Concealed Carry. Why bother?

[silencertalk]

It depends. If I am with my daughter at dance class, or when I used to be at MyGym or Gymboree, I don't want the other people to see that I have a gun. But if I am just around town, I CCW but am less concerned about printing and often carry a HiPower, G22, P7 or other not very small pistol.

I am only aware of one time that someone spotted me with a gun. I was at a magazine store in Cambridge maybe 20 years ago, and I reached for a magazine on the top rack. My GF said that my jacket rided up and the store owner's eyes opened wide. He didn't say anything though.

[usmcvet0331]

I agree. I don't want people to know I'm carrying until I decide I need to use my gun. The element of surprise should not be under estimated. The bad guy should know when it is too late to do anything.

Let me pose this situation:
A person, intending to do harm, walks into a business, you are also in, pulls out a weapon and proceeds to rob the establishment. Maybe, they grab a hostage or harm someone. You are CC and are able to draw and fire or maybe they are able to harm someone before you get a chance.

Now, that same individual enters and sees you OC, has a flash of cognitive thought, and decides this may not be the place to be aggressive.


Is it going to happen this way? None of us have the answer to this.
Are either of these scenarios plausible? Which one of these has a better outcome, for the innocent parties mentioned?

There is a reason shootings at police stations aren't more frequent.

It is more likely the person carrying openly gets shot in the head.

[silencertalk]

Criminals don't want a challenge. They are predators. If they see someone with a gun they are not going to shoot them in the head. They are going to wait for them to leave and rob someone else.

[doubloon]

But on TV shows and movies criminals are bold and defiant.

Are you trying to say it's not this way in RL?

Next you'll be trying to tell people suppressors don't make guns completely silent.

[silencertalk]

CCW is going to make someone wish they had not picked you as a target, but then you are forced to respond, whereas if you were open carrying, they never would have picked you in the first place.

In real life, being visibly armed is going to make you less likely to be a target, not more likely.

I would want a retention holster though if I open carried. Police use them for a good reason.

[Maser]

In real life, being visibly armed is going to make you less likely to be a target, not more likely.

Maybe so, but what about those OCers who carry expensive guns such as a $4,000+ Kimber or something like that? To me it would be no different that showing off jewelery and you're just asking to be robbed. Or what about if you're OCing during an armed robbery. The robbers who are obviously armed will target an OCer right away to disarm them or worse yet kill them.

[silencertalk]

Robber's don't just walk into a store with guns drawn. They walk in, case the joint, and if all looks good, they draw and rob. If they go in and see that you have a gun, they are not going to shoot you first. They are going to call off the robbery and come back later.

[silencertalk]

Well, that is like wearing a $4000 watch. A lot of people do.

[doubloon]

In what teenage comic book infused daydream world does the average sh!t and g3t robber know the difference between a $4000 gun and a $400 gun sitting in a holster on someones hip?

This is your $600 pistol


This is your $6000 pistol


The street value of 1911 taken off a dead guy is probably somewhere around $200, maybe $300 for a purty one.

[a_canadian]

Wow. $6,000 and it still has a bunch of ugly letters and numbers stamped into it. So sad.

[silencertalk]

The stars in the trigger don't enhance the looks.

[YugoRPK]

I agree. I don't want people to know I'm carrying until I decide I need to use my gun. The element of surprise should not be under estimated. The bad guy should know when it is too late to do anything.

Let me pose this situation:
A person, intending to do harm, walks into a business, you are also in, pulls out a weapon and proceeds to rob the establishment. Maybe, they grab a hostage or harm someone. You are CC and are able to draw and fire or maybe they are able to harm someone before you get a chance.

Now, that same individual enters and sees you OC, has a flash of cognitive thought, and decides this may not be the place to be aggressive.


Is it going to happen this way? None of us have the answer to this.
Are either of these scenarios plausible? Which one of these has a better outcome, for the innocent parties mentioned?

There is a reason shootings at police stations aren't more frequent.

It is more likely the person carrying openly gets shot in the head.

Statistics wouldn't be your friend on that assumption. I'd argue that the vast majority of criminals intent on committing an armed robbery are not there looking for a gun fight. They just want to make a quick score and walk away alive. A quick casing of the joint that finds one of the patrons open carrying is going to cause most lowlifes to assume that the person carrying is a cop. Unless they are out to kill a cop ( happens ) that day your'e open carry is probably going to prevent or at least shift a robbery to down the street.

[ick]

I know this comment is pretty worthless without references and more facts... but...

Pennsylvania.

We had a Dad here that came to pick up his kids at school. He is not LEO, no FFL, no federal badge, nada. He has a valid CCW and was carrying. The kids would run out to get in the vehicle... so the Dad was within 100 feet of a school. This happened every day of the 180 school days.

One day a school official asked him to come in to the office for the minute, which he did.

In the course of events it was uncovered that he had a firearm. A few things happened.

1. Some nutjob crusader (teacher, parent, administrator, who knows) got the local DA involved.
2. The DA immediately recognized that the CCW did not wrong picking up kid and being within 100 feet.
3. The DA got all excited, however, and began the process of prosecution when the DA found out that the man entered the school with the firearm, even though invited and incidental.
4. After a short time the DA discovered that there was some exception for incidental entry with a firearm. Despite the pressure to prosecute AND the juicy opportunity for the DA to "Get their name on the national stage"... the DA dropped the case, citing some kind of an exception.

I wish I knew more information....

[YugoRPK]

I know this comment is pretty worthless without references and more facts... but...

Pennsylvania.

We had a Dad here that came to pick up his kids at school. He is not LEO, no FFL, no federal badge, nada. He has a valid CCW and was carrying. The kids would run out to get in the vehicle... so the Dad was within 100 feet of a school. This happened every day of the 180 school days.

One day a school official asked him to come in to the office for the minute, which he did.

In the course of events it was uncovered that he had a firearm. A few things happened.

1. Some nutjob crusader (teacher, parent, administrator, who knows) got the local DA involved.
2. The DA immediately recognized that the CCW did not wrong picking up kid and being within 100 feet.
3. The DA got all excited, however, and began the process of prosecution when the DA found out that the man entered the school with the firearm, even though invited and incidental.
4. After a short time the DA discovered that there was some exception for incidental entry with a firearm. Despite the pressure to prosecute AND the juicy opportunity for the DA to "Get their name on the national stage"... the DA dropped the case, citing some kind of an exception.

I wish I knew more information....

Point of the story being that the guy carrying the gun should have unholstered before entering the school unless he just likes drama. That incident is really on the guy carrying in the school if its a grey area in your state as it appears to be. Not in mine. Concealed carry is allowed in schools and open carry in the state as a whole unless it is banned in the municipality as it is in some cities. Not mine.

I'm lucky in that I do not actually know any anti gun people or know of any in the town I live in.

[dtom29]

It is more likely the person carrying openly gets shot in the head.

Statistics wouldn't be your friend on that assumption. I'd argue that the vast majority of criminals intent on committing an armed robbery are not there looking for a gun fight. They just want to make a quick score and walk away alive. A quick casing of the joint that finds one of the patrons open carrying is going to cause most lowlifes to assume that the person carrying is a cop. Unless they are out to kill a cop ( happens ) that day your'e open carry is probably going to prevent or at least shift a robbery to down the street.

Until you come across that ONE guy that didn't take his meds that morning, or the Gang member that decides this is a good time to up his creds. Then the guy standing in line showing off his $50 dollar Raven (since the price of the gun has become important to this conversation) gets it in the back of the head. Unless you can a show a zero on the never did/never could happen scorecard, I'll keep being the surprise instead of being surprised.

[silencertalk]

That may or may not be true, but:

1. Arms have a proven deterrence effect.

2. Hiding your gun ensures that it has zero deterrence effect.

So hiding it probably increases the chances of having to use it as people will try to rob you would never would have picked you had they known you were armed.

I don't open carry for a few reasons (mostly social stigma due to it being uncommon), but being shot in the head is not one of them.

Let me ask you this - are police (who open carry) more or less likely to be robbed?

[doubloon]

...
Until you ...

He didn't say it NEVER happens. He said he believes the majority of criminals will avoid encounters with obviously armed or formidable individuals. Asking for proof of how many times something hasn't happened is absurd.

I also subscribe to the belief that the majority of criminals are looking for victims and not challenges or worthy adversaries.

Living in fear of all my choices making me a target for some nut job is no way to go through life.

If it helps your cause, here is one report of an open carry citizen targeted for his gun. Search as hard as you want, this is the only case I know about. You may find more but it's definitely the exception and not the norm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_YUO4SzcY

And before anybody goes ga-ga over the idea this guy was targeted over some expensive, rare, collectible firearm it was a Walther P22. The robber probably felt gypped once he had time to check out his "prize" and threw it in a sewer.
http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practici ... ed-of-gun/

[TROOPER]

Let me ask you this - are police (who open carry) more or less likely to be robbed?

Well.... the Tsarnaev brothers specifically targeted an LEO to gain his gun. However, that is 'anecdotal evidence', and in a statistical conversation, it has no relevance. In a philosophical conversation, however, it does indicate the possibility of being targeted for the firearm.

I'll assume that because you said the word "likely", that you're seeking a broad-range statistical pattern. In which case, I'd assume that the deterrent factor of open-carrying improves the odds of avoiding criminal confrontation.

That said, it should be pointed out that I used the qualifier "criminal" to describe the type of confrontation which may be reduced. I believe that if one were seeking to avoid any type of confrontation, that concealed would be the better practice. It seems that as far as anecdotes go, there are more negative anecdotes of people being detained or inconvenienced by either law enforcement or well-meaning private citizenry as a result of their OC versus the number of people negatively targeted by criminals for the same reason.

This is interesting since it shows that the odds of well-meaning harassment are greater than ill-meaning, but that the stakes for ill-meaning are likely to be higher. The unknown variable in making a valid, mathematical decision is the degree of safety afforded by virtue of OC.

Bear with me on this part. If you look at the elements involved in a murder-victim, there are certain traits which they tend to share amongst themselves. Most murder victims know their murderer, for example, or were engaged in some form of criminal activity. Therefore, it's possible to generate a list of things to avoid based on priority. I'm going to make up this list for the sake of discussion, and I'm going to guess what the priorities are - again, for the sake of discussion.

- Who you know
- What you're doing
- Where you're doing it
- When you're doing it

As in -- and these statistics are made-up -- 80% of people are murdered by someone they know.... 70% were engaged in a crime at the time of the death, and/or were murdered as a result of a prior crime ... 60% are murdered within major metropolises on the wrong-side-of-the-tracks (or known criminal neighborhoods)... and 60% of murders take place at night.

Therefore, if a person knew no criminals, didn't engage in crime, and stayed out of high-crime areas at night.... their collective odds would be dramatically improved.

I suspect that traits have percentages of correlation amongst murder victims, and I suspect that OC vs CCW do not have a numbers great enough to generate meaningful statistical correlations. Basically, the murder of lawful CCWs might always be considered a statistical outlier.

I can't stress this point enough, so I'll repeat it: I made up all the stats. They are only there to give a framework for the theory as opposed to making valid mathematical comparisons. I believe a person could comb through enough of these stats -- if it hasn't been done already -- and generate a doctoral thesis on the results. I'm not going to spend a year threshing the numbers just to discuss, so if you have a complaint about it, share it, but be aware that I'm not citing a source, or standing by my own posted numbers.

[doubloon]

...
- Who you know
- What you're doing
- Where you're doing it
- When you're doing it
...

Situational awareness ... wurd.

[silencertalk]

Speaking of which, American police know that if you are in uniform you should have your gun and armor on. But I was in England last week and the police have no guns. It is insanity.

[a_canadian]

When a couple of policemen get beheaded in the streets they'll rethink the whole unarmed police policy. UK police are more often armed than they used to be, but it's still special units carrying pistols as I understand it. The sense that absurd, murderous behaviours are in the air is strong lately. More idiots willing to 'sacrifice' their worthless selves in the name of some bizarre notion of a cause. It's pathetic of course, but the result usually involves the blood of innocents and good people.

[silencertalk]

I saw some MP5s and an MP7 at govt buildings.

A few beheadings already occurred and they didn't change policy.

When you think about it, even the US military does not allow personnel to be armed normally. For example, when walking around the US inside or outside of base in uniform. That is just wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... anity.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hears.html

[a_canadian]

Of course it's wrong, and such policies have probably cost more lives than they have saved. It is almost as though government agencies don't trust their own employees... is this possible? </sarcasm> What I meant was the beheadings of police officers in particular. A soldier, unarmed (and not currently serving?), was beheaded by a couple of idiot zealots. But soldiers can be written off by government. Not so easy to dismiss a couple of policemen, especially if they're unarmed. I think the British government could try to sweep one policeman's beheading under the rug, but two or three would tip the balance in favour of properly protecting officers from creeps with knives.

The UK laws on knife possession haven't done a darn thing to reduce knife-related violence. And while gun-related violence has diminished, the criminals still manage to procure firearms as they always have. If they're not terribly imaginative criminals (ie; most criminals) they resort to perfectly legal and easily acquired things like shotguns. If they're higher-end gangsters they import whatever they like. England provides a glaring example of just how poorly gun restrictions work in preventing murders and injuries. About the only thing these restrictions do is push more suicidal folk into using pills or other methods when guns aren't available. Same in US states or Canada where handgun restrictions are tighter, places like California. If some idiot wants to go out with a bang, he'll simply circumvent the law and buy whatever guns he wants.

But as to the open versus concealed argument, I'd have to go with the concealed side if one is going to carry a firearm daily. Unless EVERYONE is carrying, like in the Wild West days, I just can't see anything but trouble coming from the odd person carrying openly. Just draws too much attention, and some of that is bound to be unfriendly, leading towards escalation in confrontations. With concealed carry everyone's nice and polite in their not knowing whether or not the other guy has a gun. Not that a handgun should necessarily represent any sort of intimidation. I just think it should remain out of sight unless and until deadly force is necessary.

[TROOPER]

... or look at it this way: I'm almost certain to avoid places where I would benefit from the deterrent of visible carrying.... while at the same time, I frequent places that might confront me for NOT concealing.

It isn't that one is necessarily better than the other, but if I feel the need to deter, then I will leave. With the exception of a fuel stop being completely necessary, I just cannot imagine a situation where I would have no choice but go into a situation that I believe is dangerous.

[a_canadian]

Exactly. I can imagine two justifications for entering high-risk situations or areas. Not reasons, just excuses. One is if a person is an idiot. The other is if a person imagines they might become some sort of hero. Which is kind of the first reason, so I suppose being an idiot is the only excuse unless one is an active police officer, in which case good luck.