Touchy subject

[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.