Open Carry...*gasp*

[FarmerRick]

~~ snip ~~

One last thing...yes, I'm long-winded...A lot of you mentioned the element of surprise that CC gives.  I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic.  It seems to be more of an offensive move.  Honestly, the last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon on another human being. For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place.  If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible.  That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm. That all being said...I have no problem with those who choose to CC.  I think the best option is whatever you are most comfortable with.

I think that part in bold is very true, and probably the reason most(99% maybe?) Law Enforcement OPEN CARRIES their primary weapons.

I fully support you in open carrying, and wish more people would. It is YOUR RIGHT, exercise it!!

[JTH]

I think that part in bold is very true, and probably the reason most(99% maybe?) Law Enforcement OPEN CARRIES their primary weapons.

I'm think they open carry because since they are a uniformed cop, it doesn't help them at all to carry concealed.  It isn't like people won't be able to tell they are a cop...

I also note here that law enforcement types tend to have to fight over their weapons a lot.

My comment about there being no data on the deterrence effect of OC, is that there IS data on the deterrence effect of CC.  And if we are able to get data on one, we are able to get data on the other.  More precisely, if you accept the research that says that increased CC can have a deterrence effect, then you have to accept that OC can be researched in a similar fashion.

I don't see surprise as a defensive tactic.  It seems to be more of an offensive move.  Honestly, the last thing I would ever want to do is use my weapon on another human being. For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place.  If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible.  That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm.

Surprise is an offensive move.  But then again, no matter what anyone says, a handgun is not a defensive weapon (it has no defensive capabilities--it does not block, shield, or protect against a physical attack) it is an offensive weapon.  If you ever have to use it for your defense, you will have to use it in an offensive fashion---and having surprise on your side will be a significant helpful factor. 

Here's something to think about.  You say "For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place.  If the knowledge that I am armed and aware doesn't deter a criminal from acting, then I have already lost. "

If a criminal acts and you think you've lost---then your mental outlook is going to hinder your effective action. 

You say: "The only thing I can do at that point is mitigate further harm and end the encounter as swiftly as possible.  That's why I want quick and unobstructed access to my firearm. "

And that makes perfect sense.  An important thing to remember, however, is that the criminal knows you are carrying, and that is not sufficient to stop them---which means that he believes that either you cannot threaten him for some situational reason, or that he will take care of you first.  Hence my earlier comment about empty-hand training and retention holsters (quality ones).

This phrase:  "For that reason, I do not want surprise on my side after a crime is in progress, I'd rather stop it from happening in the first place." ---seems to assume that it is an either/or situation.  And it also seems to assume that having the gun in the open will stop it from happening.  (We can indeed assume that a concealed weapon will give you the help of "surprise" as long as you can react in time.  The "reacting in time" part is just like it is for OC, so in the case of CC, you'll have surprise on your side assuming all else is equal.)

I just haven't read any information about OC actually being a deterrence, other than when it is on a police officer's hip.  I'm sure that there have been cases in which it was---but I just don't know how often it makes a difference. 

It would be nice to have some research on it.

I also would be happy if OC was more common, and commonly accepted.  It currently isn't, though, which is too bad.

I will note that I'm pretty much in agreement with this statement:

As for deterring crime, one person open carrying makes you the person they eliminate first, and makes you a suspect with the general public and the police.  20 people open carrying is a visual deterrent.

...none of which changes the fact that if you are comfortable carrying OC, and prefer to do so, then it is most certainly your choice, and you should do what you want. 

[Dan W]

I think the real advantage of CCW over Open Carry is that even if only 1-2% of the population ever actually carry concealed, the criminal element does not know who is armed and therefore forced to change tactics or locations to find easier targets.

So, the effective crime deterrent for CCW is much higher than the real number of permit holders, while  Open Carry is limited the actual number of visibly armed persons and locations

[GreyGeek]

I also note here that law enforcement types tend to have to fight over their weapons a lot.

I'm going to rely on my memory for this but, IIRC, over the 10 years between 1999 and 2010 about 51 officers were killed with their own weapons, and 104 officers had their weapons stolen.

[MissMichella]

Well, I don't know about all of you, but I'm enjoying all the different perspectives and experiences on this subject.  There's obviously a lot of thought put into what particular method of carry you've all chosen, which I think is important. 

My comment about there being no data on the deterrence effect of OC, is that there IS data on the deterrence effect of CC.  And if we are able to get data on one, we are able to get data on the other.  More precisely, if you accept the research that says that increased CC can have a deterrence effect, then you have to accept that OC can be researched in a similar fashion.

Do you happen to know where I could find this data?  I'd be interested in checking it out!    Personally, I have a hard time seeing statistics as being purely black and white.  There's so many variables that can't or aren't factored into the outcome of studies.  I'm curious how they collected the information on CC deterrence.

As far as OC deterrence data goes, I still feel like this would be pretty hard to track as most criminals aren't going to admit to a crime they haven't committed...but if they can track CC deterrence, it seems logical they could do the same for OC.

Surprise is an offensive move.  But then again, no matter what anyone says, a handgun is not a defensive weapon (it has no defensive capabilities--it does not block, shield, or protect against a physical attack) it is an offensive weapon.  If you ever have to use it for your defense, you will have to use it in an offensive fashion---and having surprise on your side will be a significant helpful factor. 

I think you're right...if someone has to use their weapon, it would be in an offensive manner.  I'm still mulling over whether gaining the element of surprise is worth the loss of the crime/attack never happening because the offender saw you were armed.  I suppose I should do some more reading on the subject because a lot of my opinion stems from what I think is logical, but from my experience, most criminals planning to commit a crime would rather have an easy target.  If they can see I'm armed, the risk starts to outweigh the benefit.  It seems that OC would be a big deterrence for the types of crimes I am most likely to face...but I don't (always) think like a criminal.    Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. If the potential criminal has seen that I'm open carrying, and decides to go for it anyways, then I think I personally would at least have a faster draw if I wasn't concealing.  I hope I never have to test my theory.

If a criminal acts and you think you've lost---then your mental outlook is going to hinder your effective action. 

I don't think I put this quite right...it made better sense in my head!  Let me explain what I meant...
Every time I wear my weapon out and about, I feel like I'm taking on a huge responsibility.  I never want to have to use my weapon against another person, but I'm making the decision each time I carry that if deadly force was required, I would act.  I think that anytime a person is placed in a defensive position they lose, it's only the amount of loss that varies.  It could be as little as being shaken up by the situation or as big as losing their life, but in the end there is an impact on someone when they must defend themselves.

If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is empty-hand training? 

I guess I feel that carrying concealed makes you more likely to need to use a firearm since your attacker doesn't know if you can defend yourself or not...and I would prefer to not have to get this far into a situation.  But, like I said before, I'm not thoroughly educated on the subject.

Anyways, you all make some really good points.  Definitely food for thought.  You all have given me lots to think about.

[Dan W]

Do you happen to know where I could find this data?  I'd be interested in checking it out!

Read.... More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott

[JTH]

Here's a couple of recent links for folks to look at, regarding this topic:

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/02/open-carry-myths-misconceptions/

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/09/open-carry-myths-misconceptions-2/

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/16/open-carry-doing-it-right/

In particular, in response to MissMichella's question:

If you'll excuse my ignorance, what is empty-hand training? 

As the articles discuss---it is indeed true that perhaps some criminals might be deterred by your open carry.  But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon.  As such, if someone is open-carrying (particularly if that someone is using a passive-retention holster, or a cheap holster that breaks easily), that person should know the basics of empty-hand self-defense (weaponless self-defense training), and have practiced weapons retention techniques.

If you don't, or haven't---then you are a walking "free gun" to a criminal who has decided to go ahead and attack anyway.

I don't know anyone who can maintain situational awareness all the time.  I know people who try, including quite a number who have had specific training on doing so.  And yet---they will all admit that they simply can't do it all the time. 

One of the reasons that the trained people I know tend to overwhelmingly choose concealed carry is that they aren't worried about deterring the small-time criminals, because there are plenty of other techniques and skills that can handle those.  More serious criminals, however, won't be deterred by simply seeing someone with a firearm, and being a target and a free gun isn't what those people want to be---and they know that no one has perfect situational awareness.

Again, this isn't telling you that you shouldn't open carry--I support your right to carry any way you like. 

However, that being said, my personal opinion (so give that whatever weight it deserves) is that open carry won't stop anyone that I'd actually be seriously worried about, and it will mean that in a situation in which I'm open carrying my attacker will already have a plan to neutralize either myself or my weapon--which increases the danger level to me quite seriously.

And that's coming from the perspective of someone who has practiced martial arts for over 20 years, and who has considerable practice at empty-hand self-defense and weapons retention techniques.

[Mudinyeri]

But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon. 

My direct experience with criminals suggests that very few of them have anything resembling a plan.  Certainly, some, on the spur of the moment, may grab for a visible firearm.  However, I highly doubt that what I would describe as a "run of the mill" criminal gives much, if any, consideration to the questions, "What if I run into an armed citizen?  What if that person is openly carrying their firearm?"

Edit: FWIW, I would liken open carry with a retention holster to carrying a "biker wallet" with a chain.  Is it truly more enticing to a thief to try to grab a "biker wallet" or a regular wallet?

[CitizenClark]

I think the real advantage of CCW over Open Carry is that even if only 1-2% of the population ever actually carry concealed, the criminal element does not know who is armed and therefore forced to change tactics or locations to find easier targets.

So, the effective crime deterrent for CCW is much higher than the real number of permit holders, while  Open Carry is limited the actual number of visibly armed persons and locations

And then there are instances like this: http://www.examiner.com/article/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

[JTH]

I said:

But along with that, the one thing that is completely true is that criminals who aren't deterred by it have a plan to deal with both you and your weapon.

To which Mudinyeri replied:

My direct experience with criminals suggests that very few of them have anything resembling a plan.  Certainly, some, on the spur of the moment, may grab for a visible firearm.  However, I highly doubt that what I would describe as a "run of the mill" criminal gives much, if any, consideration to the questions, "What if I run into an armed citizen?  What if that person is openly carrying their firearm?"

I think---that you are talking about a different topic.

The criminals I have dealt with in the past (approximately 1600 or so, though it should be noted that most were convicted criminals) almost all fit the following profile:  cunning, average range of intelligence, extremely poor impulse control, and an attitude that they were the only important thing in the world--as such, other people, and other people's belongings (everything, really) did not matter compared to their own wants and needs.  (I note that the ones who only had personal-use drug charges were a little different.)

Given that---some did indeed plan their crimes.  Some were spur-of-the-moment.  And some were incredibly monumentally stupid. 

But that isn't what I was talking about.  I'm not talking about your average criminal, who decides to commit a crime and doesn't notice that you are open carrying a firearm in the place where he is going to do it.  For that case, there is no deterrent effect since he didn't see it, and it gives you no real advantage compared to concealed carry since he wasn't paying enough attention to know you had a gun, so he really isn't going to notice a careful draw, either.

I was talking about when a criminal decides to commit a crime, scopes out the area, and notices that you have a gun.  Some may be deterred by this.  However, the ones who aren't will not simply go ahead with their crime and ignore that you have a gun.  They will change what they are doing to deal with you and your gun.  Whether that means:

1) They will blindside you when you are taking a soda out of the cooler at the mini-mart as the start of their crime, or
2) They will notice you have a common SERPA holster on your right hip, so they will simply step behind you in line at the grocery store and take it out of your holster with their right hand as the start of their crime, or
3) They will just shoot you first if it is that level of crime...

I don't know which they'll pick.  But it is certainly true that if they notice you have a gun and decide to go ahead with their crime---they AREN'T going to ignore you.  They'll start their crime with you.

If their crime was a simple mugging, and you were the only victim, then whether or not you have a gun will make a difference to their choice, I'm sure---but it'll also depend on how you carry yourself and how much attention you are paying to what is going on around you.  As was posted in the links, some open carry folks were specifically targeted because it was an easy way to get a gun, based on the awareness and general demeanor of the OC person.

If your attacker knows you have a gun, and they still decide to mug you, then that is going to change how serious a situation you have, isn't it? 

We aren't talking about criminals who make plans with multiple avenues, redundancies, and alternate tactics in case of issues prior to their crime.  We are talking about when you are in a Walgreens and the person casing the place goes back outside and says to his two friends "There's a guy in there with a gun, so Joe, you get behind him in line and when we are ready drop him and get his gun and we'll take the rest of the place."

[Mudinyeri]

I haven't kept track of the number of convicted criminals with which I've interacted, but I've done jail ministries and youth detention/diversion ministries for years.  My guess would be somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 - 5000 individuals over the years.

Out of that number, I would only use the word cunning to describe a relatively small percentage - maybe 20%.  (We may be attaching different connotations to the word.)  Generally, I would agree with the rest of your description of the "average" criminal.

If we're talking about "above average" criminals who truly plan their crimes and take the time to scope out the AO ... that's a pretty small percentage in my experience - maybe five or ten percent.  Does that fit with your experience?

If so, we're talking about a relatively small chance that the relatively small percentage of the population who open carries interacts with the relatively small percentage of the criminal population who is "above average".  I think we can safely say that the odds of an "above average" criminal taking and using an open carrying civilian's firearm and using it against them are lower than the odds of being struck by lightning or dying in a plane crash.  Nevertheless, the results will doubtless be catastrophic.  As such, it doesn't hurt to give the scenario some consideration - much like one should give consideration to the possibility of being struck by lightning. 

Does that mean one should stay inside when the forecast calls for rain or whenever one doesn't carry concealed?  Probably not.  Then again, I'm not going to tell anyone that they need to open carry.  It's a personal decision.

[JTH]

If we're talking about "above average" criminals who truly plan their crimes and take the time to scope out the AO ... that's a pretty small percentage in my experience - maybe five or ten percent.  Does that fit with your experience?

No, actually.  And I don't consider these "above average" criminals, either.  Lots of idiots who knock over a mini-mart step inside and look around a bit first.  Lots of "area" crimes (as opposed to ones in which they pick one isolated victim) start with a member of the criminal set taking a quick look around. 

Again---we aren't talking scoping out the place, going back and creating a floorplan with set tactical choices.  Three guys in a car park beside a gas station, one goes in and uses the restroom while taking a look around at how many people are in there, and comes back out.  One guy takes the car around to the front and parks it and stays, the other two run in, knock over the place, and run back out, then they drive off.

Doesn't take an above average criminal to do this.  I would say that a large number of the criminals I've interacted with would have no problem doing this. 

If so, we're talking about a relatively small chance that the relatively small percentage of the population who open carries interacts with the relatively small percentage of the criminal population who is "above average".  I think we can safely say that the odds of an "above average" criminal taking and using an open carrying civilian's firearm and using it against them are lower than the odds of being struck by lightning or dying in a plane crash.  Nevertheless, the results will doubtless be catastrophic.  As such, it doesn't hurt to give the scenario some consideration - much like one should give consideration to the possibility of being struck by lightning.

I think that:

1) In Nebraska, the chances of any particular person needing to use a carried firearm for self-defense purposes is very, very small. 
2) That possibility is made even smaller by not doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places. 
3) That possibility is made even smaller by maintaining your best awareness of the situation around you, and being smart enough to not engage and just leave when incipient altercations are about to occur.

And yet, plenty of people carry anyway---in other words, they are planning on being prepared for an incredibly low probability event.

And if we are planning on being prepared for a low probability event in the first place, it seems to me that it makes sense to make said preparation the most useful.  (For the time and resources being given to it.  We don't have unlimited time and money, so not everyone can go take SouthNarc's ECQC course.) 

I don't consider criminals who simply look around for a minute before starting their crime as "above average," and I do know that criminals who target individuals may be deterred by the obvious presence of a weapon--but may also instead (based on the individual's actions) consider it a "free gun" depending on the circumstances.  And no, I still don't consider those "above average."  (Making a decision to blindside someone with a tire iron and take their gun and wallet instead of just threatening them with a knife for their wallet isn't anything incredibly difficult.)

It doesn't take a smart person to hit you.  And it doesn't take a genius to decide to hit you first using surprise if you are visibly armed.

I note that I don't believe I ever said "take your gun and use it against you"--and for good reason.  Unless you are a police officer (who actually do have their weapons used against them on occasion) that is incredibly rare.  This, however, is separate from people potentially being targeted as a primary opponent due to carrying, or having their gun stolen from them.

Point being--given choices that raise or lower your personal risk, I'm thinking that it makes more sense to take the choices that lower your personal risk.  Most of us don't carry guns as a fashion statement, we carry as part of our personal risk management plan.  In my personal opinion, open carrying doesn't lower my risk at all, and draws unnecessary attention to myself.  It also means that in certain specific (highly unlikely, but then again so is needing it in the first place) situations, my risk is highly increased.

Given no upside, and several avenues of potential downsides, it isn't an option I'd choose for normal daily carry.

Does that mean one should stay inside when the forecast calls for rain or whenever one doesn't carry concealed?  Probably not.  Then again, I'm not going to tell anyone that they need to open carry.  It's a personal decision.

I'm not going to tell anyone what type of carry they can do.

And I happen to think that five people open-carrying in a store would be a GREAT deterrent. 

Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a  firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.

When I win the lottery...

[GreyGeek]

In Nebraska, the chances of any particular person needing to use a carried firearm for self-defense purposes is very, very small. 

Except if that person is an  LEO or retired LEO, or a PI, or as an expert witness helped convict and imprison dangerous people.

[00BUCK]

everyone older than 10 has to take a  firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly

Yeah, because the second amendment says you have to have training.
NOT

[MissMichella]

Thanks for all the resources.  The more I read about this topic, the more conflicting information and research I've found.   
I suppose it's best to carry how you feel most comfortable for the situations you are most likely to face. 

And that's coming from the perspective of someone who has practiced martial arts for over 20 years, and who has considerable practice at empty-hand self-defense and weapons retention techniques.

That's an impressive number of years!  I kind of thought that's what you meant by empty-hand training.  I did Krav years ago, but have recently gotten some informal lessons in self-defense and weapon retention from my military buddies.  I hope I never have to test out what I'm learning. 
I have only heard a few stories of an OC having their weapon taken...on other forums...but I know it's something that could happen.  If this situation was the norm it seems like LEO would CC and all be in plain clothes.  A criminal COULD target me first because I'm open carrying, but a criminal COULD target a CC because they look like an easy target.  There's lots of different situations that COULD happen, so even though it's not perfect, I think situational awareness is something that is very important.

I also interact with convicted felons frequently...and in high numbers...and in my conversations with them on this topic, they overwhelmingly expressed that they would not have committed their crime if there was someone armed present.  They wouldn't want the risk of being hurt, stopped, or apprehended.  Now, I also haven't spoken to every convict on this matter, and I'm sure that there are some who wouldn't care about taking on the risks or the potential charges associated with murdering someone who was going to get in the way of their plans.

Point being--given choices that raise or lower your personal risk, I'm thinking that it makes more sense to take the choices that lower your personal risk.  Most of us don't carry guns as a fashion statement, we carry as part of our personal risk management plan. 

This part I agree with completely...except that I would say that if open carry deters a crime from being committed, it would give it an upside.  With my past and current job history, my gender, my neighborhood and areas I frequent...etc...I actually have a pretty high probability of experiencing a situation where I would need to defend myself in some way.  The situations I've already experienced led to me becoming a gun owner after all!     Assault, rape, home invasions, or being robbed are the crimes I could see being the most likely to occur in my life.  The criminal element that commits those types of crimes seem logically like the type who would seek out an easier victim rather than taking on the risk of committing their crimes on someone who had a "situation equalizer" handy.  But that just would be for me personally, so I can see how it would be different for others.

[JTH]

Except if that person is an  LEO or retired LEO, or a PI, or as an expert witness helped convict and imprison dangerous people.

Chances are still tiny.  Larger than for others, but still tiny.

[JTH]

Yeah, because the second amendment says you have to have training.
NOT

You did catch the part about starting a town, which means that people would have to buy the land from me in the first place, which means they knew what they were getting themselves into, right?  In other words, by choosing to live there they were choosing the circumstances under which they live?  And no one was forced to build themselves a house to be part of the town?

Sheesh. 

I'm pretty sure that by now, people have caught on to the fact that of all people, I'm not the person who believes that training should be mandatory before anyone can buy a gun.

I'll also note that my "town ordinance" didn't say anything about how this was necessary before anyone owned a gun---it was necessary to LIVE THERE.

Hey, kinda like Kennesaw, Georgia.  And you know what? That seems to be working pretty well.

[JTH]

I have only heard a few stories of an OC having their weapon taken...on other forums...but I know it's something that could happen.  If this situation was the norm it seems like LEO would CC and all be in plain clothes. 

Actually, lots of reports and studies show that LEOs often have to fight to retain their weapons.  (And when LEOs are shot, it is sometimes with their own weapon, though I believe this number has decreased as departments have instituted better weapons retention practice, and got themselves better holsters.)  This isn't a surprise, as the one thing they have to do in every situation is close with the criminal to cuff them.  (This makes their requirements very different from normal citizens.) 

If you read about the history of police departments and police work, you'll run into a lot of very good reasons why police departments mostly wear easily recognizable uniforms.    And given that, there isn't any reason to carry concealed.  (At least, not the primary weapon.)

[MissMichella]

Actually, lots of reports and studies show that LEOs often have to fight to retain their weapons.  (And when LEOs are shot, it is sometimes with their own weapon, though I believe this number has decreased as departments have instituted better weapons retention practice, and got themselves better holsters.)  This isn't a surprise, as the one thing they have to do in every situation is close with the criminal to cuff them.  (This makes their requirements very different from normal citizens.) 

If you read about the history of police departments and police work, you'll run into a lot of very good reasons why police departments mostly wear easily recognizable uniforms.    And given that, there isn't any reason to carry concealed.  (At least, not the primary weapon.)

You are very correct...and as a side note, in the last few months here in Lincoln attempting to grab a LEO's weapon has become more prevalent.  The retention holsters have been changed to a different model in fairly recent years for LPD.  I got a demonstration on how they worked a couple days ago and was pretty impressed.  However, I don't think a LEO is targeted solely to steal their firearm. If the attack occurred with no provocation, I believe the officer most likely was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. Even more likely of a theory, the officer’s gun was taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody for an unrelated (alleged) rime.  If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again?  Do they change policy so all LEO must carry concealed? Not that I've seen. I want to prioritize my defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.

Okay...I'll stop before I go into straight-up soapbox...     I'm a newbie, so you all are teaching me.  Free education...I love the internet.

[00BUCK]

I'll also note that my "town ordinance" didn't say anything about how this was necessary before anyone owned a gun---it was necessary to LIVE THERE.

So I am guessing said town will be in Canada then? If you start a town in the good 'ol USA you still are subject to the constitution. Requiring training is infringing on 2A. Last I looked, they hadn't removed that part, at least not yet ...