Links to 80+ media reports during a five year period of specific instances of open carriers being victim of gun grabs, hold ups, ambushes, and failures to deter criminal acts. Collected from multiple sources by a nationally respected firearms and self-defense trainer. Presented in context with a couple dozen subject matter experts explaining their views on the wisdom and perils of open carry. Some folks would consider some or all of that presentation to be somewhere between informed opinion and âstipulated factâ.
You claim that is simply an âop/edâ which provides no factual basis from which you might reconsider your opinion that those hazards are an undemonstrated âmythâ. Your conclusion on the matter is what I characterized previously as âdisputed factâ â you are certainly entitled to end up there.
I would advise others to consider all the information available to them.
It is my opinion to only deal in facts not emotions and opinions? 80+ media reports of âgun grabsâ over FIVE years is shooting the OC first? Do you want to fact check yourself here? I believe you have already stepped off the cliff.
No. Trying to accept your words as best I can. It is your opinion that you do deal in facts, not emotions and opinions. I think the factual evidence suggests otherwise. But that may be just my opinion.
Sure.
Thread = âA reason not to open carryâ
80+ =
Are we done here?
You turned my statement into a question. I did not use a question mark at the end of my sentence. If you want to debate me, do not claim to quote a post, then debate what you changed it to. Eighty incidents in FIVE years in the USA is not proof, that would be an anomaly. Further, if you read those stories, I only read a few, they were not shot because they were open carrying, they just happened to be victims of crime that were open carry. I was done after stating what I did, until you twisted my comment into something it was not, a question. Feel free to believe what you may, do not try to twist it into something it is not.
Dave, you should maybe read what you post. You turned your statement (#40) into a question (#42).
I quoted both your statement and your question exactly as you posted them, and I responded to each.
I donât want to debate you. I want you to stop telling me that my opinion is counter-factual because it does not align with your opinion. This is getting kind of swamp troll-y bickering again.
Maybe do something Memorial with the rest of the weekend. Cheers.
Open carry trades the advantage of concealment/surprise for the advantage of deterrence (also comfort and ease of larger pistols, and more secure holsters that are too large to generally conceal)
It is up to the individual to decide which they value more.
There are two strings of logic here. First that open carrying gives away the element of surprise. The second is that someone could grab and take your weapon. If you extend these two lines of thought, âlogicâ then will tell you that police and military personnel should all carry concealed. I donât think that is going to work.
Private citizens carrying firearms for their own/familyâs protection are not law enforcement and cannot really be compared directly. The private citizen is living their life doing their thing, the law enforcement officer is enforcing the law.
The first level of force for law enforcement is Officer Presence. They are intended (when in uniform) to be identified as law enforcement, and law enforcement by definition in the United States is armed, and everybody knows it.
Military is even less applicable. For them, itâs either similar to the above with their presence as a level of force, or, they are targets for the enemy by mere presence, it doesnât matter if they have a gun or notâŠbeing identified as the enemy can result in being shot at, and itâs not like the soldiers are just going to pretend they are out for a stroll.
âPolice and militaryâ is the exception that does not apply to this thread.
They need a quick and easy (read: one handed) access to their firearms. Concealment is still quick, but not easy.
And thatâs the reason they use âretentionâ levels holster to avoid âlogicâ of the firearm to be taken from them.
I think you may have overshot my point. I just donât happen to think âlosing the element of surpriseâ and âgetting my firearm grabedâ are valid arguments against open carry.
I also have read many stories where the criminal did not notice the OC and it did not turn out well for the criminal then, either. Most criminals are not intelligent, otherwise they would not be in that line of work.
I actually value the argument âlosing the element of surpriseâ as the biggest no for open carry - IN MY CASE. My statement is not backed up by any of actual facts that I would be able to bring to the attention.
I have experience with both, although my open carry was in the wilderness riding a horse because you never know when youâll need to put a horse down (considered unlawful now unless youâre also carrying a fishing rodâthis is in CA, remember)
My reasons against open carry:
You can trigger unwanted responses escalating in a direction i wouldnât want to goâlike when running into a typically paranoid meth head.
Children who see you will fixate on your gun.
possible theft
It pins me as a target if something bad is going down
It relinquishes any element of surprise should I actually need to draw.
Unless you spring for a retention rig like the police should have. But those take a lot of practice to draw with. They make some pretty strong retention rigs. But I still wouldnt open carry.
If they use it properly. I saw an officer directing traffic with pedestrians walking right past him, the strap on his holster was unsnapped. OC on a city street might not be the best, but I have actually seen that, too. Nobody got near him, that saw him OC, that is.
One other issue is that not everyone has a CC license/permit or wants one. Some might not be able to obtain one. In Virginia, one can own a handgun and carry in public, but needs to be 21 years old to obtain a CC. Like CC, many people are oblivious to their surroundings. We, here, presumably, are more aware, so we would more likely notice.
