Open carry to exercise your right. Concealed for defense.

[Bithabus]

Noticed a man open carry in a high crime area (In Mississippi - I reside back and forth between the two states) with his whole family today. I fully support him doing so; however, I don't believe open carry is functional for more than exercising your right (which is increasingly important for us to do) as the bad guy with the gun would never let you even draw (of course he will see you with your gun [yes I did specify a gun here] - that's the idea right?).

Better in an area like that with your family to CCW.

I know this isn't so political, but it is not very informative for the CHL section either, but it could be political...

for practical purposes, shouldn't we all have the right to CCW barring violent criminal history or certain mental problems? Practical as in ccw cannot be a mistaken for aggression, therefore assumed purpose should be defensive carry. Right not privilege as in there should be no cost (or class discrimination) associated with the right to ccw. I might assume this man was open carrying because he could not get a ccw license, which bars him from the more practical use of his weapon for the defense of his family.

I'm aiming for general discussion about ccw vs open carry and the practicality vs farce of open carry states which still require a license to ccw.

If you are correct we would have empirical evidence. In other words, since OC by non-LE is legal in most states, if you were correct we would have lots of citeable instances where the bad guy "took out the open carrier first", or whatever. Outside of uniformed armed personnel I'm not aware of this happening. So you're simply wrong.

Don't buy into the hysteria. Most people won't even notice your weapon.

 

[oldag]

The OP raises a valid point. I do not understand some folks' reactions here. Could OC make you a target?

Scenario, perp comes into business (restaurant, bank, whatever) gun already out and intent on robbing the place. As he comes through the door he spies someone with a pistol on their hip. Would he shoot immediately? His choices are:
1. Leave, knowing the alarm is going out and police will be looking for him, with nothing to show for his risk.
2. Tell the OC to surrender his weapon. This takes up time and has the risk the OC might draw anyhow. But the perp still gets the illegal proceeds.
3. Just shoot the OC and proceed with the robbery. Perp gets the illegal proceeds.

I am not so sure that anyone can say that alternative three would not occur.

Next scenario, perp still has his gun concealed when he comes into the business he intends to rob. In this case, he still has the three alternatives above. Except in the first case he can leave with no crime committed, so no consequences. He just goes somewhere else and tries again. In this scenario, I would say alternative three is less likely to occur. But I still do not believe that anyone can completely rule it out.

Can we have a rational discussion here?

And I back OC, even though I would probably continue to carry concealed.

 

[J. Fred]

In my 66+ years I have never been inside or outside of any business during an armed robbery.

I have been real damn close to sky to ground lightening strikes numerous times,without been hit.

I'll take my chances that I get the perp before he gets me. If that happens sometime in my next 66+ years.

 

[Sugar Land]

^^^^This

 

[oldag]

Agree on the odds. How many millions to one odds against any of us non-LEO's ever having to draw a gun? And probably not much different for most (certainly not all) LEO's.

But should that one in a million actually occur... Will be might glad to have that 1911.

 

[Charlie]

In my 66+ years I have never been inside or outside of any business during an armed robbery.

I have been real damn close to sky to ground lightening strikes numerous times,without been hit.

I'll take my chances that I get the perp before he gets me. If that happens sometime in my next 66+ years.

I agree with the above (and I'm a little older). Making up scenarios, in my opinion, is just about useless. I guess that's why we have the internet, hah!

 

[oldag]

Well, if we only think about our own experiences in life:

No need to carry a gun at all, or own one. Have not had to use one yet.
No need to worry about how fast or insane one drives, never have crashed.
No need to wear safety glasses, never had anything get in my eyes before...

 

[J. Fred]

Well, if we only think about our own experiences in life:

No need to carry a gun at all, or own one. Have not had to use one yet.
No need to worry about how fast or insane one drives, never have crashed.
No need to wear safety glasses, never had anything get in my eyes before...

Sorry but that is just stupid.^^

It is an impossible task to try and deal with all possibilities. You have to focus on the probable.

BTW - you don't have to fire a gun for it to be useful in self defense.

 

[Mreed911]

In my 66+ years I have never been inside or outside of any business during an armed robbery.

I have. I was 10 at the time, so I wasn't carrying - open or concealed.

The idea that a robber is coming in looking for people to shoot first is ludicrous. Most of the time, the gun is just a scare / authority / defense tactic, not a weapon they're looking to use. In fact, shooting someone at the start is a great way to increase your chances of getting caught, losing control of the event, etc.

This always boils down to "I don't like open carry, so I'm going to make up stupid reasons not to."

How about this? The person open carrying draws faster and shoots the robber first - the person forced to conceal loses time brushing away or pulling up their concealment (or undoing their pants and reaching their hand into their Thunderwear!) and gets shot before they can draw.

There, that plausible? That a reason to not carry concealed?

Or can we just advocate that carry is carry and to each his own?

If not, we should probably discuss gun length, because it takes fractions of a second longer to draw another inch from the holster, so we should all be carrying snubbies and pocket rockets.

And we all hit our target dead on on the first shot, right? And there's never anything/anyone BEHIND our perp, so we always actually HAVE a clean, clear shot?

 

[oldag]

Sorry but that is just stupid.^^

It is an impossible task to try and deal with all possibilities. You have to focus on the probable.

BTW - you don't have to fire a gun for it to be useful in self defense.

Exactly. But that seems to be what some folks judge by, e.g. what they have experienced.

Sure, one cannot account for every possibility.

So then what constitutes probable?

Some folks eating at a Luby's in Killeen some years ago never thought it probable that some guy with a gun would drive his truck into the restaurant and then shoot a bunch of people. If they had, they would not have been there.

And personally, my gun will never show unless it is going to shoot. Brandishing may look good in the movies, but is a little more problematic in real life.

 

[jrbfishn]

The shooters in Luby's, a crowded church, a theater or just a Walmart, HEB or any other situation similar,,,,method of carry would have been pointless.

 

[Mreed911]

And personally, my gun will never show unless it is going to shoot. Brandishing may look good in the movies, but is a little more problematic in real life.

Even though you seem unable to distinguish between the two, open carry and brandishing are NOT the same thing. A gun sitting in a holster is not being "waved around excitedly," which is the exact definition of brandishing.

Also, as noted by others, there is no separate definition, offense, etc. for "brandishing" in Texas, period. If you are in a situation where deadly force is appropriate, drawing your weapon is legally acceptable and not considered "brandishing," "flashing," "showing," or anything else.

 

[oldag]

I was not even referring to open carry - which again I advocate the RIGHT to open carry even though I would probably choose to remain carrying concealed.

Actually, what you quote is not necessarily the legal definition of brandishing. Brandishing has been in some venues determined to be in the hand and pointed at someone.

Put a gun in your hand in public and some things may happen which you did not intend.
The perp can hide his weapon and accuse you of being the perp.
A bystander who is carrying can make a bad assumption and take you out rather than the perp.
A LEO can make a bad assumption and assume you are the perp, subsequently arresting you or taking you out.

In the latter two instances it can be because: their view of the perp is blocked; they do not see the perp's gun first; because the perp concealed his gun before they saw it; because the perp begins to scream his head off that you are the perp; etc. These are not unlikely scenarios.

I will not put a gun in my hand unless I know I have to shoot. Granted, this may mean in some situation I waited too late. But that is the choice I make. Others are obviously free to make different choices.

And pulling a gun on someone in Texas can lead to felony charges. Period. If you don't believe me, talk to a LEO.

As pointed out above, it may not always be clear to the LEO who was justified and who was the perp. The justice system is not perfect.

I already pointed out some posts ago that OC could be a deterrent.

 

[oldag]

The shooters in Luby's, a crowded church, a theater or just a Walmart, HEB or any other situation similar,,,,method of carry would have been pointless.

The method of carry was not the point. The point was what constitutes probable?

 

[oldag]

Seems like it is not going to be possible to have a thoughtful discussion. Shame, as the OP raised a valid point worthy of intelligent discussions, rather than knee jerk reactions assuming opposition to open carry.

I'm done.

 

[Mreed911]

Seems like it is not going to be possible to have a thoughtful discussion. Shame, as the OP raised a valid point worthy of intelligent discussions, rather than knee jerk reactions assuming opposition to open carry.

I'm done.

Good, because I'm tired of the argument being the equivalent of "...and frogs might fly out of my butt!"

 

[Enochwel]

This always boils down to "I don't like open carry, so I'm going to make up stupid reasons not to."

I'm actually not against open carry in any way shape or reasonable form (I am against open carry bazookas for instance). I was trying to build a case that ccw is a defensive only mode of carry and questioning why an open carry with no license state does require a few hundred dollars from you and an background check before allowing you to ccw. I understand you see an advantage to open carry for defense. I just see more advantage in trading the fraction of a second it takes me to brush away my shirt (it's really very small. I do practice with a shot timer and multiple targets) for the possibility of waiting for an opportune time to draw, and this I used to build my case against the laws of such states.

 

[Blind Sniper]

I think the better question is - why the hell should it matter how or even what someone carries, as long as they do so legally and responsibly (responsibly meaning they essentially aren't being a flaming retard)?

 

[Enochwel]

I think the better question is - why the hell should it matter how or even what someone carries, as long as they do so legally and responsibly (responsibly meaning they essentially aren't being a flaming retard)?

Legally is the issue. Involving extensive background checks and extra costs of a course and fees which may or may not result in your legal right to ccw as opposed to none of this requirement to open carry. I could suppose on my reasoning that the Man in my story does not have the option to ccw due to costs or fear of wasting his money or fear of "them" knowing he has a gun etc...

 

[TheDan]

I am against open carry bazookas

I support anyone's right to keep and bare bazookas if that is the arms they choose to keep and bare.