The Open Carry Argument

**okiebryan** · 10-22-2012, 11:46 PM

Whether or not you think you like open carry, or would ever want to practice open carry, this is a very good read. Well worth your time.

My primary goal when I’m out and about, besides whatever I went out and about to do, is to go about peaceably and not be the victim of a violent crime. To that end I carry a firearm whenever I go out as well as follow all the other standard safety practices like maintaining situational awareness, staying out of high crime areas, and avoiding confrontation. I also have a larger overall goal of making it through my life without shooting anyone. Simply put, I don’t want to be responsible, legally or morally, for another’s death. Those two goals might appear at first blush to be mutually exclusive, and with concealed carry it would be a difficult set of goals to realize. [...]

Read the essay

**Boehlertaught** · 10-23-2012, 10:02 AM

Good writeup thanks.

**Poke78** · 10-23-2012, 11:14 AM

Excellent post -- I highly recommend that readers click thru to the Five Stages link for some in-depth self-defense considerations.

**Chard** · 10-23-2012, 12:02 PM

Interesting read. Makes one think. Thanks for posting.

**Norman** · 10-23-2012, 12:51 PM

It was an okay essay. It was mostly opinion without any supporting facts, and skewed through the author's bias. It pretty much ignores most of the data compiled by people like Tom Givens, and fails to address why there are no credible instructors that teach and champion OC to my knowledge. I would like to know what the author's training and experience is in carrying a weapon, as well as defensive encounters. Why has he made a distinction between 'offensive' and defensive actions in a fight. Those terms come into play before engaging in a fight. There were no citations in reference to his 5 stages of defensive confrontations (that I noticed). Where did this come from? Did he make it up? From what data? Why did he ignore that an OCer had his weapon taken away, was killed with it, and another man was shot with said weapon later?

**okiebryan** · 10-23-2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Norman

It was an okay essay. It was mostly opinion without any supporting facts, and skewed through the author's bias. It pretty much ignores most of the data compiled by people like Tom Givens, and fails to address why there are no credible instructors that teach and champion OC to my knowledge. I would like to know what the author's training and experience is in carrying a weapon, as well as defensive encounters. Why has he made a distinction between 'offensive' and defensive actions in a fight. Those terms come into play before engaging in a fight.

I'm not an armchair tactician. The choice to OC will be legal next Thursday, and the deterrent value makes sense to me. Not only that, I've seen it first hand. I am preparing for the most likely scenario, which is some punk trying to jack my sh!+, rather than a supporting actor role in a Die Hard movie. Feel free not to OC, nobody is trying to force you to come out of the closet, so to speak.

There were no citations in reference to his 5 stages of defensive confrontations (that I noticed). Where did this come from? Did he make it up? From what data?

Look again. There was a link to the site where the 5 stages are discussed at length.

Why did he ignore that an OCer had his weapon taken away, was killed with it, and another man was shot with said weapon later?

Not sure, but most likely because his crystal ball was on the fritz. The incident you mentioned happened on Nov 25, 2011. The essay was written sometime before Mar 17, 2009, when it was posted on the website where I found it.

Even so, you are not looking at the facts surrounding that situation. He was not shot for open carrying, he was shot because he chased the BG AFTER his gun was stolen. Article He made a very bad choice to pursue the BG, and it cost him his life.

So here's one gun grab. If you look hard, you will find another. There exists a grand total of two. I've found 2 dozen instances where CCers lost their gun in a robbery.

I support your right to carry how you wish, within the limits of the law, and as someone who appreciates liberty, I'd expect no less from you.

**thesensei** · 10-25-2012, 06:44 AM

Let me preface my response by saying that I am personally pro-open carry, and will exercise that right. To me, the fact of the Second Amendment of the Constitution trumps all arguments against the legality of open carry - and not only for hunting or sporting, but for the true intent of the 2A, that is, self-protection. Therefore, open carry should be legal. However, that does not mean that everyone should practice it. In my opinion, if you are going to open carry, you need to be able to articulate WHY! That is the strength of the above article - the author has done a good job articulating his position.

With that in mind, I'm going to point out a few areas of agreement with the article, and then I'll state what I feel to be the glaring error in his argument (I have several minor disagreements, but I'll only point out one or two of the most egregious).

The author made the point that no one wins in a gunfight. True statement. I carry in order to stay out of a gunfight, not because I want to get in one!

He did a good job of dispelling the myths regarding open carry. The argument of "you'll be the first to be shot" is one I've heard repeatedly. Bottom line, show me the evidence! It just isn't there from a civilian standpoint. Sure, there are a few events here and there, but they're hard to find, and I can give you just as many accounts of the presence of a visible gun deterring the crime - and I'm sure it happens much more often than we know!

The argument that the gun will get stolen goes into the same category as that above. It just doesn't happen! If it does, it's typically in the course of a fight anyway, not just a random mugger walking up and taking the gun away.

The author's statement regarding surprise is certainly valid: "[Surprise] is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one." Action is always faster than reaction! However, whether your gun is open or concealed, you still have to draw it. You're still "reacting" to the threat. And, no brag, just stating fact, I (and the guys I train with) can draw my firearm from concealment and get a good hit faster than the average "gun-toter" can do the same from an open holster. So if you're reacting to a threat, it honestly won't matter much if you've properly trained. The key is to get ahead of the loop - be aware of what's happening before it happens. But that's another lesson for another day!

Now to point out some flaws in argumentation here. Please, don't take this as an attack on the author. It's not intended that way. Nor is it an argument against open carry. I'm just trying to point out a few things to consider!

The author cites the studies that demonstrate the reluctance of criminals to attack an armed person. He is right, except that he failed to include a key word in his statement, which I will include in my restatement: ...every study says that [MOST] criminals will avoid an armed person..." Take out the word "most", and it's a blanket statement! Remember Murphy? Whatever can go wrong, will! Don't count on "most" criminals being the one to attack you. You'd better be prepared for the guy who has nothing to lose, and who fears nothing but failure. He won't stop because your gun is visible.

Now, the biggest issue I have with this article is the statement, "My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself." He's assuming an awful lot here! He makes the statement that his teeth are hidden. Well, the tiger's teeth are hidden when his mouth is closed. And his claws are retracted until he needs them. But are you going to attack the tiger? How do you know he's not a tiger who's been declawed and had all his teeth pulled? I'm sure not going to make that assumption! No, you're not going to mess with the tiger because one look tells you he's a weapon. I do not need a gun visible on my side to deter the predator. I'm not a victim, but my gun doesn't have to be displayed to advertise that fact.

The problem with this article is the assumption that a gun is the deterrent to crime. A firearm is certainly a good deterrent, and a visible gun may serve that purpose. However, that is not the only tool of self-protection that should be in your toolbox. Anyone who trains with me knows that I don't depend on tools. Sure, I carry them, and train to use them. But we must also plan for the worst: we may not have time nor opportunity to access a tool immediately. Be ready. Don't become tool dependent; be the weapon.

Train hard!

**Stephen Cue** · 10-25-2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by thesensei

Let me preface my response by saying that I am personally pro-open carry, and will exercise that right. To me, the fact of the Second Amendment of the Constitution trumps all arguments against the legality of open carry - and not only for hunting or sporting, but for the true intent of the 2A, that is, self-protection. Therefore, open carry should be legal. However, that does not mean that everyone should practice it. In my opinion, if you are going to open carry, you need to be able to articulate WHY! That is the strength of the above article - the author has done a good job articulating his position.

With that in mind, I'm going to point out a few areas of agreement with the article, and then I'll state what I feel to be the glaring error in his argument (I have several minor disagreements, but I'll only point out one or two of the most egregious).

The author made the point that no one wins in a gunfight. True statement. I carry in order to stay out of a gunfight, not because I want to get in one!

He did a good job of dispelling the myths regarding open carry. The argument of "you'll be the first to be shot" is one I've heard repeatedly. Bottom line, show me the evidence! It just isn't there from a civilian standpoint. Sure, there are a few events here and there, but they're hard to find, and I can give you just as many accounts of the presence of a visible gun deterring the crime - and I'm sure it happens much more often than we know!

The argument that the gun will get stolen goes into the same category as that above. It just doesn't happen! If it does, it's typically in the course of a fight anyway, not just a random mugger walking up and taking the gun away.

The author's statement regarding surprise is certainly valid: "[Surprise] is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one." Action is always faster than reaction! However, whether your gun is open or concealed, you still have to draw it. You're still "reacting" to the threat. And, no brag, just stating fact, I (and the guys I train with) can draw my firearm from concealment and get a good hit faster than the average "gun-toter" can do the same from an open holster. So if you're reacting to a threat, it honestly won't matter much if you've properly trained. The key is to get ahead of the loop - be aware of what's happening before it happens. But that's another lesson for another day!

Now to point out some flaws in argumentation here. Please, don't take this as an attack on the author. It's not intended that way. Nor is it an argument against open carry. I'm just trying to point out a few things to consider!

The author cites the studies that demonstrate the reluctance of criminals to attack an armed person. He is right, except that he failed to include a key word in his statement, which I will include in my restatement: ...every study says that [MOST] criminals will avoid an armed person..." Take out the word "most", and it's a blanket statement! Remember Murphy? Whatever can go wrong, will! Don't count on "most" criminals being the one to attack you. You'd better be prepared for the guy who has nothing to lose, and who fears nothing but failure. He won't stop because your gun is visible.

Now, the biggest issue I have with this article is the statement, "My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself." He's assuming an awful lot here! He makes the statement that his teeth are hidden. Well, the tiger's teeth are hidden when his mouth is closed. And his claws are retracted until he needs them. But are you going to attack the tiger? How do you know he's not a tiger who's been declawed and had all his teeth pulled? I'm sure not going to make that assumption! No, you're not going to mess with the tiger because one look tells you he's a weapon. I do not need a gun visible on my side to deter the predator. I'm not a victim, but my gun doesn't have to be displayed to advertise that fact.

The problem with this article is the assumption that a gun is the deterrent to crime. A firearm is certainly a good deterrent, and a visible gun may serve that purpose. However, that is not the only tool of self-protection that should be in your toolbox. Anyone who trains with me knows that I don't depend on tools. Sure, I carry them, and train to use them. But we must also plan for the worst: we may not have time nor opportunity to access a tool immediately. Be ready. Don't become tool dependent; be the weapon.

Train hard!

Good Post Sensei.

**ArGyLe64** · 10-25-2012, 10:33 AM

There should be no argument. Any person's choice to open carry is their own personal decision and it does not infringe on the right of any person on this forum. You either open carry or you don't. Those that argue you shouldn't open carry are just jerks who want to argue and think they're smarter than the other person. Who cares how I want to carry my gun? How I carry my gun is none of your business. I don't think differently of you because you carry one way or another. A lot of people on this forum need to grow a pair and grow up. I've been an officer for 6 years so I've opened carried several hundreds of times. There is no problem with. You either do it or you don't. Let it be.

**RedTape** · 10-25-2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by ArGyLe64

There should be no argument. Any person's choice to open carry is their own personal decision and it does not infringe on the right of any person on this forum. You either open carry or you don't. Those that argue you shouldn't open carry are just jerks who want to argue and think they're smarter than the other person. Who cares how I want to carry my gun? How I carry my gun is none of your business. I don't think differently of you because you carry one way or another. A lot of people on this forum need to grow a pair and grow up. I've been an officer for 6 years so I've opened carried several hundreds of times. There is no problem with. You either do it or you don't. Let it be.

There is no argument. I'm glad open carry passed because I think is constitutionally covered by the Second Amendment. However, as far as I know we can discuss tactics and different points of view on this forum. Some people want to post why they feel open carry is a good idea, and there is no reason why the other point of view can't be posted as well. I think if people, especially those new to carry, can see the pros and cons of both methods they can make an informed decision on how they want to carry.

You're an officer. I'll go out on a limb and say you use a retention holster? That you had gun retention training in your academy? Your training and experience is far more than what the average person has. I still find the vast majority of officers I've talked to will choose not to open carry...and this recent discussion on Coptalk seems to back that up on a wider scale.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1447965

There are people out there who care about how others carry, just like they care about how they train. Why? Because they don't want to see the good guys get hurt! Those people might advocate quality firearms training and they might want to make sure people are aware of possible dangers associated with open carry, especially if they have no weapons retention training.

Instead of getting your feathers ruffled and calling people jerks, why not share some of your training and experiences so we can all learn? Or if you really don't care, no one's forcing you to be a part of this discussion.

okiebryan- I did end up reading it a second time

The author makes some good points and things might play out the way he imagines, or they might not. I think it's a cost vs. rewards, and open carry cost more than it gives. It might deter a criminal, or it might make you a target. It certainly requires you to give up the element of surprise.

**Norman** · 10-26-2012, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by RedTape

There is no argument. I'm glad open carry passed because I think is constitutionally covered by the Second Amendment. However, as far as I know we can discuss tactics and different points of view on this forum. Some people want to post why they feel open carry is a good idea, and there is no reason why the other point of view can't be posted as well. I think if people, especially those new to carry, can see the pros and cons of both methods they can make an informed decision on how they want to carry.

You're an officer. I'll go out on a limb and say you use a retention holster? That you had gun retention training in your academy? Your training and experience is far more than what the average person has. I still find the vast majority of officers I've talked to will choose not to open carry...and this recent discussion on Coptalk seems to back that up on a wider scale.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1447965

There are people out there who care about how others carry, just like they care about how they train. Why? Because they don't want to see the good guys get hurt! Those people might advocate quality firearms training and they might want to make sure people are aware of possible dangers associated with open carry, especially if they have no weapons retention training.

Instead of getting your feathers ruffled and calling people jerks, why not share some of your training and experiences so we can all learn? Or if you really don't care, no one's forcing you to be a part of this discussion.

okiebryan- I did end up reading it a second time

The author makes some good points and things might play out the way he imagines, or they might not. I think it's a cost vs. rewards, and open carry cost more than it gives. It might deter a criminal, or it might make you a target. It certainly requires you to give up the element of surprise.

This pretty much sums up my feelings. I've grown tired of posts stating the arguments for open carry, glorifying the benefits of OC while downplaying the negatives. These arguments are usually based on dispelling 'myths'n which is done usually entirely with the author's opinion and bias with little to know evidence or data to back it up. Everyone that I have trained with is opposed to OC, not from a legal standpoint, but from a 'tactical' standpoint. Can anyone here list a respected, vetted, well known trainer who promotes OC when CC is an option? I know several, to include Pincus, Yeager and Tom Givins who state it is foolish. They have articulate reasons for their views. While I haven't gotten to speak to the arrestees, I whole heartedly believe this is the reason Major Waldenville got shot without warning while escorting the money by Cattleman's. Did OC deter that assault?

With the idea of 'showing my teeth', that is something creatures from the animal kingdom do when they are not committed to a fight. Fight, flight, posture or submit. My firearm is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I am the weapon. I am not looking for a fight. I have never started a physical altercation in my life. With that said, the only way to combat bad violence is with good violence. This means being controlled, reasonable and articulable, as well as stopping when there is no longer a threat. If this means my firearm then so be it. If it is a weapon of opportunity such as a knife, rock, baton or stick, keys, hands, belt etc then so be it. Most criminals pick out the weak. This means walking around haunched over, eyes on the ground not paying attention. I eyeball everyone, stand up pretty straight and stay aware of my surroundings. The minority of criminals that don't care, well that's when combative problem solving comes into play. Tom Givens said if you can get 2 'WTF's' out of them you've won the fight. That can mean WTF when you step out off line out of his tunnel vision, and WTF when you draw your concealed weapon. Fyi, I infact do have a pair. Honest to goodness. I'm also as grown up as I'm going to get. The fact that I believe OC is benificial in a narrow set of circumstances, and will continue to post so on this or any other forum doesn't negate that.

**Cowboy2000** · 10-26-2012, 10:02 AM

This is a very interesting topic. I have listened and read arguments on both sides of this issue. Personally, I will not use weapons in any manner I am not 100% comfortable with. For example: I don't feel comfortable with carrying in condition 0 in an open carry manner, thus I don't do it. The last I want to do is handle a weapon in any manner that I am not 100% comfortable and/or confident with. I plan on carrying concealed even though OC will be legal next week. The one advantage of the new OC law is if I happen to reach for an item in the store and my gun is in open view for a moment or two, at least I won't be breaking a law. Although I have resolved this issue within me for the time being, I find valid arguments for and against OC all over the internet. Simply put, it all comes down to a matter of personal choice and responsibility.

**okiebryan** · 10-26-2012, 11:42 AM

The information was provided for individual gun owners to read, consider if they wish, and to make up their own mind. I agree that there are many reasons to conceal, and there are reasons to open carry. However you decide is the best way to carry is what you should do. Nobody should carry in a manner in which they are not comfortable. OC, CC, No C...

I thought it was the most compelling case for OC that I had ever seen.

**CHenry** · 10-26-2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by okiebryan

I thought it was the most compelling case for OC that I had ever seen.

Indeed it is

**David2012** · 10-26-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Norman

While I haven't gotten to speak to the arrestees, I whole heartedly believe this is the reason Major Waldenville got shot without warning while escorting the money by Cattleman's. Did OC deter that assault?

You shouldn't use Waldenville's shooting as a negative against OC. I know John. He had walked that deposit to the bank many many times over the years that he had worked for Cattleman's. He had a established routine that anyone could pick-up on. It was obvious he was carrying a large amount of money. He was specifically targeted & ambushed just for the money... and the shooters came prepared to shoot him grave yard dead and take that money whether his weapon was exposed or not. The shooters knew he wouldn't have let them get away without trying to stop them and had planned in advance to shoot him. If his weapon had been concealed, it would have just added precious time to his ability to draw and fire. Sadly, in his case, oc or cc didn't matter.

Now, in the case of George Zimmerman down in Florida. I believe that if he had been open carrying that fateful night, Treyvon Martin would still be alive today and Zimmerman wouldn't be in the legal mess he is in today. Even a dumb a-hole teenage gangsta is smart enough not to try a fist fight [or even a knife fight] against a adult that he can see is well armed with a handgun.