Visible gun used on permit holder [Archive]

Shellback

01-08-2012, 11:52 AM

From the article:

"Tyler, 48, had a concealed-carry permit, but his handgun was plainly visible that night in his holster, Johnson said.
Johnson is the Richmond Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Andy Johnson. He doesn't state how he knows the gun was plainly visible, he wasn't there, and the article doesn't mention open carry. Video perhaps?

People should read and comment about these news articles in the same way they do the ones involving police. You weren't there, the media is ignorant about things gun related and has an anti-gun agenda. Quit MMQB'ing and assuming that the report is correct without concrete facts.

jmjames

01-08-2012, 12:04 PM

Johnson is the Richmond Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Andy Johnson. He doesn't state how he knows the gun was plainly visible, he wasn't there, and the article doesn't mention open carry. Video perhaps?

That's what I was getting at. Was he OWB'ing with a shirt that was just a touch too short? Did the wind blow his cover garment out of the way? Did he tie his shoes and show a bit? Was he IWB'ing but printing? Was he OC'ing? Did he put on a well-concealed holster while in plain sight in the parking lot? Did Tyler say the holster was "visible" or did someone else? Etc. etc. etc.

Also... the logic of the bad guys seems to be this (judging from the article):

Perp 1: Hey look, that guy has a gun.
Perp 2: I know, let's take it from him.
Perp 1: Great idea! We can go on a killing spree with it and no one will know it was us since it was his gun we did it with!

I really feel like a few pieces of the puzzle are missing in this report, like we'll find out in a week that the perps knew Tyler, knew he was carrying, and ambushed him to take his gun, or he was showing it off to them for some reason and they snatched it out of his hands, or some other similar situation.

J.Ja

agent-smith

01-08-2012, 12:12 PM

From the article:

People should read and comment about these news articles in the same way they do the ones involving police. You weren't there, the media is ignorant about things gun related and has an anti-gun agenda. Quit MMQB'ing and assuming that the report is correct without concrete facts.
Agreed, but I still think there are much better ways of making a "political statement" than open carrying.

(Edited for spelling)

Shellback

01-08-2012, 12:19 PM

Agreed, but I still think there are much better ways of making a "political statement" then open carrying.

Absolutely and I won't contest that. However, the article doesn't state that he was open carrying or trying to make a political statement. I'm not trying to be obstinate but the simple fact is if it fits in with the current popular "group think" and people are opposed to it then you can expect to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth! My point was we should treat articles and reports of this nature consistently and have a more critical approach to the information contained within.

agent-smith

01-08-2012, 02:06 PM

stainless1911

01-09-2012, 12:44 PM

The guy wasn't open carry when he was shot. He was attacking a man with a gun. You cant attack a man with a gun and expect anything less than to get shot, doesn't matter if it's your gun or not.

That said. People in over 40 states open carry every day, thousands of them. They have been carrying that way for decades. That translated to hundreds of thousands of man hours of open carry (OC) , and only one time now, has an OCer been "targeted" for OC. The attacker in question here is a kid. Kids are impulsive, he very likely didn't think this through, if he did, he wouldnt have attacked an armed man, risking jail or death, or thinking he was simply invincible. The gun owner was at fault here for several reasons. If you are going to open carry, you must carry in a retention holster of some sort. As a gun carrier, open or concealed, you must practice situational awareness, even more so when openly carrying. And finally, he chased after the kid, who had a gun now, who was no longer a threat to him, and got himself shot.

I feel bad for him, but this wasn't because of OC, this was because he, and his assailant were both not thinking.

LittleLebowski

01-09-2012, 03:08 PM

Where do you get your statistics on "thousands of people open carrying everyday," stainless1911?

stainless1911

01-09-2012, 03:14 PM

Go to open carry dot org, look at the states forums. You dont need an accountant to figure this out. You get even 50 people carrying every day in 40 states, (I think 46 are OC legal), and you get 2000 people openly carrying across the country on a daily basis.

LittleLebowski

01-09-2012, 03:17 PM

HCM

01-09-2012, 03:57 PM

That's what I was getting at. Was he OWB'ing with a shirt that was just a touch too short? Did the wind blow his cover garment out of the way? Did he tie his shoes and show a bit? Was he IWB'ing but printing? Was he OC'ing? Did he put on a well-concealed holster while in plain sight in the parking lot? Did Tyler say the holster was "visible" or did someone else? Etc. etc. etc.

Also... the logic of the bad guys seems to be this (judging from the article):

Perp 1: Hey look, that guy has a gun.
Perp 2: I know, let's take it from him.
Perp 1: Great idea! We can go on a killing spree with it and no one will know it was us since it was his gun we did it with!

I really feel like a few pieces of the puzzle are missing in this report, like we'll find out in a week that the perps knew Tyler, knew he was carrying, and ambushed him to take his gun, or he was showing it off to them for some reason and they snatched it out of his hands, or some other similar situation.

J.Ja

I concur that a few pieces of the puzzle are missing in this report, however, your bad guys are Predators and Predators are always on the look out for targets of opportunity.

jmjames

01-09-2012, 05:26 PM

I concur that a few pieces of the puzzle are missing in this report, however, your bad guys are Predators and Predators are always on the look out for targets of opportunity.

That's actually something else that kind of makes me think something is screwy with the whole situation. A holster snatch isn't a "target of opportunity". Maybe if you could brace the guy in an alley, have one perp grab him or sap him from the rear then it would be. But an unplanned, spur of the moment snatch in the middle of a parking lot? And the two had enough criminal experience to have known that they could easily get something like a Hi Point for $100 and no background check without too much effort. I have never met a criminal who wanted a firearm and didn't have one, regardless of their age or financial state.

J.Ja

HCM

01-09-2012, 05:53 PM

I have never met a criminal who wanted a firearm and didn't have one, regardless of their age or financial state.

J.Ja

I agree about criminals and guns but think like a criminal. Why buy one when you could steal it ?

If the news report is accurate, the snatch occured inside the store, not in the parking lot
"According to court papers, Smith and Hamiel arrived at the BP together on a single scooter and followed Tyler into the store."

Teenagers, especially teenage criminals are not renowned for thinking about the consequences of their actions. hence mugging someone in a public place on video.

Again, i agree there are pieces missing in this story.

Long tom coffin

01-09-2012, 05:57 PM

Yup. Sad commentary on open carry.

Yup. When this first happened it received quite a bit of attention on my local MO ccw board, which unfortunately has a very large contingent of very vocal and belligerent open carriers. The logical leaps they were making in response to this particular happenstance were nothing short of mind boggling and horrifying.

EDIT: I correct myself. Stainless 1911's response typifies the stuff I was alluding to on the other board. Sad, really.

And stainless, there are multiple instances of Open Carriers being targeted for their weapons. I can think of at least 7 instances as reported in the news just off the top of my head, and that's only the ones I know about.

Long tom coffin

01-09-2012, 06:06 PM

Absolutely and I won't contest that. However, the article doesn't state that he was open carrying or trying to make a political statement. I'm not trying to be obstinate but the simple fact is if it fits in with the current popular "group think" and people are opposed to it then you can expect to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth! My point was we should treat articles and reports of this nature consistently and have a more critical approach to the information contained within.

Wtf are you talking about?

From the article:

Tyler, 48, had a concealed-carry permit, but his handgun was plainly visible that night in his holster, Johnson said.

I'm making a logical assumption here, but if something is plainly visible, then it is obviously not concealed, which in turn means it was carried openly.

How about that critical approach start with an actual critical reading first?

Tamara

01-09-2012, 07:07 PM

I'm making a logical assumption here, but if something is plainly visible, then it is obviously not concealed, which in turn means it was carried openly.

How about that critical approach start with an actual critical reading first?

Here's a critical thought for you: Google "Gell-Mann Amnesia".

The same media that we mock regularly about "automatic assault weapons" and "shoulder things that go up" is all of a sudden accurate down to every jot and tittle when it proves a point we want to agree with? See also: "confirmation bias".

And stainless, there are multiple instances of Open Carriers being targeted for their weapons. I can think of at least 7 instances as reported in the news just off the top of my head, and that's only the ones I know about.

(citation needed)

Long tom coffin

01-09-2012, 09:12 PM

Here's a critical thought for you: Google "Gell-Mann Amnesia".

The same media that we mock regularly about "automatic assault weapons" and "shoulder things that go up" is all of a sudden accurate down to every jot and tittle when it proves a point we want to agree with? See also: "confirmation bias".

:rolleyes: Oh please. I've worked in media and have several associates who still do, including my wife. Not everyone is the witless misreporter you are portraying them to be, and there are still plenty of talented individuals out there who get their facts straight. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason to contradict what is reported based of nothing other than your own opinion. The statement above is nothing other than a horse laugh and guilt by association fallacy.

(citation needed)

Yes, because I really have all the sites bookmarked just so I can tote them out when I'm having a debate on some internet forum. For real?

Here's a critical thought for you: Google.

ToddG

01-09-2012, 09:17 PM

Tamara

01-09-2012, 10:23 PM

Yes, because I really have all the sites bookmarked just so I can tote them out when I'm having a debate on some internet forum. For real?

You're right, that was probably excessively snarky on my part, and I apologize, but in all seriousness, I follow gun stories on fora and blogs pretty closely and have for many years, and my email in-box overflows with stuff every time there's an unusual story, so I'm kind of surprised I hadn't heard about these. Can you remember anything like "That guy who had his gun grabbed in the grocery store parking lot in Denver" or suchlike? Like Erik mentioned above, the more generic keywords are something of a dry well. :o

TCinVA

01-09-2012, 10:26 PM

(citation needed)

A few years ago an NYPD trainee got his head bashed in by a dude with a baseball bat on the subway because according to Babe Ruth he wanted to steal the gun. The officer survived, but barely.

Long tom coffin

01-10-2012, 01:24 AM

You're right, that was probably excessively snarky on my part, and I apologize, but in all seriousness, I follow gun stories on fora and blogs pretty closely and have for many years, and my email in-box overflows with stuff every time there's an unusual story, so I'm kind of surprised I hadn't heard about these. Can you remember anything like "That guy who had his gun grabbed in the grocery store parking lot in Denver" or suchlike? Like Erik mentioned above, the more generic keywords are something of a dry well. :o

Apology accepted, and mine as well. I tend to get ignorant when I feel "snarked".

Honestly, using generic search terms probably won't help much. Something more specific is required. For example, I put Open carry+target+robbed into google and got the following:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

Interesting article. I found this quote to be particularly amusing: "The president of Wisconsin Carry, Nik Clark, says 100's of thousands of people open carry and he's never heard of anything like this.". Given Tam's previous statement about this trustworthiness of the media, I'm debating whether or not that makes the reporter or Nik Clark look like the bigger idiot. Hundreds of thousands of people don't open carry.

That was also one of the aforementioned stories I was referencing. Some of the stuff I know from people who I hang with who are in law enforcement (my range is a big LEO hangout), and some stuff I've seen online. For example, several years ago a cop got shot with his own weapon (grabbed out of his holster, no retention from my understanding) at a Mobil station on Grand in north city (the baaaad part of town). That was on KSDK's website for a while, but I don't know if it is still there. There was a story I read out of NC in the early part of last month where a guy was robbed of his gun while he was open carrying. Two guys approached, drew, and had him set his own on the ground and step away from it, and so on.

I don't think OC should be made illegal or anything, but I do think it to be a significantly inferior option to concealment, and frankly, I think it's just dangerous and ill-thought out.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:39 AM

That seems almost funny to those who actually have experience doing it.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:43 AM

Why the stiff opposition and obvious bias against open carry?

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:46 AM

Directed at no one in particular: Play nice. Debate is all well and good. Personal pot shots and rude comments are unnecessary, unwanted, and untolerated (it's a word now, deal with it).

And for what is hopefully the last time, discussion of the political implications involved with open carry are not appropriate for the Mindset & Tactics area of our forum. Please restrict all political discussions of any nature to the Romper Room.

Open carriers are the tip of the spear of gun rights. Im not understanding why the conversation was moved, it is a political as well as a tactical issue. It is also political and tactical advantage.

JDM

01-10-2012, 08:34 AM

Open carriers are the tip of the spear of gun rights. Im not understanding why the conversation was moved, it is a political as well as a tactical issue. It is also political and tactical advantage.

No, they aren't, the NRA is. Open carry advocates are delusional, annoying, and often times damaging to gun rights (see CA open carry).

The conversation was moved because it's nonsense. Nonsense belongs in the romper room.

This isn't your run of the mill 'people with no experience speculating on matters way out of their lane' gun forum. Nearly all the regular posters here know very much what they are talking about, and can back it up. Cluttering forums used for the information they have with this kind of thing is not what we at PFC are here to do.

It is not a tactical advantage. I think it may have some ability to deter low level stop and robbers, but that's the end of that. The real bad people that do real bad things don't give a s*** about your open carried P95. The real tactical advantage is knowing how to shoot the gun you're carrying very, very well. Everyone I have ever met that I would consider a very good shooter does not carry their guns openly unless in uniform. That rhymes with Hue.

A political advantage? what documented, palpable, political victories can the open carry movement lay claim to?

Savage Hands

01-10-2012, 09:16 AM

No, they aren't, the NRA is. Open carry advocates are delusional, annoying, and often times damaging to gun rights (see CA open carry).

What's funny is that The Calguns Foundation asked the U(Unloaded)OC groups to stay out of the spotlight since there was litigation pending that would help Californians restore gun rights and the UOC groups did not want to listen and in turned have UOC'ing a handgun banned. This is helping with http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto as they claimed;
"Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed
weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are
still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person,
load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur
in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially
burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and keep arms. Therefore, rational
basis review applies."

Since UOC is not an option, they will be forced into issuing CCW's like Sacramento County is.

joshs

01-10-2012, 10:22 AM

Since UOC is not an option, they will be forced into issuing CCW's like Sacramento County is.

I think "forced into issuing CCWs" may be somewhat overly optimistic. Why would a court that had no problem finding that unloaded open carry is a viable means of self-defense, issue what would be the most pro-gun ruling we have ever received? Even without UOC there are a number of other ways that the court could dispose of a challenge to California's may issue system without ordering the issue of CCWs. For example, in Williams v. Maryland, the Maryland Supreme Court found that Maryland's may issue system was not unconstitutional because the right did not extend to carrying weapons outside the home. SCOTUS denied certiorari in this case last October. Hopefully, the cert. denial had more to do with procedural problems in the case (Williams had not even attempted to acquire a permit), but at this point it is not clear that SCOTUS wants to recognize that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home.

Long tom coffin

01-10-2012, 10:32 AM

No, they aren't, the NRA is. Open carry advocates are delusional, annoying, and often times damaging to gun rights (see CA open carry).

*snip*

A political advantage? what documented, palpable, political victories can the open carry movement lay claim to?

Maplewood Votes to Ban Open Carry (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_e7382e44-55cc-11e0-bde0-0017a4a78c22.html)

In answer to your question. This is also just the tip of the iceberg as far as this story is concerned. The individual who had started that fiasco already had a bit of local notoriety from an incident with the police a few years ago.

And as a result of this, yes, open carry was banned in Maplewood, along with several other adjacent STL county municipalities.

HCM

01-10-2012, 10:46 AM

Open carriers are the tip of the spear of gun rights. Im not understanding why the conversation was moved, it is a political as well as a tactical issue. It is also political and tactical advantage.

Politics aside, what tactical advantage do you see in Open Carry ?

I have 20 years experience with "open carry" (in uniform) and I believe BOM's observation that "The real bad people that do real bad things don't give a s*** about your open carried P95" is spot on.

vcdgrips

01-10-2012, 10:53 AM

Dear 1911 Stainless

This post excerpt by TPD 223 is spot on re open carry and poses a question to you and your ilk-

"As a uniformed copper I have to OC at work on a daily basis. I also have to wear a heavy duty gun belt and holster system (and armor) because my gun is up for grabs at any given point in time. Contrary to the "awareness and never let anybody get that close" folks it is impossible to deal with the public, or even go outside of your house in an urban setting, without letting someone close enough for a gun grab.

I'm a "National" trainer for Mr. Lindell's NLETC out of KCMO so I have a long history of training ref weapon retention, some idea of how many coppers have been killed with their own weapon, and how tough it is to fight off a serious gun grab. I don't need that shit off-duty as well.

IIRC it was Ayoob who pointed out that on the NYPD it was almost 50% of the gun grabs/gun grab attempts were to plainclothes cops.

I note that none of the most tactically proficient guys I know, real-deal no bullshit spec ops guys, war heros, world class firearms trainers, actual gunfighters, and big city veteran career coppers, none, carry OC by choice, ever."

Stainless 1911, Why is it that all the BTDT (Been There Done That) guys think Open Carry by choice is a really bad idea??

Savage Hands

01-10-2012, 11:30 AM

I think "forced into issuing CCWs" may be somewhat overly optimistic. Why would a court that had no problem finding that unloaded open carry is a viable means of self-defense, issue what would be the most pro-gun ruling we have ever received? Even without UOC there are a number of other ways that the court could dispose of a challenge to California's may issue system without ordering the issue of CCWs. For example, in Williams v. Maryland, the Maryland Supreme Court found that Maryland's may issue system was not unconstitutional because the right did not extend to carrying weapons outside the home. SCOTUS denied certiorari in this case last October. Hopefully, the cert. denial had more to do with procedural problems in the case (Williams had not even attempted to acquire a permit), but at this point it is not clear that SCOTUS wants to recognize that the Second Amendment includes the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home.

Very true, but I have faith in The Calguns Foundation and everyone else involved that they know what they're doing and are much smarter than myself explaining and/or achieving said goal. Just a heads up for those who have not kept score, there's been about a dozen counties here that have went from practically no issue to issuing thanks to them in the past year and a half. They are going from county to county starting with the easier ones first. Sacramento County was a pretty big win for them and are now practically shall issue, before the lawsuit you had to "know someone" or donate to the Sheriff.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 12:11 PM

No, they aren't, the NRA is. Open carry advocates are delusional, annoying, and often times damaging to gun rights (see CA open carry).

The conversation was moved because it's nonsense. Nonsense belongs in the romper room.

This isn't your run of the mill 'people with no experience speculating on matters way out of their lane' gun forum. Nearly all the regular posters here know very much what they are talking about, and can back it up. Cluttering forums used for the information they have with this kind of thing is not what we at PFC are here to do.

It is not a tactical advantage. I think it may have some ability to deter low level stop and robbers, but that's the end of that. The real bad people that do real bad things don't give a s*** about your open carried P95. The real tactical advantage is knowing how to shoot the gun you're carrying very, very well. Everyone I have ever met that I would consider a very good shooter does not carry their guns openly unless in uniform. That rhymes with Hue.

A political advantage? what documented, palpable, political victories can the open carry movement lay claim to?

The N egotiate your R ights A way? Baaahahahaha. With all do respect because of your staff member status, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

I support gun rights but... Only if they are exercised in a way that I see fit.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 12:33 PM

Comparing police OC to everyday people OC is naive. It's apples and oranges.

Do you have the same reaction to seeing a cop and seeing an OCer? Neither does anyone else.

The police are in contact with more criminals than the average person, so naturally the odds of a gun grab go up. The Police have to go to the criminal most of the time, that puts the criminal on the defensive. The criminal sees the OCer as someone not to mess with, and will go on to the next guy, (predatory instinct), some of you LEO will understand this. The Criminal is a predator, and will choose the weakest one out of the heard, not the strongest. The criminal has a strong disdain for the police, well established long before contact is made. The criminal has a lot more to lose from the police, therefore a lot more to gain by attempting to fight or flee.

insanebuddy720

01-10-2012, 12:47 PM

OC or CC we are all on the same team, pro 2A. Now implying that OCers are bad shooters, is just false and disrespectful. OCers are far more aware of the gun laws than your run of the mill CCW holder as we are challenged on it more often. We have to know the law. Now some LEO are also misinformed. Im not trying to persuade anyone into OC, im merely defending our status as the spearhead to 2A rights.

Molon Labe

ToddG

01-10-2012, 12:49 PM

I support gun rights but... Only if they are exercised in a way that I see fit.

That's absolutely your prerogative. But to folks who actually understand what the NRA does day in and day out and who actually understand politics rather than railing against them futilely, that argument won't get much traction. If not for the "negotiations" of the NRA, the Assault Weapon Ban would still be in effect. We'd all be limited to 10rd mags and neutered carbines. The most recent major 2A win at the Supreme Court came about because -- contrary to many of the NRA-haters' predictions and derision -- the NRA insisted on putting forward a competing and acceptable legal theory that actually codified our Second Amendment rights whereas others wanted to take the suicidal all-or-nothing approach that the Court rejected almost without comment.

The "I Open Carry to make a political statement" thing never sat well with me. If gay rights advocates took to the streets and started having sex in public to make a political statement, I don't think that would help their cause...

Finally, to answer your question about why the thread was moved: All political discussion will be removed to the Romper Room.

If you wish to begin a thread in an appropriate section about the practical shooting advantages of open carry as opposed to concealed carry, that is certainly permissible. If it devolves into a political debate again, it will get removed to Romper Room again.

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:11 PM

bdcheung

01-10-2012, 01:15 PM

How many criminals do you think you have "deterred" by open carrying?

I understand what you're getting at, but...

That's really not a fair question.

An acceptable answer doesn't exist since one could never prove, beyond some loose correlation, that crimes didn't happen let alone didn't happen because the intended victim was carrying openly.

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:16 PM

I understand what you're getting at, but...

That's really not a fair question.

An acceptable answer doesn't exist since one could never prove, beyond some loose correlation, that crimes didn't happen let alone didn't happen because the intended victim was carrying openly.

It was a silly question to an unprovable assertion of open carrying deterring criminal acts. Neither one can be proven which is exactly my point.

bdcheung

01-10-2012, 01:17 PM

It was a silly question to an unprovable assertion of open carrying deterring criminal acts. Neither one can be proven which is exactly my point.

We'll just have to agree to agree then.

:D

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:22 PM

That's absolutely your prerogative. But to folks who actually understand what the NRA does day in and day out and who actually understand politics rather than railing against them futilely, that argument won't get much traction. If not for the "negotiations" of the NRA, the Assault Weapon Ban would still be in effect. We'd all be limited to 10rd mags and neutered carbines. The most recent major 2A win at the Supreme Court came about because -- contrary to many of the NRA-haters' predictions and derision -- the NRA insisted on putting forward a competing and acceptable legal theory that actually codified our Second Amendment rights whereas others wanted to take the suicidal all-or-nothing approach that the Court rejected almost without comment.

The "I Open Carry to make a political statement" thing never sat well with me. If gay rights advocates took to the streets and started having sex in public to make a political statement, I don't think that would help their cause...

Finally, to answer your question about why the thread was moved: All political discussion will be removed to the Romper Room.

If you wish to begin a thread in an appropriate section about the practical shooting advantages of open carry as opposed to concealed carry, that is certainly permissible. If it devolves into a political debate again, it will get removed to Romper Room again.

Good enough, thank you for an honest explanation and not some elitist response. Why not just start a Political Discussions thread? Or an Open Carry thread? Many forums do.

I would prefer that the NRA would support all gun rights, not just some of them. There are politics at play that's inevitable, just the cost of doing business. One issue i have with the NRA is that they dont like to get involved until something reaches the appeals court level, and thus, they leave behind the grass roots feet on the pavement people who are actually the ones in contact with joe public daily doing all the work. Most gun rights battles never see appeals because a, they are either completed before they have to go to appeals, or b, they can't get the funding to go through appeals. The other issue many have with the NRA, is that they try to take credit for all the work done by the grass roots folks when there is a victory, and will often hand over to the anti gunners battles that were fought for in order to strike a deal.

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:29 PM

Why not just start a Political Discussions thread? Or an Open Carry thread?

We have (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2585-Open-Carry) an Open Carry thread. You are involved in it. We keep political discussion here in the Romper Room subforum. Everything is w

TCinVA

01-10-2012, 01:29 PM

Comparing police OC to everyday people OC is naive. It's apples and oranges.

Do you have the same reaction to seeing a cop and seeing an OCer? Neither does anyone else.

...so the bad guys who see an armed, trained police officer who is wearing body armor and a utility belt with a number of painful, lethal weapons on it as well as a radio that links to priority backup response literally a couple of minutes away and yet decides to assault that officer anyway is going to be more scared of some untrained average joe who doesn't have any of that going for him?

The Criminal is a predator, and will choose the weakest one out of the heard, not the strongest.

A lot of times, that's true...but there are a few facts of life that keep it from being all the time:

1. The "strongest" person in the heard isn't necessarily the one who has the gun.
2. The "heard" can consist of just you...then suddenly your openly displayed firearm isn't going to make the bad man go away.
3. Criminals do not always act in a rational manner according to how we think they should react to a situation.

The criminal has a strong disdain for the police, well established long before contact is made. The criminal has a lot more to lose from the police, therefore a lot more to gain by attempting to fight or flee.

I've been around people open carrying in Virginia on a number of occasions. I've watched their behavior. You know what I thought after a couple of minutes watching most of them?

"Free gun."

Someone important with the VCDL was carrying in a bank one time where he did business. When he stepped up to the teller the teller thanked him for warding off a robbery attempt. Apparently in the time he was standing in line looking at his receipts and deposit, an armed man came into the bank, saw him, noticed his openly carried 1911 and then ran away. If you think that's a great example rather than a cautionary tale, then it reflects a fundamentally different view of the world that I'll never agree with.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:32 PM

I know about the thread. What i was suggesting is an open carry subforum.

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:33 PM

Every time I see an open carrying individual, I see a guy with a bad holster, mediocre pistol, complete lack of situational awareness, lack of physical fitness, and something to prove. As in buying a book and piously reading it on a bench outside of the book store. As in making separate trips to get napkins, then sweetener, then ketchup at the fast food place with a smirk on his face. As in folks like this guy (http://www.azcentral.com/community/surprise/articles/2010/04/08/20100408el-mirage-walmart-gun-fired-abrk0408.html).

KeeFus

01-10-2012, 01:35 PM

...
I've been around people open carrying in Virginia on a number of occasions. I've watched their behavior. You know what I thought after a couple of minutes watching most of them?

"Free gun."

^^^THIS!^^^

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:41 PM

I know about the thread. What i was suggesting is an open carry subforum.

The majority of the people on this forum take shooting and training to shoot seriously and therefore we all pretty much either know each other or know someone else that knows you and so on. We have a like mindset on open carry and so far, there is no need for an open carry forum, particularly since two out of two open carry threads devolved into political bickering in rather short order. Perhaps someday, someone will articulate a tactical need for open carrying and carry on a discussion about open carry tactics but we have not seen it yet.

stainless1911

01-10-2012, 01:46 PM

...so the bad guys who see an armed, trained police officer who is wearing body armor and a utility belt with a number of painful, lethal weapons on it as well as a radio that links to priority backup response literally a couple of minutes away and yet decides to assault that officer anyway is going to be more scared of some untrained average joe who doesn't have any of that going for him?

No.

If a criminal decides he's going to rob someone today, he will pick the easiest (Perceived) target.

Let's say you and I are walking down the street, you are on one side of the road, I am on the other. The criminal is approaching, assessing his intended target. He looks at you, looks at me, sizes us up, and sees my gun. You are armed as well, concealed. Of course he chooses neither, because the street is covered. He might even ASSume that I am a cop. Many people do.

Situation avoided.

Now we are walking down the same street at different times. Me/ bad guy, then later, you/ bad guy. He sees me, and again keeps walking, unwilling to "die on that hill".

Then later, you go walking down the street. He still wants his crack, so he goes back down the street looking for someone to rob again. He sees you coming, sizes you up, and makes the gravest error ASSuming that you are unarmed. He starts walking towards you. You have situational awareness so you see this coming way before he has even picked you out. He reaches into his coat as soon as he gets within 10 feet of you, pulls a knife, and you draw, and drop 2 in the chest as you are trained to do. Good, one less bad guy, a clean, justifiable shoot caught on camera, no charges.

The difference here, in a perfect sterile hypothetical, is that you had to fire, and I never had to draw. In my opinion, it is better to avoid violence if at all possible.

LittleLebowski

01-10-2012, 01:50 PM

No.

If a criminal decides he's going to rob someone today, he will pick the easiest (Perceived) target.

Let's say you and I are walking down the street, you are on one side of the road, I am on the other. The criminal is approaching, assessing his intended target. He looks at you, looks at me, sizes us up, and sees my gun. You are armed as well, concealed. Of course he chooses neither, because the street is covered. He might even ASSume that I am a cop. Many people do.

Situation avoided.

Now we are walking down the same street at different times. Me/ bad guy, then later, you/ bad guy. He sees me, and again keeps walking, unwilling to "die on that hill".

Then later, you go walking down the street. He still wants his crack, so he goes back down the street looking for someone to rob again. He sees you coming, sizes you up, and makes the gravest error ASSuming that you are unarmed. He starts walking towards you. You have situational awareness so you see this coming way before he has even picked you out. He reaches into his coat as soon as he gets within 10 feet of you, pulls a knife, and you draw, and drop 2 in the chest as you are trained to do. Good, one less bad guy, a clean, justifiable shoot caught on camera, no charges.

The difference here, in a perfect sterile hypothetical, is that you had to fire, and I never had to draw. In my opinion, it is better to avoid violence if at all possible.

Except it's completely anecdotal and unprovable. We've discussed on this forum how many folks miss the fact that you are open carrying. I've open carried a few times in bad areas. Suspicious looking folks avoided being near me far more when I was concealed carrying with a German Shepherd or Belgian Malinois on leash with me.

Your post makes a lot of assumptions. Where did you get your training on situational awareness? Have you ever tried a Tueller Drill at 10'?

joshs

01-10-2012, 02:11 PM

Let's say you and I are walking down the street, you are on one side of the road, I am on the other. The criminal is approaching, assessing his intended target. He looks at you, looks at me, sizes us up, and sees my gun. You are armed as well, concealed. Of course he chooses neither, because the street is covered.

This assumes that no criminals discount rate is so high as to discount the increased risk of facing an opponent with a firearm so much so that the risk is outweighed by the value that the criminal will get out of the attack, which is likely higher given good evidence that criminals value firearms. Most of the population is risk averse and would likely respond the way you describe in your hypothetical. However, one segment of the population is noticeable risk preferred: young males. This also happens to be the same demographic that sees the highest rate of violent criminal activity. A risk preferred person may discount the risk an openly carried firearm poses because he thinks he is superman and cannot be harmed by normal means. While this may seem silly, risk preferred people engage in many types of activity that the rest of the population wouldn't dream of doing because of our much lower discount rates.

TCinVA

01-10-2012, 02:16 PM

Then later, you go walking down the street. He still wants his crack, so he goes back down the street looking for someone to rob again. He sees you coming, sizes you up, and makes the gravest error ASSuming that you are unarmed. He starts walking towards you. You have situational awareness so you see this coming way before he has even picked you out. He reaches into his coat as soon as he gets within 10 feet of you, pulls a knife, and you draw, and drop 2 in the chest as you are trained to do. Good, one less bad guy, a clean, justifiable shoot caught on camera, no charges.

The difference here, in a perfect sterile hypothetical, is that you had to fire, and I never had to draw. In my opinion, it is better to avoid violence if at all possible.

Someone attempted a strong armed robbery on me a little over a year ago. (I say "strong arm" because he didn't openly display a weapon, keeping his hand in his pocket) I didn't have to shoot him to convince him I was a bad target. I didn't even have to complete my draw. With a sufficient shift in my posture and a good verbal challenge he got the point and decided to go somewhere else as fast as he could run while I was establishing the master grip on my pistol. By rights I was the worst target there. He picked me because of where I was parked, oblivious to the other signs that should have made a thinking criminal understand I was a bad risk. So much for the rational consideration of crackheads serving as a useful deterrent.

The low order criminal who is going to piss himself and run if I say "boo" does not worry me. There are ways to convince that kind of guy to leave you alone that are more convenient than shooting him in the face. It's the ones who aren't deterred by the sight of a gun or by the human equivalent of a rattle-snake's rattle that are going to be the ones you have to shoot. It's far better to have that guy surprised at the gun you pulled from nowhere than to have him already aware that you've got a gun and not deterred by that fact because you aren't the kind of person he figures will be able to effectively use it.

...and while I'm at it, a little helpful advice:

We do know how to use google. Now I don't know what your training and background is, but I do know the training and background of lots of the people in this thread and what sort of experience underlies the training many of us have been through.

You're on a forum where people like SouthNarc and Tom Givens participate. If you don't know anything about SouthNarc, google. Learn. Tom Givens has had over sixty of his regular joe students involved in lethal force encounters with bad guys, and all of them are alive and not in prison. Now you're free to believe that we need to be "educated" about something we've all probably put far more thought and effort into than you can possibly comprehend, but it's not wise to verbalize it on the internet and think it won't be seen.

Mr_White

01-10-2012, 02:18 PM

Perhaps someday, someone will articulate a tactical need for open carrying and carry on a discussion about open carry tactics

That's a good idea. I am sure this has been covered elsewhere, but I'll post my thoughts and short experience on a legal need for open carry and the personal tactics associated with it.

Several years ago I had to go to Nevada, where I have no valid concealed carry permit, but open carry is legal.

I did the following:

Called the PD of the town where I would be, spoke to a supervisor, confirmed that they concurred with my reading of Nevada and local law, that open carry of a lawfully possessed pistol was in fact legal, and wrote down the date, time, and name of the person at the PD I spoke with, and put that info in my wallet.

While there, I shaved every day (normally I do not), wore collared shirts, and wore a black gun in a black IWB holster over a black shirt.

I smiled and spoke very politely, with a lot of 'please, thank you, sir, ma'am', to everyone I interacted with.

I paid truly exhausting attention to my environment and kept my gun side facing away from everyone that I could.

I was mistaken for a cop twice.

I really, really wanted to be concealed.

One thing that could have been a whole lot better was to get a retention holster. I did not have one.

-------

On another topic of this thread, I think the whole self-appointed 'tip of the spear of gun rights' thing is misplaced, or at least overblown.

Open carry influences the public perception of firearms and the carriage of them. Sometimes it is influenced positively. Sometimes it is influenced negatively. By most everyone's account, it doesn't influence it very much because most people don't even notice.

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the influence television, movies, news media, and the anti-self defense rights educational system have on the public perception of firearms, and it starts when people are children.

That part makes me highly pessimistic.

But, there are multiple spears and multiple tips involved in the fight for the right to self-defense, and the tools attendant to that right.

The NRA, and I would add, many state level gun rights organizations, including all the human and financial support their members give, are important on the political level.

And don't forget basic firearms training. I think that's the tip of a spear too. Every time I feel badly about the state of gun rights, I go work on a class and produce more people who know from personal experience that they are in fact capable of safely coexisting with, and safely operating, controlling, and firing a pistol, despite what the media may tell them or what they may have been taught in school. Doing so makes me very optimistic, because each of those people has then been inoculated in one of the strongest ways possible (the personal experience of learning to do) against the negative influence of the news media, hollywood, and the educational system.