Open Carry = Target?

[ScottDLS]

It's easy to detect and lose a "tail". You run SDR's (surveillance detection routes). They teach this technique at "the Farm" (CIA clandestine training in Virginia) or you can learn it like I did by reading Tom Clancy and Brad Thor novels and watching the Jason Bourne movies.

Just like I learned to shoot by watching Spike Lee films. You know...hold gun sideways parallel to the ground and pull trigger as fast as possible. That and shoot a MAC10 in full auto with one hand. For this it helps to practice wrist curls with 10lb dumbbells.

There I fixed it for you. Otherwise it might sound like you were being disparaging.

Yes I don't want to disparage Spike....

[mojo84]

I would say open carry made this guy a target.

http://2ndamendmentfight.com/felony-cha ... y-citizen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We all have to remember, there are exceptions to everything and nothing is 100% one way or the other.

[The Wall]

I think of OC as a remedy to the accidental showing or printing problem when concealed carrying. Thinking about when and where to open carry is critical. I believe your risk increases if you open carry in highly populated areas like Malls for example. Common sense tells you that open carrying increases your risk of being a target. I'm thinking open carry in the country will be my slogan. Rural areas like farms, ranches, and desert areas. Activities like hunting, fishing, and camping. Less cops, criminals, and confusion.

[ShootDontTalk]

The title of the thread you started is "Open Carry = Target?" I was responding to that question.

The post you quoted used John Lott's statement/book title "More Guns Less Crime" then erroneously took Prof. Lott's work to unjustified ends. Lott's work proves two things; an armed society suffers less crime than an unarmed society and the more citizens carrying handguns concealed the lower the crime rate. Crime reduction comes from the uncertainty in a criminal's mind as to whether an intended victim or potential rescuers are armed. Open-carry does not further that end. As for the author of the question, yes I believe "more guns means less crime" but I don't believe for one second that more open-carry means less crime. There is certainly no evidence it does. Again, it is the combination of the knowledge that some citizens are armed and not knowing which ones that reduces crime.

As for looking out for a tail all I can say is most people don't pay attention and it isn't difficult to tail anyone other than the most experienced.

Chas.

You are correct. My "Title" was meant to draw attention away from the Whataburger thread where that question was being posed and was drawing the discussion somewhat off-topic. I expressed in that thread a curiosity about any real data. My apologies.

I'm not advocating open carry. My thought is that for me it simply does away with, once and for all, the issue of "printing" or accidental exposure of my concealed carry. I appreciate the freedom, but practically speaking "off the radar" works better for me.

I remain curious as to the existence of any studies, or evidence, that support the expression "more guns = less crime" when you restrict that expression as to mode of carry. I am beginning to understand how nearly impossible such a study would be.

[thetexan]

Open Carry doesn't make you a target in my opinion. I get that supposition from some of the same reports I believe Charles is mentioning and in my rationale it seems a reasonable assumption.

However open carry surely does equal attention. If I were about to rob a donut shop I would be looking around at the people in the store and if a gun was visible I would CERTAINLY take note. To what end I don't know. It might dissuade me from doing the robbery.

If there is any truth to the idea that it makes one a target I would think it would also be a deterrent to anyone to whom a deterrent means anything. There are some that wouldn't care and shoot you first then rob the place. There are others who won't take the chance knowing a armed person is present.

What is for certain is that your demeanor as you walk around with a gun will make a lot of difference in how you are perceived. If you seem and act professional, clean cut, dressed reasonably well, not shaggy, etc you will probably not cause any alarm. If you dress like you just got off a road crew, tatoos everywhere, unkempt, you will draw more scrutiny. Sorry if that offends anyone. You and I know you can't judge a book by its cover but the world doesn't know that rule, it seems. It would be nice if that kind of thing didn't matter but it does, like it or not, and it will have a bearing on how you are perceived.

tex

[ShootDontTalk]

I would say open carry made this guy a target.

http://2ndamendmentfight.com/felony-cha ... y-citizen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We all have to remember, there are exceptions to everything and nothing is 100% one way or the other.

With all due respect, I think that assumption requires quite a stretch. The "bat" man was known to be mentally ill. The attacker was 5'8" and armed with a bat. The man attacked was 6'1" and 360 lbs and carrying a gun openly. Some of the comments from respondents who live in that area say the news media did not report this event.

That is part of the problem with this discussion. In order to really know anything concrete, we have to know all the facts and then we have to get inside the attackers' mind and know what they were thinking. Your last sentence is appropriate in this case as well.

[mojo84]

Here's a case where the gun was exposed while getting out of the car and then the guy was attacked inside Walmart for carrying. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... or/2214432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the bat victim, even he thinks it was because he was open carrying. He said he won't do it in the future.
http://bearingarms.com/man-attacked-wal ... pen-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's another one. http://www.usacarry.com/open-carrier-ar ... r-scuffle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I think in some cases people will be targeted for their guns and others they won't. It comes down to situational awareness and being prepared. There is risk with Liberty.

[K.Mooneyham]

Here's a case where the gun was exposed while getting out of the car and then the guy was attacked inside Walmart for carrying. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... or/2214432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the bat victim, even he thinks it was because he was open carrying. He said he won't do it in the future.
http://bearingarms.com/man-attacked-wal ... pen-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's another one. http://www.usacarry.com/open-carrier-ar ... r-scuffle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I think in some cases people will be targeted for their guns and others they won't. It comes down to situational awareness and being prepared. There is risk with Liberty.

IMHO, the Tampa Bay incident does not fit into the category that comes to mind when someone makes a statement about being attacked while open carrying. I maintain that people are talking about a criminal of some sort attacking an open carrier either to obtain the firearm or to aid the commission of a crime such as armed robbery. The anti-2A dude exhibited insanity for jumping on the OC guy just for having the firearm. I think of that one like a "do-it-yourself SWATing".

[mojo84]

Here's a case where the gun was exposed while getting out of the car and then the guy was attacked inside Walmart for carrying. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... or/2214432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As far as the bat victim, even he thinks it was because he was open carrying. He said he won't do it in the future.
http://bearingarms.com/man-attacked-wal ... pen-carry/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's another one. http://www.usacarry.com/open-carrier-ar ... r-scuffle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I think in some cases people will be targeted for their guns and others they won't. It comes down to situational awareness and being prepared. There is risk with Liberty.

IMHO, the Tampa Bay incident does not fit into the category that comes to mind when someone makes a statement about being attacked while open carrying. I maintain that people are talking about a criminal of some sort attacking an open carrier either to obtain the firearm or to aid the commission of a crime such as armed robbery. The anti-2A dude exhibited insanity for jumping on the OC guy just for having the firearm. I think of that one like a "do-it-yourself SWATing".

Fair enough. However, I think we should consider all targeting if we want to discuss whether "open carry = Targeting" as the title suggests. It's just targeting for a different reason.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The title of the thread you started is "Open Carry = Target?" I was responding to that question.

The post you quoted used John Lott's statement/book title "More Guns Less Crime" then erroneously took Prof. Lott's work to unjustified ends. Lott's work proves two things; an armed society suffers less crime than an unarmed society and the more citizens carrying handguns concealed the lower the crime rate. Crime reduction comes from the uncertainty in a criminal's mind as to whether an intended victim or potential rescuers are armed. Open-carry does not further that end. As for the author of the question, yes I believe "more guns means less crime" but I don't believe for one second that more open-carry means less crime. There is certainly no evidence it does. Again, it is the combination of the knowledge that some citizens are armed and not knowing which ones that reduces crime.

As for looking out for a tail all I can say is most people don't pay attention and it isn't difficult to tail anyone other than the most experienced.

Chas.

. . . I remain curious as to the existence of any studies, or evidence, that support the expression "more guns = less crime" when you restrict that expression as to mode of carry. I am beginning to understand how nearly impossible such a study would be.

It's been a long time since I've read John Lott's books, but unless I'm mistaken, his research focused on both the estimated per capita gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws. I know he compared crime rates before and after a state enacted concealed-carry laws, as well as a state-to-state crime comparison also based upon concealed-carry laws. Open-carry in any state is so rare as to be statistically nonexistent, therefore it would be impossible to estimate it's impact on crime.

If the U.S. or any state was like Israel was 25 or 30 years ago when the majority of Israelis were openly carrying rifles and/or pistols, then open-carry would deter crime. But that would be a matter of numbers more than anything.


Chas.

[TXBO]

It's been a long time since I've read John Lott's books, but unless I'm mistaken, his research focused on both the estimated per capita gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws. I know he compared crime rates before and after a state enacted concealed-carry laws, as well as a state-to-state crime comparison also based upon concealed-carry laws. Open-carry in any state is so rare as to be statistically nonexistent, therefore it would be impossible to estimate it's impact on crime.
Chas.

I haven't read it in years either but I do remember three basic premises of his research that was very valuable at the time:
1) Shall Issue reduces crime.
2) Waiting periods do not reduce crime.
3) Length of training requirements have no effect on crime.

[canvasbck]

The title of the thread you started is "Open Carry = Target?" I was responding to that question.

The post you quoted used John Lott's statement/book title "More Guns Less Crime" then erroneously took Prof. Lott's work to unjustified ends. Lott's work proves two things; an armed society suffers less crime than an unarmed society and the more citizens carrying handguns concealed the lower the crime rate. Crime reduction comes from the uncertainty in a criminal's mind as to whether an intended victim or potential rescuers are armed. Open-carry does not further that end. As for the author of the question, yes I believe "more guns means less crime" but I don't believe for one second that more open-carry means less crime. There is certainly no evidence it does. Again, it is the combination of the knowledge that some citizens are armed and not knowing which ones that reduces crime.

As for looking out for a tail all I can say is most people don't pay attention and it isn't difficult to tail anyone other than the most experienced.

Chas.

. . . I remain curious as to the existence of any studies, or evidence, that support the expression "more guns = less crime" when you restrict that expression as to mode of carry. I am beginning to understand how nearly impossible such a study would be.

It's been a long time since I've read John Lott's books, but unless I'm mistaken, his research focused on both the estimated per capita gun ownership rates and concealed-carry laws. I know he compared crime rates before and after a state enacted concealed-carry laws, as well as a state-to-state crime comparison also based upon concealed-carry laws. Open-carry in any state is so rare as to be statistically nonexistent, therefore it would be impossible to estimate it's impact on crime.

If the U.S. or any state was like Israel was 25 or 30 years ago when the majority of Israelis were openly carrying rifles and/or pistols, then open-carry would deter crime. But that would be a matter of numbers more than anything.


Chas.

Using the data supplied by Lott, it is easy to conclude that law abiding citizens carrying firearms deters crime. It probably doesn't matter the manner in which the firearm is carried. The entire premise had nothing to do with concealed or open, his research used concealed carry because that was (and is) the predominant method by which citizens carry weapons.

As to the OP, it would be disingenuous for anyone to answer the title of your post with an absolute yes or no. Common sense dictates that a perpetrator bent on acquiring the weapon, or one who is intent on shooting up a particular location will target the open carrier. However, those types of perpetrators area very small percentage of would be criminals. The "normal" criminal is lazy, that's why they chose taking from others instead of earning something for themselves. The average criminal wants to take whatever he/she wants without effort or resistance. A mugger who has staked out an ATM will likely bypass the OC'er and wait for easier prey. There is absolutely no way to prove this because a crime that was thwarted because the perpetrator changed his/her mind will not be reported.

Debating the merits of OC versus CC is completely pointless and pits responsible, gun owning citizens against other responsible, gun owning citizens. (I do not count Grisham, Watkins, et al among the responsible citizens) As gun owners, we have plenty of anti's to fight with, no need to fight amongst ourselves.

Open carry CAN be a deterrent to crime, and open carry CAN cause you to be the target. I would venture to say that the passage of OC did nothing to help protect Texas citizens, nor did it do anything to put Texans at greater risk. It was still legislation that was worth pursuing because it expanded liberty and stopped the government from telling me exactly HOW I have to exercise my right. Laws against the open carry of handguns served no purpose other than to exact control over the citizenry.

[mr1337]

Open carry CAN be a deterrent to crime, and open carry CAN cause you to be the target. I would venture to say that the passage of OC did nothing to help protect Texas citizens, nor did it do anything to put Texans at greater risk. It was still legislation that was worth pursuing because it expanded liberty and stopped the government from telling me exactly HOW I have to exercise my right. Laws against the open carry of handguns served no purpose other than to exact control over the citizenry.

Well put.

I support it for the simple reason that it is our right to bear arms, why should the government dictate how we can bear them? Openly carrying a weapon has historically been the mark of a free man.

[Glockster]

Here's another one. http://www.usacarry.com/open-carrier-ar ... r-scuffle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Mr. Garcia (Victim) was also arrested as he took his firearm into a licensed liquor establishment which is a felony in New Mexico."

Not exactly a bright guy either. Aside from the attacker having a history of "mental issues" he was, I suppose, kinda, technically right about being a problem with a guy there.

[Glockster]

Open carry CAN be a deterrent to crime, and open carry CAN cause you to be the target. I would venture to say that the passage of OC did nothing to help protect Texas citizens, nor did it do anything to put Texans at greater risk. It was still legislation that was worth pursuing because it expanded liberty and stopped the government from telling me exactly HOW I have to exercise my right. Laws against the open carry of handguns served no purpose other than to exact control over the citizenry.

Well put.

I support it for the simple reason that it is our right to bear arms, why should the government dictate how we can bear them? Openly carrying a weapon has historically been the mark of a free man.

I am happy that it was passed if for no other reason than I like knowing that if I'm CC'ing and my gun gets accidentally exposed that it is one less thing to worry about. And that is also about not being told exactly HOW I can or cannot exercise my right.