Why Carrying Concealed is important.


dojoman

New member
After the fact of pulling it out is offensive, I agree. So let me ask this then, what would you consider concealing then? Offensive as well? I could see your point there. Are you suggestion the OC is also being on the offensive side as well?
 

NavyLCDR

New member
After the fact of pulling it out is offensive, I agree. So let me ask this then, what would you consider concealing then? Offensive as well? I could see your point there. Are you suggestion the OC is also being on the offensive side as well?

Concealing a firearm is nothing other than hiding a gun in your pocket. The criminal knows nothing about it, so it has no effect other than sitting there in your pocket causing you to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Open Carrying a firearm has an active deterrent effect - the criminal can see it and decide for themselves if the possibility of getting shot at and possibly killed is worth it to attack you.

Once you draw your firearm from it's holster, whether it was concealed or not, you have now begun to defensively attack the criminal. YES, the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of this attack, just as the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of ANY attack.

Our point is that this is all about playing the odds - the odds are in favor of a visible firearm deterring the attack from begin with and we would rather deter the attack from happening to us to begin with rather then place a bet that our "element of surprise" will defeat the criminal's situational awareness.
 

Deserteagle

New member
Concealing a firearm is nothing other than hiding a gun in your pocket. The criminal knows nothing about it, so it has no effect other than sitting there in your pocket causing you to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Open Carrying a firearm has an active deterrent effect - the criminal can see it and decide for themselves if the possibility of getting shot at and possibly killed is worth it to attack you.

Once you draw your firearm from it's holster, whether it was concealed or not, you have now begun to defensively attack the criminal. YES, the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of this attack, just as the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of ANY attack.

Our point is that this is all about playing the odds - the odds are in favor of a visible firearm deterring the attack from begin with and we would rather deter the attack from happening to us to begin with rather then place a bet that our "element of surprise" will defeat the criminal's situational awareness.

You are assuming criminals study each possible victim and rationally choose which one to victimize. But in reality, criminals are not that smart and rational. If open carrying deterred crime and scared off criminals, cops would never be killed or attacked.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
Deserteagle:224375 said:
Concealing a firearm is nothing other than hiding a gun in your pocket. The criminal knows nothing about it, so it has no effect other than sitting there in your pocket causing you to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Open Carrying a firearm has an active deterrent effect - the criminal can see it and decide for themselves if the possibility of getting shot at and possibly killed is worth it to attack you.

Once you draw your firearm from it's holster, whether it was concealed or not, you have now begun to defensively attack the criminal. YES, the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of this attack, just as the "element of surprise" will enhance the effectiveness of ANY attack.

Our point is that this is all about playing the odds - the odds are in favor of a visible firearm deterring the attack from begin with and we would rather deter the attack from happening to us to begin with rather then place a bet that our "element of surprise" will defeat the criminal's situational awareness.

You are assuming criminals study each possible victim and rationally choose which one to victimize. But in reality, criminals are not that smart and rational. If open carrying deterred crime and scared off criminals, cops would never be killed or attacked.

Cops are not killed because of the OC deterrent. They are killed because they are trying to catch and lock up the criminal. Two completely different scenarios.
 

rchance

New member
I think you maybe a more of an open target when you open carry. By that I mean someone may want your gun more than you and try to ambush you. Just a thought.
 

dojoman

New member
At least desert sees my point as well. That's all I was tying to say. In most cases I prefer hidden just because of my area, how many times do I have to say that. If I was allowed OC Yes having a gun on my hip allows me to increase my chances of survival, whether it is hidden or exposed. I don't know anyone that would disagree with me there.
 

Axeanda45

Banned
I think you maybe a more of an open target when you open carry. By that I mean someone may want your gun more than you and try to ambush you. Just a thought.

Your "thought" has been parroted by many who try to defend the false "surprise" theory.... but it has NEVER been proven.... in other words, there have been no real-world examples of your "what if" thought actually happening, because criminals are lazy, otherwise they would get a real job, right? It is extremely easier to rob a house that has guns in it and no-one home (well, they hope so) than to rob an OPENLY ARMED PERSON.....
 

Deserteagle

New member
Cops are not killed because of the OC deterrent. They are killed because they are trying to catch and lock up the criminal. Two completely different scenarios.

Cops are open carries, and you say open carriers deter crime because they present a threat to somebody looking to break the law. Cops present a threat to criminals and yet they get shot at all the time. Not 2 different situations here. If criminals were scared of guns like you think so, they wouldn't attack people with guns but it happens all the time.
Hate to break it to you.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
Deserteagle:224475 said:
Cops are not killed because of the OC deterrent. They are killed because they are trying to catch and lock up the criminal. Two completely different scenarios.

Cops are open carries, and you say open carriers deter crime because they present a threat to somebody looking to break the law. Cops present a threat to criminals and yet they get shot at all the time. Not 2 different situations here. If criminals were scared of guns like you think so, they wouldn't attack people with guns but it happens all the time.
Hate to break it to you.

Cops are open carriers, but are not targeted for open carrying. Their duty is to pursue criminals, catch them, and send them to jail. They get resistance not because the criminal ignores the deterrence, but because the criminal doesn't want to get caught. If a cop was sitting in a parking lot of a 711, do you think someone is going to try and rob that store?
 

Deserteagle

New member
Cops are open carriers, but are not targeted for open carrying. Their duty is to pursue criminals, catch them, and send them to jail. They get resistance not because the criminal ignores the deterrence, but because the criminal doesn't want to get caught. If a cop was sitting in a parking lot of a 711, do you think someone is going to try and rob that store?

Cops get attacked because they present a threat to criminals, they are willing to stop a crime from taking place, which is exactly what you are arguing is true for you and all other open carriers. You say that open carrying deters crime because open carriers are willing to stop crime from taking place just like police.

And the job of police is much more than to "pursue criminals, catch them, and put them in jail". If your statement was true, then police would sit in an office waiting for somebody to report crime and then they would attempt to catch the person who did it. But in reality, police patrol the streets to attempt to deter crime. Even though cops patrol 24/7 with loaded guns, they do not deter much of the crime and they are attacked all the time, regardless of their loaded gun.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
Deserteagle:224569 said:
Cops get attacked because they present a threat to criminals, they are willing to stop a crime from taking place, which is exactly what you are arguing is true for you and all other open carriers. You say that open carrying deters crime because open carriers are willing to stop crime from taking place just like police.

And the job of police is much more than to "pursue criminals, catch them, and put them in jail". If your statement was true, then police would sit in an office waiting for somebody to report crime and then they would attempt to catch the person who did it. But in reality, police patrol the streets to attempt to deter crime. Even though cops patrol 24/7 with loaded guns, they do not deter much of the crime and they are attacked all the time, regardless of their loaded gun.

I only deter crime in my vicinity, that is going to happen to me, not the store next door, or the store in the next neighborhood.

Actually yes that is mostly correct. Police usually do have to wait to be dispatched to a crime to pursue the bad guy. Because they do deter crime where they are at. The majority of police being shot by their own weapon is during the resisting of arrest. I'm not arresting anyone. Where did you read that police don't deter crime and are attacked all the time? I think police deter crime all the time, just not everywhere because they can't be everywhere. Its more common they get resistance then attacked.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Even though cops patrol 24/7 with loaded guns, they do not deter much of the crime and they are attacked all the time, regardless of their loaded gun.

Let me ask you a question, Deserteagle. You want to rob a shipment of money. You have two choices. You can rob the Brinks fully armored vehicle with 3 armed guards. OR you can rob the Volkswagen bus with a magnetic sign on the door "Bubba's Financial Transportation Company, LLC" manned by three 70 year old twice-retired guys wearing plastic security guard badges and no guns. Assuming both vehicles have the same amount of money in them, which vehicle are you going to choose? Which vehicle do you assume ANY criminal would choose?

What you are failing to take into account, and will refuse to take into account because your theory is programmed into your closed mind is the reason that armed cops are attacked by criminals and Joe Citizen visibly armed is not is two fold. First, ALL cops in the US are armed. The criminals don't have a choice with cops. If they are going to attack a cop, they must attack an armed cop. Do you think if the criminals had the choice to attack an armed vs. unarmed cop they would pick the armed cop to attack? Both cops would have the same benefit to being attacked - it would prevent them from capturing the criminal and sending them to prision (a reason for attack which does not exist for Joe Citizen, btw). So, if they accomplish their same goal to prevent capture by shooting the unarmed cop who was unable to shoot back, do you honestly think they would choose to shoot the armed cop instead? Get real. They shoot at the unarmed cop and fail - what happens... they get captured and go to prison. They shoot at the armed cop and fail - what happens... they get shot back at and possibly killed.

Now... given the choice between armed Joe Citizen and unarmed Joe Citizen, exactly WHY is the criminal going to pick armed Joe Citizen to attack? The potential gains are going to be the same. The criminal already has a gun... the potential gain is whatever happens to be in Joe Citizen's wallet. So why in hell would a criminal CHOOSE to attack the Joe Citizen who they KNOW can shoot at them and potentially kill them...for a few credit cards and $$$ that may be in Joe Citizen's wallet when there are 99.5% of the rest of Joe Citizens who are not visibly armed that they can get the same benefit from - a few credit cards and $$$ from their wallet, without the KNOWN possibility that they may be killed in defense?

And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.

It is impossible for you to possibly comprehend that cops are attacked for different reasons than Joe Citizen. It is also, somehow, impossible for you to possibly comprehend that the criminal is simply not dumb enough to not choose the path of least resistance in order to accomplish their goals.
 

Deserteagle

New member
I only deter crime in my vicinity, that is going to happen to me, not the store next door, or the store in the next neighborhood.

Actually yes that is mostly correct. Police usually do have to wait to be dispatched to a crime to pursue the bad guy. Because they do deter crime where they are at. The majority of police being shot by their own weapon is during the resisting of arrest. I'm not arresting anyone. Where did you read that police don't deter crime and are attacked all the time? I think police deter crime all the time, just not everywhere because they can't be everywhere. Its more common they get resistance then attacked.


Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

Link Removed
 

Deserteagle

New member
Let me ask you a question, Deserteagle. You want to rob a shipment of money. You have two choices. You can rob the Brinks fully armored vehicle with 3 armed guards. OR you can rob the Volkswagen bus with a magnetic sign on the door "Bubba's Financial Transportation Company, LLC" manned by three 70 year old twice-retired guys wearing plastic security guard badges and no guns. Assuming both vehicles have the same amount of money in them, which vehicle are you going to choose? Which vehicle do you assume ANY criminal would choose?

What you are failing to take into account, and will refuse to take into account because your theory is programmed into your closed mind is the reason that armed cops are attacked by criminals and Joe Citizen visibly armed is not is two fold. First, ALL cops in the US are armed. The criminals don't have a choice with cops. If they are going to attack a cop, they must attack an armed cop. Do you think if the criminals had the choice to attack an armed vs. unarmed cop they would pick the armed cop to attack? Both cops would have the same benefit to being attacked - it would prevent them from capturing the criminal and sending them to prision (a reason for attack which does not exist for Joe Citizen, btw). So, if they accomplish their same goal to prevent capture by shooting the unarmed cop who was unable to shoot back, do you honestly think they would choose to shoot the armed cop instead? Get real. They shoot at the unarmed cop and fail - what happens... they get captured and go to prison. They shoot at the armed cop and fail - what happens... they get shot back at and possibly killed.

Now... given the choice between armed Joe Citizen and unarmed Joe Citizen, exactly WHY is the criminal going to pick armed Joe Citizen to attack? The potential gains are going to be the same. The criminal already has a gun... the potential gain is whatever happens to be in Joe Citizen's wallet. So why in hell would a criminal CHOOSE to attack the Joe Citizen who they KNOW can shoot at them and potentially kill them...for a few credit cards and $$$ that may be in Joe Citizen's wallet when there are 99.5% of the rest of Joe Citizens who are not visibly armed that they can get the same benefit from - a few credit cards and $$$ from their wallet, without the KNOWN possibility that they may be killed in defense?

And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.

It is impossible for you to possibly comprehend that cops are attacked for different reasons than Joe Citizen. It is also, somehow, impossible for you to possibly comprehend that the criminal is simply not dumb enough to not choose the path of least resistance in order to accomplish their goals.

However, open carrying takes away a great tactical advantage. As the criminal is deciding whether or not they should attack you or another guy with no visible gun, the criminal has the reassurance that he knows exactly what your response will be when attacked. He can see your gun, and knows that if provoked, you will reach over and pull out your holstered gun. Knowing that, he can come up with a plan of attack to get whatever he wants from you, such as shooting you in the back, and then taking your gun, and your wallet.

As for choosing which person to rob in your scenario, it is a perfectly reasonable choice to attack the armored (open carrying) guards instead of the not visibly armed guards of the other truck because you don't know what their response will be. You have no idea if they are packing under their shirts or if they even have assault rifles ready to go but just out of your sight. At least with attacking the open carrying guards, you know what weapons they have and what their response will be when attacked. The not visibly carrying guards could have a not so nice surprise for you.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

Link Removed

So, tell us how your article applies? Firearm nor gun are mentioned once in the article. We are talking about Joe Citizen carrying a visible firearm as a deterrent. The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

However, open carrying takes away a great tactical advantage. As the criminal is deciding whether or not they should attack you or another guy with no visible gun, the criminal has the reassurance that he knows exactly what your response will be when attacked. He can see your gun, and knows that if provoked, you will reach over and pull out your holstered gun. Knowing that, he can come up with a plan of attack to get whatever he wants from you, such as shooting you in the back, and then taking your gun, and your wallet.

As for choosing which person to rob in your scenario, it is a perfectly reasonable choice to attack the armored (open carrying) guards instead of the not visibly armed guards of the other truck because you don't know what their response will be. You have no idea if they are packing under their shirts or if they even have assault rifles ready to go but just out of your sight. At least with attacking the open carrying guards, you know what weapons they have and what their response will be when attacked. The not visibly carrying guards could have a not so nice surprise for you.

roflmao.jpg


That was great! Do you have a writer, or do you make this stuff up yourself?
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

Link Removed


I'll see your Missouri State and raise you Harvard. Link Removed

I never said they are shot more by their own weapon than a criminals weapon. When they are shot by their own weapon, again not the scenario they are shot by a criminals weapon, the gun is not taken from behind the officer, but during some kind of resistance during the arrest. I'm trying to understand where you're view is coming from. Explain this a little further please, your argument that police are attacked all the time, are you saying the officers are confronted by the offenders(the actual crime is against the officer), or that the offenders attack the officer after the officer is attempting to detain them (for a crime that has all ready happened)?
 

Sooner

New member
So, by your logic, those who open carry are more likely to be robbed?


Wow, I cant believe anyone would rather rob a visibly armed person over one who isnt.....That would be one very crazy and stupid (read deathwish/wants to die) robber.......




Would you like to know why I dont believe it? Because here in the real world (not fantasy land like your mind) robbers/thieves want to stay alive just as much as you do..... Open carrying a weapon instead of hiding it is a MUCH BETTER deterrent than the thought that someone MIGHT be armed...


I think the OP was simply stating that his believe is that concealed carry is proper. You can certainly assert that you believe open carry is the best but you don't have to insult him.
 

G50AE

Well-known member
And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Ding! Ding! Ding! we have a winner.
 

Axeanda45

Banned
I think the OP was simply stating that his believe is that concealed carry is proper. You can certainly assert that you believe open carry is the best but you don't have to insult him.

Dude, next time look at who the post is talking to, in this case, it WAS NOT the OP........... It was someone who thinks the "element of surprise" is the most bestest thingy EVAH!!!!!!!.....


Also, Since when is pointing out actual flaws in a theory or statement considered an insult?

By your logic... anyone who is wrong or loses an argument or discussion has been insulted... Wow....
 

bpbernard

New member
At least desert sees my point as well. That's all I was tying to say. In most cases I prefer hidden just because of my area, how many times do I have to say that. If I was allowed OC Yes having a gun on my hip allows me to increase my chances of survival, whether it is hidden or exposed. I don't know anyone that would disagree with me there.

Makes sense. I may be new to the forum, but it would seem that as with most things in life there is no right or wrong for all circumstances. Sometimes it may be better to OC & sometimes CCing might be the better option if licensed. I'm not sure how you would research the likelihood of becOming a victim while OCing because the circumstances are never constant, so I'm not sure how you would get data for such a study. In the end even if carrying it may not be the best option to even draw. It's a judgement call everytime you carry, but there's no universal right or wrong.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,432
Messages
623,585
Members
74,268
Latest member
zyvaaprilia
Top