The reality of Carrying Concealed


Are you speaking of this reality?

It is important to remember that Mr. Baddie capitalizes on the element of surprise if he attacks us. Since action beats reaction, and we good guys and gals are forced to react to a spontaneous attack someone else initiates, we are already behind the speed curve. Therefore, the majority of our training and preparation should take this reality into account.

Which is precisely why I would rather proactively deter a criminal attack against me, rather than relying solely upon being able to defend myself against an attack that has already begun.
 
Are you speaking of this reality?



Which is precisely why I would rather proactively deter a criminal attack against me, rather than relying solely upon being able to defend myself against an attack that has already begun.

If carrying a gun deterred crime, cops would never be attacked, stabbed, or shot. And yet it happens all the time. If a person is set on breaking the law, I doubt your open carry will stop them. Just as they aren't even scared of cops trying to stop them from breaking the laws their minds are set on breaking.

Hate to say it, but open carrying does not create a crime free zone everywhere that person walks.
 
Believe whatever you want to believe Deserteagle. History, statistics and research simply present FACTUAL information which proves that open carry will deter the majority of criminals. No where did I say it would deter all crime. But why would I choose to NOT engage in a behavior that was more likely to deter a criminal than not? Especially based on a "you'll be shot first" argument which has no basis in factual history, research or statistics?

Comparing Joe Citizen carrying a firearm to a uniformed police officer carrying a gun is completely ludicrous.
 
I'm no expert but I've read a few articles that recommended carrying concealed rather than openly. The jist of most of the articles point to the open carrier simply being the first target by armed thugs, or becomming the target of surprise from the rear grab attempts, both of which are prevented by CC. Just my .02, simply reporting what I've read, other than postings at a forum. To each his own however with each being armed with thier own set of beliefs and facts.
 
I'm no expert but I've read a few articles that recommended carrying concealed rather than openly. The jist of most of the articles point to the open carrier simply being the first target by armed thugs, or becomming the target of surprise from the rear grab attempts, both of which are prevented by CC. Just my .02, simply reporting what I've read, other than postings at a forum. To each his own however with each being armed with thier own set of beliefs and facts.

Yet none of those articles can actually cite a reference to where those incidents have actually occurred in reality. Amazing, eh? We've got the one gun-grab incident by the lunatic in the bar that is mention in the articles of this forum, BTW the carrier of the gun was illegally carrying his gun at the time. That's it.... one example where's it's actually happened. One incident in serveral decades. Yet some people like to theorize that it's going to happen to every open carrier.
 
Believe whatever you want to believe Deserteagle. History, statistics and research simply present FACTUAL information which proves that open carry will deter the majority of criminals. No where did I say it would deter all crime. But why would I choose to NOT engage in a behavior that was more likely to deter a criminal than not? Especially based on a "you'll be shot first" argument which has no basis in factual history, research or statistics?


Comparing Joe Citizen carrying a firearm to a uniformed police officer carrying a gun is completely ludicrous.

Lets take a look at your "factual" information from history, statistics, and research. Where is it?
Oh an by the way, finding a couple stories written by journalists on the news is not research or factual.
 
Round and round and round we go! If we stop....... Nav LCDR wouldn't have anything to post! LOL!

GG

That's not true! There is always, "Do you carry with a round in the chamber?" and "Do you keep your magazines fully loaded, won't that wear out the springs?" and "If I sell a gun to my mother's ex-husband's neice in the state next to mine, I can just meet them at the border and hand it to them since they are 'family' right?"
 
Deserteagle:224562 said:
Believe whatever you want to believe Deserteagle. History, statistics and research simply present FACTUAL information which proves that open carry will deter the majority of criminals. No where did I say it would deter all crime. But why would I choose to NOT engage in a behavior that was more likely to deter a criminal than not? Especially based on a "you'll be shot first" argument which has no basis in factual history, research or statistics?


Comparing Joe Citizen carrying a firearm to a uniformed police officer carrying a gun is completely ludicrous.

Lets take a look at your "factual" information from history, statistics, and research. Where is it?
Oh an by the way, finding a couple stories written by journalists on the news is not research or factual.

Go back and check out the other 5 OC vs cc threads. Read them all. There are facts and statistics from navy in those. There is absolutely no factual information against it.

You say we will be targeted first, no real world examples though. We say we won't be targeted first, give actual examples that have happened in reality, that you write off as stories from journalist.

If you don't want to use examples, evidence, fact, stories, statistics, etc...and want us to just believe your word, you are the narrow minded. Not us.

The op article describes becoming aggressive as fast as possible as surprise. In that case OC can surprise the attacker as well. If it even gets to that stage of an attack, which is statistically low considering the criminal preys on the submissive. Which is also started in op article.
 
Go back and check out the other 5 OC vs cc threads. Read them all. There are facts and statistics from navy in those. There is absolutely no factual information against it.

You say we will be targeted first, no real world examples though. We say we won't be targeted first, give actual examples that have happened in reality, that you write off as stories from journalist.

If you don't want to use examples, evidence, fact, stories, statistics, etc...and want us to just believe your word, you are the narrow minded. Not us.

The op article describes becoming aggressive as fast as possible as surprise. In that case OC can surprise the attacker as well. If it even gets to that stage of an attack, which is statistically low considering the criminal preys on the submissive. Which is also started in op article.


I already proved to you guys what is wrong with the few things of 'evidence" you have presented here.
I have also never said you will be targeted first so stop putting words in my mouth.
 
Wow. I'm new on this site. Real new. But I'm not new to carrying, and have sixteen years of LEO experience. But in the short time I have been browsing the discussion threads here I have learned this: there are absolutely NO new arguments about concealed vs. open carry.

If any if you long-time members catch me posting on a concealed vs. open debate thread, please deliver the old verbal double tap to the thorassic cavity, huh? Thanks.
 
Yet none of those articles can actually cite a reference to where those incidents have actually occurred in reality. Amazing, eh? We've got the one gun-grab incident by the lunatic in the bar that is mention in the articles of this forum, BTW the carrier of the gun was illegally carrying his gun at the time. That's it.... one example where's it's actually happened. One incident in serveral decades. Yet some people like to theorize that it's going to happen to every open carrier.

1) Was just my .02, as I mentioned. Also mentioned "to each his own".
2) Not one time did I use the word "every" in the post you critiqued.
3) You state "...that is mention (mentioned?) in the articles of this forum..." Sorry, but the articles I read were not on this forum or any other that I know of, "...other than postings on a forum", as I recall from my post. They were articles written by various LEO's, tactics trainers along with interviews from violent criminals in two different prisons. Yes, of course I am not at home so no, I don't have the articles in front of me. Soooooo...

I think I will provide author names, publication and dates from this point on when refering to "articles I've read", it may not only help edjookate but might also prevent misunderstandings. It may delay a post, of which I know my fans will frown about. Relax, that was a joke and I do not have proof that I or anyone here has "fans". Anyway, if footnoted and verifiable information from the criminals mouth (as in one article on the subject of OC vs CC) is desired then that's what we'll bring, rather than merely eluding to them as I did. My bad.
 
That's not true! There is always, "Do you carry with a round in the chamber?" and "Do you keep your magazines fully loaded, won't that wear out the springs?" and "If I sell a gun to my mother's ex-husband's neice in the state next to mine, I can just meet them at the border and hand it to them since they are 'family' right?"

Legit point! I believe I even got into the last "mag spring" discussion, now that I think on it.

You DID neglect to mention the plethora of "What is the BEST......... (Insert favorite "topic" here, from Philosophy to mag holders.)" threads. At least one can examine a multitude of ideas..... Well.... At least what BEST works for that individual.

Ain't it FUN, though? LOL!

GG
 
Just to "stir up the pot":

The "deterrance" angle (usually proposed by Open Carriers as right and proper) has "proof" of it's effectiveness. (We are told.) This is true! However....

1) The "deterrance" effect is logical, to logical persons. I use the example of "The Samurai's Dilemma" (which I have posted a couple of times in these forums) as logical examination of the deterrance effect.

2) The most often "cited" proof has been those "studies", generally conducted with incarcerated persons as those being "surveyed".... In which it has been shown, repeatedly, by those surveyed, that from 60-80% of surveyed "cons" would prefer not to confront an armed citizen in the plying of their trade. (This, of course, leaves 20-40% who either plead the "fifth" or would NOT refrain from armed confrontation. Giving the indication that there are some BGs that either have no common sence or are rather secure in their weapons proficiency. Given that there is a paucity of socially acceptable "common sence" in BGs anyway........)

I have often wondered, while reading the surveys mentioned above, how the answering of that survey would differed in results if, for instance, the "Surveyer" were to gain access to a BG gang HQ somewhere and propose the same questions to the assembled "soldiers". Would the "atmosphere" have the effect of drastically changing the resultant answers?

Well.... ALL conjecture! I simply don't envision a "Surveyer" ever attaining said "other side of the coin" situational access.

Just sayin'.

GG
 
Think I said this already carry how you wish, horse is dead, no matter how much you beat him he will not rise up, take saddle and move on to NEW HORSE.
 
Just to "stir up the pot":I have often wondered, while reading the surveys mentioned above, how the answering of that survey would differed in results if, for instance, the "Surveyer" were to gain access to a BG gang HQ somewhere and propose the same questions to the assembled "soldiers". Would the "atmosphere" have the effect of drastically changing the resultant answers?

Well.... ALL conjecture! I simply don't envision a "Surveyer" ever attaining said "other side of the coin" situational access.

Just sayin'.

GG

Here's my conjecture on the survey results. I think the actual percentage of criminals who would be deterred by a visibly armed citizen is actually higher than the 55-60% that admit they would. Here's why. What reason would a criminal have for lying and saying that they would be deterred by the gun, when in reality they would not? Only one reason that I can theorize. They WANT people to carry guns. It makes sense that the more criminals who say that guns deter crimes, there will be more citizens who believe them and will arm themselves. Now, I don't believe this to be a valid reason for a criminal to lie, because crime statistics show that the more you disarm a society with laws, the higher the crime rate is. So from history, it is proven that criminals prefer victims who are disarmed. So why would they lie in a manner that would tend to cause Joe Citizen to go out and buy and carry a gun?

Now, what are the theoretical reason that a criminal would lie in the other direction and say that a gun would not deter them when, in reality, it would? I suspect the reason is bravado, machoism and intimidation. It does nothing to enhance the fear and intimadation factor for a criminal to admit that they are deterred by anything. Fear and intimadation are huge tools that criminals use to get what they want. Why would they lie and say a gun will deter them, when all that would do is lessen their fear and intimadation factor? It would seem that lying and saying a gun won't deter them is more advantageous to the criminal. It also causes Joe Citizen to not arm themselves (at least visibly) with guns, if Joe Citizen thinks it isn't going to make any difference at all anyway.

So, I believe that if a criminal is going to lie about deterrence, it is to their greater advantage to lie and say the gun won't deter them, than it is to lie and say the gun will deter them. That's why, I theorize (with no supporting evidence) that more criminals will be deterred knowing their intended victim has a gun than are willing to honestly admit the same.
 
I wonder if I can get 2 or 3 more posts here with this question.

OC'ers say that the sight of them carrying openly will cause a criminal to go down the street and find another person upon which to commit their crime or will wait till the offending weapon has left the scene. CC'ers say that carrying concealed removes the possibility of the thug grabbing their gun or targeting them. If both are true then it stands to reason that OC does not prevent crime, only delays it. CC may cause the thug to re-think their plan to commit the crime because they do not KNOW if someone is carrying. Do they want to take that chance. The criminal may decide its not worth the risk and choose not to commit the crime.

Yeah, I kn ow...its a stretch.

For the record, I CC. Florida does not allow OC, but if they did, I would probably still CC. I prefer not to let people know I'm armed anyway. I have no issue with OC'ers though. If its their legal right to do so, then go for it. Personal choice.

I don't care whether you CC or OC as long as you carry.
 
CC may cause the thug to re-think their plan to commit the crime because they do not KNOW if someone is carrying. Do they want to take that chance. The criminal may decide its not worth the risk and choose not to commit the crime.

Yeah, I kn ow...its a stretch.

So, it sounds like the CCW badge is the best answer, then. It reminds the criminal that the potential victim MIGHT be armed and also maintains the omnipotent "element of surprise". After all, the badge might just be a nifty piece of bling-bling and the person really is not armed at all.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,760
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top