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.
Read the essay
Read the essay
Good writeup thanks.
Excellent post -- I highly recommend that readers click thru to the Five Stages link for some in-depth self-defense considerations.
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?
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.
Look again. There was a link to the site where the 5 stages are discussed at length.
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.
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!
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.
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.Similar threads
