My only point is, you don't find OCers bashing people because they CC. It IS a one way street in that respect.
I have not read any others posters to this thread but I could not help but to respond to a few of the many amazing rationalizations made by the author of this article and cited by the individual who started the thread.
Who are the credible authorities he should cite in his own opinion essay?All the verbiage in the article but no cites to credible authorities on the subject.
As the author stated, don't base it on the popular myths or hypothetical notions he challenges, either.Open carry or concealed carry is ones personal choice but, come on, do not base your thinking on the subject based on this article and certainly not for many of the rationals (rationalizations) put forth by this author.
I noticed you didn't burden yourself with citing to any credible authorities here.Do your homework. There are several articles in respected publications on the subject over the years that address this issue.
This is going to be long and dragged out but I'll try to catch most of them.The following are a few of the authors comments that I take exception with.
Heck no, they won't admit it when you state it plainly like that, but their fantasy bravado comes out (especially on internet forums) with common comments like "not showing your hold cards" or "they won't know I'm armed until my bullets are hitting their chest", etc."I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity."
I have not met a person in my 66 years on this earth who wants to be victimized. Someone wanting to be victimized - that position standing on its own is amazingly irrational. But then wanting the act to happen so they can then whip out their defensive weapon to surprise the assailant simply makes no sense. How can an article with this premise embedded in the text be considered creditable?
Yes, surveys of industry recognized professional criminals."Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk."
Exactly how do you know this? Is this based on credible documented studies by industry recognized professionals?
It is cited elsewhere in this thread's further discussion.Please provide documentation to substantiate this claim.
Of course not, just many. No deterrent works on everyone - also discussed in greater detail in this thread discussion.I am not at all sure some assailants would be deterred.
Why don't I skip it since you are obviously confusing "deter" with "prevent" which is not the argument at all.Please see the next response.
You did click the BLUE link, right? (I reminded the readers to do so at the end of the post.)"The Five Stages of Violent Crime:
Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction"
Where did this BS come from?
Do you really think they're not? Sounds like you should make an attempt at refuting their conclusions ...or at least deride them with no stated basis.Do you really think all/most violent crimes are this structured?
I see you took the easier path.This sounds like something from a high school (junior high?) psychology book written by a self-proclaimed expert in criminal behavior.
You're the one who doesn't seem to have read the link."Concealed carry presumes it is better to wait until the opponent has drawn his knife or gun and then try to ‘fix’ the situation. It’s seems a bit foolish to promote the idea that it’s better to attempt to stop a violent crime in the fourth stage when you could instead prevent it in the second."
I think it is foolish to assume there are five steps that happen with violent crime. I find it very difficult to belive that all the bad guys out there goes through these steps consciously or sub-consciously prior to committing a violent crime. Is there any research to prove this process occurs?
I skipped that one earlier because nobody claims that open carry will prevent every violent attack, it is simply a deterrent factor. No, not if they can't see it (as through a door in the case you chose), any more than having a concealed gun would."Let’s say the bad-guy missed the openly carried pistol and holster during the interview stage, and has proceeded to the ‘positioning’ stage. Chances are pretty good he’ll see it at some point then, right?"
Wrong! See the previous comments about the drugged up guy breaking into my neighbor's house. How many professional analysis based on case evidence support this claim?
Yes, the 'first one shot' criticism is still claimed frequently. Everyone who has read this thread has seen it multiple times with their own eyes."There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened."
Do you have any credible evidence to prove or disprove this point?
No, it's simply a generic and often claimed hypothetical with very little merit or real world support.This just suggest one should not go into a 7-11 so one will not get shot.
Then the author was not challenging something you claim, yet the claim is quite common so it found a place of mention in his essay."Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents."
I have never considered surprise to be a viable rational for my chosen method of carry.
Sounds about normal regardless of carry method.If I feel uncomfortable in a certain environment, I do not draw my weapon. I do, however, ready myself for a quick reaction if a situation were to arise. So far in my several years of carry, I have done this 3 or 4 times. I have been fortunate to have never had to engage in a defensive action.
Wait. Now you disagree? You just said that defensive surprise wasn't a viable rationale for your carry method."The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one."
Certainly the thought process by the author is simple and I totally disagree. That is in incredibly stupid opinion not based in fact. Surprise, in the tactical sense, can be used to great advantage in either the offensive or defensive position. There are many military and civilian case studies to this point. The author needs to do some serious reading.
He said, "a genuine fear of firearms", not open carry or even of the general right to carry. Most people are not at that level of irrational fear of the object even if they have strong anti-carry sentiments."While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them."
Why do you think it is only some who fear open carry and that the majority are OK with it? Where did you acquire this knowledge? Please educate me.
OK, why? Did you think the other common reasons he challenged are more reasonable arguments than this or do you have some other reasoning against open carry which wasn't addressed?"This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual."
Really? I think this is the most amazing statement in this otherwise mostly outrageous article.
How much serious analysis does it truly require to decide if you want to cover your gun or just leave it uncovered?These are just some of this author's comments that I take exception with. The whole open carry vs concealed carry debate area is so much more complex that this author's attempt to justify his position. This article is just one individuals simplistic rationalizations for open carry and should not be taken in its totality as a serious analysis.
Interesting. I guess you meant that for everyone else, right?Do your own homework.
I have not read any others posters to this thread but I could not help but to respond to a few of the many amazing rationalizations made by the author of this article and cited by the individual who started the thread.
Perhaps if you'd read a bit further, you'd have found that many of the individual points have been hashed out quite a bit already rather than putting all this in one huge post.
So, you go ahead and make a post twice as long as his after criticizing the length of his post
Thank you for supporting the RIGHT to carry whatever and however one chooses. Even if your support comes with strings attached.
I am afraid you may be confusing "open carry for a cause" with those of us who simply carry openly as a matter of course.
Like any other activist, those that open carry "for a cause" are specifically trying to expose injustices and raise awareness. They toe (and cross) the line to bring attention to "the cause", whatever that may be. It is no different than a "Moms for Breastfeeding" group letting it all hang out to raise awareness and invite commentary. Does that somehow make EVERY women who breastfeeds in public a bad person?
I am wondering, do you (or others that frown upon open carry) also lump those that conceal for deception in with those that conceal for personal safety? I mean, they are both concealing for pretty much the same reason, so they they should all be frowned upon, yes?
What about that those of us who OC as a matter of course for the sake of the cause?
I'm only partially kidding, since my OC choice pre-dates my "for a cause" justification. But when given the choice to OC or CC, I will always choose OC now specifically for the purpose of exposing the public to the concept of legal carry. CC is reserved solely for those times when OC is just impossible or really, really ill-advised.
Under what circumstances is OC impossible, or ill-advised?
Under what circumstances is OC impossible, or ill-advised?
I have a recent example of my own. Commencement ceremonies at IU Assembly Hall.
If I had been asked to leave, my wife and graduating daughter would have had my nads.
I have a recent example of my own. Commencement ceremonies at IU Assembly Hall.
If I had been asked to leave, my wife and graduating daughter would have had my nads.