, and some will. Believing what criminals say in a survey (or what teenagers say when surveyed about how often they have sex) to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a leap of faith I just cannot make.

Others, apparently can....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14834 seconds with 7 queries