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.
...has seen too many Seagal movies.
Come on, we all know deep down in our souls that there really is no such thing as TOO MANY Seagal movies!!:sarcastic:
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.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 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.
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 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.
Yea, I do..and you are carrying a lethal weapon?
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?