Here is what John Lott has to say about this argument:
Having more people carry concealed generally produces more of an overall crime reducing effect than open carry because criminals will leave the open carry person alone and then wait for someone that is unarmed. Concealed carry people produce a benefit for people other than themselves
The first bold line is spot-on, and gives anyone thinking about OC'ing all the reason in the world to go ahead and start doing it.
The second bold line is a complete non-sequitur and has no connection to the preceding lines, nor is it supported at all by anything I haven't quoted (yet). The criminal will leave the OC'er alone. Check, that's why we OC, to increase the odds of that exact result. The criminal will move from the OC'er and pick someone who is unarmed. Check, but that's hardly the responsibility of the OC'er they just left alone. And then he says that CC'ers "produce" a benefit for people other than themselves???? How so Mr. Lott? It's a total crap-shoot whether or not the criminal picks a CC'er, and the only assumption Lott could be making is that every CC'er out there is going to run to the aid of any victim in their vicinity in order to "produce" a benefit for people other than themselves. It's an absolutely ridiculous assumption, and in any case, even if it weren't as ridiculous as it is, the OC'er who defended himself simply by
being an OC'er has no bearing whatsoever on crime committed against CC'ers or no-C'ers. That responsibility lies
only at the
criminal's doorstep.
But it gets worse. Even after he defines exactly why we OC correctly, he sticks his size 12 foot down his size 16 throat when he spews this canard:
The main reason for carrying openly is to make a public statement, to demonstrate to others that it is legal to carry a gun.
I've read all the myriad articles and listened to all the interviews where his research is assailed as unreliable at best and downright garbage at worst. I've tended to defend him, or at worst, just ignore the criticisms and accept his conclusions internally because, in general, they do make sense to me. But I've also seen him in interviews where he tripped over his own tongue trying to make a point, and now this utter idiocy, and I'm inclined to throw him to the wolves. Who needs some intellectual who has said before that when he started his research he was anti-gun, speaking against a perfectly legal way of exercising our rights on the basis that the deterrent we provide ourselves, doesn't extend to others who are too stupid to take responsibility for their own damned security???
Sorry Mr. Lott, I don't do pretzel logic. Especially not when it's preceded by the real, right, and appropriate rationale for OC'ing. You get it in one sentence, and completely go off the rails in the next. It doesn't help gun-owners of either discipline to have such a double-minded, double-talker speaking for us.
Of course, that comes not only from an OC'er, but one who vocally supported OC before I ever started doing it myself, and since Lott is speaking up for the much-favored CC crowd, I'm sure I'll be criticized for sussing and parsing his indisputably inconsistent statements. Because after all, we're on opposing "teams," right? Well, maybe y'all are, but I'm not. I'm on the crime (against me and mine) deterrent team. I'm on the full width and breadth of the 2nd Amendment original meaning team. I'm on the wear my weapon the most comfortable way I can team. I'm on the I don't need to explain myself or justify why or how I carry team, except sometimes that team is called I won't let double-talking intellectuals who couldn't figure stuff out for himself without supporting data to help him along denigrate my choices when I don't suffer from such cognitive deficiencies myself without debunking it team, so there ya go.
Blues
