Do firearm training schools recommend open cary?


MONTANA

New member
I have read many of the posts regarding open carry and have a question for members. Are there any well-known firearms training schools that advocate open carry? If so, which ones? Here are my personal views. As a concealed carry permit holder, I have the responsibility to make the best tactical situation in every situation----whether I am actually involved in a defensive encounter or considering potential responses to such an encounter. Open carry removes my element of surprise if I were ever involved in a defensive encounter. In addition, it may be a provocative trigger for mentally ill individuals who have paranoid delusions. I worked in outpatient public mental health for over 20 years and I know that there are plenty of such individuals on the street. I cannot imagine a good firearms training school advocating open carry unless you know that the the element of surprise is not and will not be a factor.
 

I recently queried the range master I've come to know a bit at Front Sight about OC v. CC. He is a retired corrections officer (spent most of his 30 years in max security prisons). His viewpoint was CC was the way to go. I argued the advantages of OC, as I saw them (focusing basically on the deterrent effect) but his focus was on the "criminal mind" and noted that we make a mistake in assuming that "they" think like "us". He noted that hard-core BGs are not phased at all by the average OC civilian and wouldn't hesitate to just blow 'em away. His bottom-line was that OC civilians are just setting themselves up for being the first one shot.

FWIW.
 
I have read many of the posts regarding open carry and have a question for members. Are there any well-known firearms training schools that advocate open carry? If so, which ones? Here are my personal views. As a concealed carry permit holder, I have the responsibility to make the best tactical situation in every situation----whether I am actually involved in a defensive encounter or considering potential responses to such an encounter. Open carry removes my element of surprise if I were ever involved in a defensive encounter. In addition, it may be a provocative trigger for mentally ill individuals who have paranoid delusions. I worked in outpatient public mental health for over 20 years and I know that there are plenty of such individuals on the street. I cannot imagine a good firearms training school advocating open carry unless you know that the the element of surprise is not and will not be a factor.

Dude, WHY? WHY WHY WHY Would you start this here? lmao..

To answer your question, I don't know of any schools that make money off of concealed licenses advocating open carry.

IMO- everyone talking about the "element of surprise" has seen too many Seagal movies.

In some circumstances, sure it would be helpful to have the "element of surprise". IE: In a robbery where you're a patron in the store at the time.

However, unless you're Rob Leatham I highly doubt you'd be able to draw from concealment by the time the BG puts his sawed off to your head and makes you a memory. If you were open carrying maybe the BG would :
A: Wait until you leave
or
B: Choose a different source

Everyone including criminals take the path of least resistance. Why rob a guy with a gun when they can wait for you to buy your pink snow bunny candy and then rob presumed unarmed folks?

The element of surprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic. Police rely on this to serve warrants. You will need DEFENSIVE tactics. You're REACTING to an OFFENSIVE event, and therefore the element of surprise is useless.

I guess the look on the muggers face would be priceless when he yells at you from 21' away to give up your wallet and instead you pull a gat (haha - sorry had to use some G Slang) but I'd rather the guy try to rob someone else- again path of least resistance.

As far as it provoking people that's not my responsibility.
 
Don't know about most but I think Ayoob is more in favor of concealed. I think I read that in one of his articles but I am not positive.
 
I'm for law-abiding American citizens having the right to choose how or if they carry. I personally am not comfortable with open carry FOR ME in populated places; I'm comfortable with concealed. That's what works for me, now, but that could change.
I would like us all to have freedom of choice on this and everything else that does not directly infringe on the rights of others.
One sad part of the state of our culture now is that we have to fear opinions influencing or inspiring laws that erode or take away our rights. What we say truly may be used against us. :cray:

Sorry to get political and crabby. Anybody want any cheese with that whine!
 
Dude, WHY? WHY WHY WHY Would you start this here? lmao..

To answer your question, I don't know of any schools that make money off of concealed licenses advocating open carry.

IMO- everyone talking about the "element of surprise" has seen too many Seagal movies.

In some circumstances, sure it would be helpful to have the "element of surprise". IE: In a robbery where you're a patron in the store at the time.

However, unless you're Rob Leatham I highly doubt you'd be able to draw from concealment by the time the BG puts his sawed off to your head and makes you a memory. If you were open carrying maybe the BG would :
A: Wait until you leave
or
B: Choose a different source

Everyone including criminals take the path of least resistance. Why rob a guy with a gun when they can wait for you to buy your pink snow bunny candy and then rob presumed unarmed folks?

The element of surprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic. Police rely on this to serve warrants. You will need DEFENSIVE tactics. You're REACTING to an OFFENSIVE event, and therefore the element of surprise is useless.

I guess the look on the muggers face would be priceless when he yells at you from 21' away to give up your wallet and instead you pull a gat (haha - sorry had to use some G Slang) but I'd rather the guy try to rob someone else- again path of least resistance.

As far as it provoking people that's not my responsibility.
Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation openly carrying a firearm during normal daily activities, than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I communicate. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.
 
Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I am communicating. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. You come strolling through the park with your open carry. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you in "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.

I don't see this, MONTANA, if I'm following the argument correctly. Suppose I'm carrying concealed and the wind blows my jacket open, ol' Daniel sees my weapon, thinks I am the FBI which he thinks is is stalking him and...shoots the kid. My fault? Nah...

We certainly do have to recognize the responsibility we have in carrying (either OC or CC) but I don't think we can hope to mitigate any/every possibility, particularly where the outcome depends on other people's behavior.

Do I understand correctly that, in your opinion, anyone who open carries, is completely wrong, defensively and/or tactically?
 
Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation openly carrying a firearm during normal daily activities, than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I communicate. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.

The dead child is due to the actions of "Daniel", and is his respnosibility alone. We do not have the power to control the actions of others. Weather it be Daniel reacting to the OC firearm or the fact that you're wearing a dark blue 5.11 shirt, it was Daniel who fired the fatal shot. It was Daniel who decided to start shooting, it ws Daniel who failed to hit his intended target, therefore the dead child is the responsibility of Daniel and Daniel alone. Just as any of us would be responsible for where a bullet goes in a ND situation or if we fail to properly assess a backstop and our shots go beyond our intended target, it would be Daniel who is responsible for the death of the child in this case.



gf
 
Because it wasn't about getting an answer to the question. I'll answer it myself. No reputable firearms instructor will tell a student that he/she is going to be in a better defensive situation openly carrying a firearm during normal daily activities, than if carrying concealed. I like to try and identify the people with and without common sense in any group of people with whom I communicate. You said "as far as provoking people, that is not my responsibility"----and you are carrying a lethal weapon? I think that is called a broken moral compass. Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.

So let me understand this correctly, you asked a loaded question to further your point...? Ok..

If by merely carrying a firearm openly I'm provoking someone- no its not my responsibility...As for your scenario, that doesn't make any sense. Of course the dead kid isn't my responsibility. If I'm wearing a black suit & sunglasses and he confuses me for the FBI am I in your opinion morally responsible? To answer your smug
and you are carrying a lethal weapon?
Yea, I do..

I have a question for you- what credentials you to label something a "good" or "bad" tactic ? Any real world experience beyond a firing range or keyboard?
 
I don't see this, MONTANA, if I'm following the argument correctly. Suppose I'm carrying concealed and the wind blows my jacket open, ol' Daniel sees my weapon, thinks I am the FBI which he thinks is is stalking him and...shoots the kid. My fault? Nah...

We certainly do have to recognize the responsibility we have in carrying (either OC or CC) but I don't think we can hope to mitigate any/every possibility, particularly where the outcome depends on other people's behavior.

Do I understand correctly that, in your opinion, anyone who open carries, is completely wrong, defensively and/or tactically?

and morally...
 
Do what YOU'RE comfortable doing. Use what works well for YOU.

There are pros and cons for just about everything (though I struggle to see the 'pros' in this current regime) so it's always going to have to boil down to personal choice, based on personal preference, based on personal experience/ability etc.

Other than being law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, the other KEY element that should separate us from any BG is training.

We cannot control every aspect of every situation - but the stuff we CAN control, we better control well.

Keep training, and stay trainable. As soon as you've determined you've got it all figured out, you're quickly becoming obsolete.

Happy (& safe) New Year.
 
Let me give you a scenario. You are walking through a park and practicing your right to carry openly. The homeless mentally ill sometimes congregate in public parks. In the park you have Daniel. Daniel is an ok guy when on medications but he has Schizophrenia which manifests itself in a paranoid delusion that the FBI is stalking him and is attempting to kill him. Lately the brain disorder has gotten worse and he has armed himself but Daniel is not very good with a firearm. Daniel sees your firearm and attempts to take you out in what he truly believes is "self-defense". He misses and kills one of the kids playing in the park, but you are easily able to take him out. Now what you are telling me is that the dead kid is not your responsibility? Again, as I said, I didn't ask the question to get an answer, just to clarify membership tactical decision making in my own mind.

Were you being serious?!? That's not a scenario, it's pure fantasy! :no:

There are screwballs out there with fears that are as incomprehensible as they are unpredictable. I was running during lunch on an Air Force Base (so unarmed) when a mentally challenged man of twice my size suddenly lunged at me (totally lost in thought and zero situational awareness). I jinked around him and kept on moving, with a huge adrenalin dump. All we could figure out is that maybe my mirrored Oakleys disturbed him in some way. Under your line of reasoning, how could I be prepared? No sunglasses? What if it was my shorts; no shorts? What if it was my shoes; go barefoot?

I know a (female) surgeon who screamed and jumped behind me when she saw one of the giant slugs we have here in the Pacific Northwest, and she’s as sane as anyone!

My point is that you cannot predict the unpredictable, nor should you ever make radical changes to your personal safety plans based on extremely remote risks.
 
All good points and I apologize to everyone if I seemed smug as some have suggested. Here is what I believe regarding open carry. It presents potential problems that are unnecessary, and tactically, I want to reduce the number of factors that I have to consider when carrying a firearm. However I also have found that proponents of open carry either are willing to accept these increased risk factors, just be aware of them and try to increase their levels of awareness, ignore them, or deny-minimize them. The courts take the view that decisions we make have to be in line with the doctrine of "the reasonable man". Open carry has not been judged to be unreasonable in some jurisdictions. I can only speak for me in that open carry presents a risk I do not choose to take. In the mid to late 1970's large state hospitals begin discharging people back into the community. Therefore larger numbers of disturbed untreated people are on the streets. An exposed firearm can be an invitation to either a suicidal or homocidal person to attempt a weapon take-away. The element of surprise offered by concealed carry has absolutely been a factor in prevailing, based on the review of many after-incident reports.
 
MONTANA-

I can't speak for everyone. I have a C.C permit, and live in a "gold star state". MOST of the time I conceal. Sometimes I open carry, usually after getting bent out of shape at some ANTI on the news, or something happening here in town with a gun involved.

Honestly, I'm not concerned about the "tactics" of either. If i'm in a store at the time of a robbery, or some mental case flips out i'm in a bad position- and happy to have options (a weapon) regardless of how it is carried.

Tactically, there is an argument.

Politically, there is none. I open carry honestly to make a statement that there can be a gun, and no one being hurt at the same time. I get "looks" every now and agian- but for the most part here is the situation:

1. No one notices (usually the case....?)
2. Someone notices and stares
3. Someone notices and asks "are you a cop?". My response is "No, why!?" (lol). Then they ask about the gun. I just say that I think it important for everyone to understand that good guys carry guns too so maybe just maybe when they hear some politician saying "only bad guys need guns" or "guns kill people" you or someone else will remember the guy they saw in (name of place we're at) that had a gun and didn't rob anyone, didn't shoot anyone, just did what he was there for (eating, shopping) and left...


All good points and I apologize to everyone if I seemed smug as some have suggested. Here is what I believe regarding open carry. It presents potential problems that are unnecessary, and tactically, I want to reduce the number of factors that I have to consider when carrying a firearm. However I also have found that proponents of open carry either are willing to accept these increased risk factors, just be aware of them and try to increase their levels of awareness, ignore them, or deny-minimize them. The courts take the view that decisions we make have to be in line with the doctrine of "the reasonable man". Open carry has not been judged to be unreasonable in some jurisdictions. I can only speak for me in that open carry presents a risk I do not choose to take. In the mid to late 1970's large state hospitals begin discharging people back into the community. Therefore larger numbers of disturbed untreated people are on the streets. An exposed firearm can be an invitation to either a suicidal or homocidal person to attempt a weapon take-away. The element of surprise offered by concealed carryhas absolutely been a factor in prevailing, based on the review of many after-incident reports.
 
Training schools, like the one I attended at Mt. Sterling (MO) do not teach open carry and/or conceal carry. Conceal carry or open carry is varied here in Missouri -- there are places you can and cannot. In our area here, we can't open carry. It depends on the law of the county.

I am sorry if my opinion here had already been discussed but being new here of a few hours, I do not have time to read all the responses yet. I just saw your question and clicked on it thinking I might be able to help clarify certain issues of conceal/open carry situation.
 
So let me understand this correctly, you asked a loaded question to further your point...? Ok..

If by merely carrying a firearm openly I'm provoking someone- no its not my responsibility...As for your scenario, that doesn't make any sense. Of course the dead kid isn't my responsibility. If I'm wearing a black suit & sunglasses and he confuses me for the FBI am I in your opinion morally responsible? To answer your smug Yea, I do..

I have a question for you- what credentials you to label something a "good" or "bad" tactic ? Any real world experience beyond a firing range or keyboard?
Good point. No, not a lot of real world experience compared to some of the other members. 6 years Army Reserves---infantry sergeant at time of discharge. Master's Degree from L.S.U.---29 years as a Licensed Mental Health Professional dealing primarily with the legally challenged and emergency services. NRA certified instructor. Registered with the LA State Police as a certified firearms instructor while living there. Moved to MT then worked two years as a Probation Officer for Missoula County in their Misdemeanor Program after completing training at MT Law Enforcement Academy. Currently licensed as a Certified Firearms Instructor in MT. But I have read the profiles of many members and agree that compared to them I do not have nearly their level of real-world experience.
 
Good point. No, not a lot of real world experience compared to some of the other members. 6 years Army Reserves---infantry sergeant at time of discharge. Master's Degree from L.S.U.---29 years as a Licensed Mental Health Professional dealing primarily with the legally challenged and emergency services. NRA certified instructor. Registered with the LA State Police as a certified firearms instructor while living there. Moved to MT then worked two years as a Probation Officer for Missoula County in their Misdemeanor Program after completing training at MT Law Enforcement Academy. Currently licensed as a Certified Firearms Instructor in MT. But I have read the profiles of many members and agree that compared to them I do not have nearly their level of real-world experience.

TOOOOOOT TOOT!
Link Removed
 
In my opinion (and experience) CC is better for the tactical advantage. Chances are, if you are OCing and the bad guy comes in, your gonna be the first one he whacks. You won't be in the fighgt casue you're gonna get geased before you even know the fight is on. I can understand the "deterent" argument where you say the BG is gonna go somewhere else if he sees an armed citizen, but the fact is that most BGs don't think logically to begin with. If they did, they'd make a different career choice. I remember the incident of the crook who hijacked the plane demanding to go to South America, then he murdered the pilot. Now how was he going to get to S.A. with nobody to fly the plane?
Maybe a casual crook would be detered, but a career ex-con, gangbanger won't give a rats ass to begin with if you're armed.

Problem with the "deterent" arguement is that it assumes the BG is 1) Intelligent, 2) Not spaced out on drugs, or 3) just an unmotivated casual crook.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,963
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top