Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
My opinion on that scenario:
No one can volunteer me to defend them. No one has that power over me. That situation holds no value.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Concealed vs Open carry
- Thread starter chilipeppernorm
- Start date
My opinion on that scenario:
No one can volunteer me to defend them. No one has that power over me. That situation holds no value.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
telpinaro
New member
If the BG heard him, he might be the one to give you no choice and turn it in to a situation where you're required to defend yourself.
Like I said, unlikely scenario, but food for thought nonetheless. I didn't come up with it, I just thought it was interesting.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Good point, didn't think of that. After spending a little bit of time thinking about it, this is my conclusion.
If there is an escape, he can be yelling all he wants as I'm running out the back. Stupidity will be their demise.
If there is no escape, my firearm will be out, and in that unlikely scenario, I will have the drop as the bad guy wouldn't have seen me but I will be all ready aiming at him.
With about an infinite of other possibilities in between.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
I notice whenever the discussion about "you'll be shot first" comes up the only defense to their theories that the concealed carry only crowd can come up with for proof are the situations where a facility is attacked that has armed guards. Here are the reasons why that has almost nothing in common with Joe Citizen open carrying in normal life.
If you are going to attack a city council meeting, a government facility, or a bank, there are known points of resistance that are going to be fixed in place that you must plan to take out. The police that will be present at any city council meeting and the guards at the government facility or bank. Those are known. They are not going away. They will be there. They must be planned and accounted for.
Now, even in that situation - what is the attacker going to do? Their goal is to shoot the mayor, shoot as many civilians as they can in the government facility, or steal what they can from the bank. In order for the criminal to shoot the Joe Citizen open carrying a gun first, they would have to burst in, shoot the known defenders that they had to plan to take out, and then STOP TO EVALUATE all the remaining civilians who look pretty much like each other in order to determine if the one thing different about them is if they have a gun in a holster on their belt or not! Is that going to happen in real life? It never has yet and it makes no sense for it to ever happen. So what are the chances the Joe Civilian open carrying a handgun in a holster in a situation like that will be picked out of everyone else that looks almost just like them to get shot first? Very Slim to none, and Mr. Very Slim would have to be severely mentally challenged to stop their attack to evaluate every civilian there for a gun on their belt.
Now, as far as the convenience store smash and grab, or the mugging on the street. If the criminal is smart enough to case the place before they attempt the robbery, or evaluate their lone target on the street, and they see a guy with a gun there, why would they pick that particular convenience store at the particular moment to rob with the greatest potential of getting killed in the process or that one particular guy on the street? Wouldn't it be so much beneficial for the criminal to wait 5 minutes for the guy with the gun to leave, or just go down the street one block, and pick one of the remaining 99.5% of the public to attack, or the store without a visible gun and the means to kill them with? And if they don't case the place first, again the attack is going to be a burst in, rob first, ask questions later. Again they would have to be severely mentally challenged to burst in, and stop the attack to inspect every Joe Civilian to see if the only difference is a handgun on their belt. To hide my gun from the burst in a rob type criminal, all I have to do is tuck my elbow at my side over my gun and turn my strong side slightly away from them.
There are many valid reasons why a person would choose to conceal carry over open carry, and concealed carry is perfectly fine - I do it on occasion myself. But I don't understand why some people have to cling to this "element of surprise" and "shoot me first" crap. At least present reasons that make sense.
If you are going to attack a city council meeting, a government facility, or a bank, there are known points of resistance that are going to be fixed in place that you must plan to take out. The police that will be present at any city council meeting and the guards at the government facility or bank. Those are known. They are not going away. They will be there. They must be planned and accounted for.
Now, even in that situation - what is the attacker going to do? Their goal is to shoot the mayor, shoot as many civilians as they can in the government facility, or steal what they can from the bank. In order for the criminal to shoot the Joe Citizen open carrying a gun first, they would have to burst in, shoot the known defenders that they had to plan to take out, and then STOP TO EVALUATE all the remaining civilians who look pretty much like each other in order to determine if the one thing different about them is if they have a gun in a holster on their belt or not! Is that going to happen in real life? It never has yet and it makes no sense for it to ever happen. So what are the chances the Joe Civilian open carrying a handgun in a holster in a situation like that will be picked out of everyone else that looks almost just like them to get shot first? Very Slim to none, and Mr. Very Slim would have to be severely mentally challenged to stop their attack to evaluate every civilian there for a gun on their belt.
Now, as far as the convenience store smash and grab, or the mugging on the street. If the criminal is smart enough to case the place before they attempt the robbery, or evaluate their lone target on the street, and they see a guy with a gun there, why would they pick that particular convenience store at the particular moment to rob with the greatest potential of getting killed in the process or that one particular guy on the street? Wouldn't it be so much beneficial for the criminal to wait 5 minutes for the guy with the gun to leave, or just go down the street one block, and pick one of the remaining 99.5% of the public to attack, or the store without a visible gun and the means to kill them with? And if they don't case the place first, again the attack is going to be a burst in, rob first, ask questions later. Again they would have to be severely mentally challenged to burst in, and stop the attack to inspect every Joe Civilian to see if the only difference is a handgun on their belt. To hide my gun from the burst in a rob type criminal, all I have to do is tuck my elbow at my side over my gun and turn my strong side slightly away from them.
There are many valid reasons why a person would choose to conceal carry over open carry, and concealed carry is perfectly fine - I do it on occasion myself. But I don't understand why some people have to cling to this "element of surprise" and "shoot me first" crap. At least present reasons that make sense.
chilipeppernorm
New member
When I started this thread I was seeking for opinions on OC by those who practice it, and I thought I was clear that while I practice CC where possible and why, I was in no way criticizing those who practice OC (see above). I'm kind of surprised by the angry accusations of the OC practitioners. I didn't realize I was having save the world hero fantasizes. While I did state I prefer CC for the anonymity and believe it to be a tactical advantage, clearly there is no way I can prove tactical advantage from published data. Likewise, there is no way the OC side can prove a tactical advantage and most especially a preventative value to OC based on published data unless criminals are self reporting on some web site or data base, for instance I went by the Quik Stop today to rob it but some OC guy was buying a pack of smokes so I moved on.
How about the CC people do so because that is their comfort zone (or OC is illegal) and the OC people do so because that is their comfort zone. Both groups are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps we should be should be directing all the anger and energy at those who would deny us collectively our rights to do so whether open or concealed.
I don't see where anyone alluded to you having hero fantasies. What we said was that SOME people who carry concealed seem to. That doesn't mean you.
We are talking about the people who post that one advantage of concealed carry is that it is a superior method of removing criminals from those among the living. The open carry crowd says that one advantage of open carry is the criminal will just leave us alone so we don't have to deal with them attacking us. Yes, we are selfish. I've even been accused by some as being responsible for the helpless little old lady getting attacked by the bad guy if the bad guy chose to pass me up because they saw my gun.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
None of our "accusations" held anger. The problem here is, when an open carrier condemns lies that keep perpetuating a myth about guns, we get blamed.
The first few pages were a collection of seemingly good responses. I know my first was very positive, my second was just my experience in this forum and I knew which threads would answer your question. I linked to three threads and another forum for more open carry opinions.
No anger intended here either, but unless you live in a constitutional carry state, concealed carrying with a permit is not exercising your rights, rather it's just carrying a firearm with the government's permission. When one must ask the government to do something, it's no longer a Right.
And there has been a published report of felons being interviewed about how they chose their victims. I know Navy has the report somewhere, or i could find it sometime tomorrow.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
E
ezkl2230
Guest
If there are cases in which shooters have gone after armed LEO's, then I have to believe they will go after an armed civilian as well on the assumption that the civilian will not be as well trained as the LEO.
Regardless, and I know there are those who will continue to argue this point, I personally believe that, if I am prepared for the person who will go after an armed LEO, I am prepared to handle the person who goes after the "defenseless" as well. This is one point on which I will not change my mind.
whodat2710
New member
You are missing the point. One thing an "armed LEO" (are there unarmed ones?) has is high visibility. If a bad guy chooses to enter a situation where there is a cop already present, you can assume that the simple fact they are wearing a uniform means the bad guy knows they are armed, without seeing it. If a bad guy chooses to do his business when a cop is already there, it is a good assumption that teh cop will be his target, even though all he might see is a hat in a crowded room. Joe nobody that is armed usually doesn't have a sign, a uniform, a bright orange holster, or anything else that identifies them.
chilipeppernorm
New member
NavyLCDR and Firefighterchen, thanks for your response. You're right, all the early responses were polite and helpful. I guess as a new guy here I picked up on the vibe in what seems to be a long standing debate between OC and CC. I would disagree that CC is not exercising my rights. You can't drive your car without a government issued license, you can't build a home or remodel it without building inspection permits. You can't (legally) catch a fish in public waters without permission from the government Make no mistake, I believe anyone qualified to own a weapon should be able to carry it in any safe and responsible manner they see fit. Ironically, OC is permitted in CA, your weapon simply cannot have any ammo in it. This of course defeats the purpose which no doubt was the intent.
Nevada is an OC state, but when training there we were told the LVPD prefer you don't OC on the Vegas Strip as there are so many tourists from all over that they get constant calls of a man with a weapon in public. Maybe our Nevada members can comment on this.
Nevada is an OC state, but when training there we were told the LVPD prefer you don't OC on the Vegas Strip as there are so many tourists from all over that they get constant calls of a man with a weapon in public. Maybe our Nevada members can comment on this.
lol. who says that they must "burst in, anyway? I've seen MANY city council meetings with no cops present, too. Why can't they just wait until cold weather, and wear heavy enough clothing to ccw an uZi, go into restroom, assemble it THERE, bring it out slung underam, hmm? your little plotline is simplistic. Guy in theater in CO, I think it was? slipped out a door, IIRC, propped it open and came back with LOTS of gear.
B
Bikenut
Guest
The simple fact is...
If it is a right then you don't have to ask permission to do it. And a "license" or "permit" issued by the State IS "permission".
The thing is... it isn't so much about being given "permission" as it is about the government being in control of who is given that permission because.. he who has the power to give permission also has the power to deny permission.
So... do you have the right to bear an arm in a concealed manner or are you being "allowed" to do it because the government said you could? Remember... if you run afoul of any of the government's "no no" criteria the government will suddenly deny you the permission.
If it is a "right" then you don't need permission... if you need permission then it isn't a right but is a "privilege" subject to the whims of whoever has the power to grant, or deny, .. "permission".
So... do you have the right to carry concealed or do you have a paper note from your nanny government that says as long as you kiss the ass of government you will be "allowed" to carry concealed?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Bikenut puts it very well. We have not been a free country for a very long time, for reasons you just gave. We can't do nearly anything without the government's permission. Rights are meaningless in this country, might as well call us China.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
chilipeppernorm
New member
Bikenut, must be a long day on my end, as it seems to me by your wording you're still personalizing the OC vs CC. You and your is personal, while we and our is collective. Since you worded in the personal I'll respond in the personal. First, it's not "my" nanny government, it's "our" nanny government. You may be blessed to live in a state where open loaded carry is permissible, and God Bless if you do. Still, even if you enjoy such privilege you cannot OC in the airport to pick up a loved one, nor in a courthouse, nor in any police station I've ever walked into, nor many school grounds, and any other areas so posted. If you the OC practitioner obey these restrictive laws does that make you an ass kisser of your nanny government??
Utah is a very 2A friendly state and the state government fully supports the law abiding citizens right to own, use, and employ weapons for self defense under the Stand Your Ground and Home as Castle laws, yet it is unlawful for anyone to carry a weapon (OC or CC) into a house of worship without the express consent of the congregation and/or church leadership. Nanny government or wishes of the citizens of Utah?? OC and CC have a fine and clear distinction in some states that permit both. Nevada provides for both, however, if you have a CC permit on your person and you are in OC then you are violating the law and your permit. Likewise, if you typically OC but decide to CC and don't possess the permit then you are in violation of the law. It's either/or, not both.
If your point is there is far to much government and regulation in our lives, then you have my unconditional agreement and applause. On the other hand, if you're implying that OC carries even a whiff of patriotic moral superiority over CC, then I call BS.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I'll let bikenut explain himself further, but I don't believe he was talking anything about oc vs cc. He was taking about Rights vs privileges. The mindset that citizens are given permission to do a privilege, not that they were free to do it to begin with, has empowered this ridiculous government we have. This mindset has to change.
And depending on states, all the places you mentioned at the beginning could be legal to carry.
For instance, in Washington:
I can carry into the airport, just not passed security. (This one doesn't really fit the context though because it's private property)
I can carry in the courthouse, just not in the areas of court proceedings.
I can carry on school grounds (again though that's now a privilege since it requires a permission slip)
I can carry into a police station.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
That ^^^ part of your tirade is absolute nonsense. That is like saying that it is illegal to ride a bicycle if you have a driver's license on your person. And in regards to the rest of your tirade: Bikenut is not referring to the difference between OC and CC. He is referring to the difference between a right and a privilege. If you want to exercise your "right" to carry a firearm, then you would be doing so without meeting the requirement to pay the government in order to obtain their permission to do so. In such case, a person may very well be jailed for exercising their right - as have many people who have exercised various rights throughout history. But the minute that you pay the government for the government's permission to do something, it is no longer a right - it is a privilege that you have paid for permission to engage in without getting arrested.
This isn't about open carry or concealed carry. It is about not drinking the government supplied kool aid and being brainwashed into thinking that after you pay the government for their permission to do something you are exercising a right. There are times when I don't exercise my right to carry a firearm and yet still carry it. Those times are when I am doing so under the conditions that would otherwise be illegal to without the permission card that I paid to the government to obtain.
Also in regards to your other points: in my state I can, and have, openly carried my firearm in SEATAC International Airport when dropping off and picking up loved ones - right up to just outside the entrance to the secured area. I can and have openly carried my firearm in a courthouse building when doing routine business such as obtaining vehicle registration - just not past the security checkpoint where the court proceedings are held. I can and have openly carried my firearm inside a police station when obtaining an accident report for insurance purposes. I can and have openly carried my firearm on school grounds outside my vehicle while picking up and dropping off my daughter. Carrying on school grounds is in no way exercising my right to carry a firearm because I have paid the government for their permission to do so. I am exercising the privilege extended to me as part of an elite group that I have paid my dues and fulfilled the membership requirements to be in.
Just because a person is carrying a firearm is in no way an indication by itself that they are exercising any right to do so and it doesn't matter if they are carrying it under two layers of socks and a boot in an ankle holster or duct taped to their forehead. What matters is if they paid the government for the government's permission to do so. We have the 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm in this country - and anyone may exercise that right - and sometimes the exercise of that right may result in going to jail for it; but the minute you pay the government to keep yourself out of jail for doing something, it becomes a privilege of not going to jail extended to you by the government which you paid to obtain.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Firefigherchen in post #55 and NavyLCDR in post #56 did an exceptional job of explaining my post (#52) concerning the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" in reference to concealed carry permits that had no connection to OC whatsoever. My thanks guys... I couldn't have done any better.
I have non-resident permits from Arizona and Utah (live in very stupid California) and carry concealed whenever I can. There are some states that I cannot CC in (Oregon for one). In tose cases I will carry open. I have a Blackhawk Serpa which is very secure yet very easy to draw if necessary. I won't open carry for the same reasons you expressed, along with the fact that I don't want to be the first casualty of some nut job. Open carry also alarms some people, although I've found that most don't appear to be alarmed or object. I've had a few store employees ask me to not bring my gun in. If I can't convince them that I am not a threat I leave with my gun, and I don't go back. The point that the shooter in Colorado picked the one theater in Aurora that was posted gun free usually gets store employees to thinking. Be a senior citizen probably helps my cause as well.
topgun47
New member
When someone asks a question like open vs concealed, you have to expect to get two different, and two very strong arguments for both methods. It's commonly referred to as "opening a can of worms". It's all a matter of personal choice.
The better question would be: What do you choose? That way, we will get a little less passion in our arguments.
The better question would be: What do you choose? That way, we will get a little less passion in our arguments.
wfparys860
New member
Absolutely concealed.
