Open Carry

[walnutred]

Bringing in NY laws into the equation are total BS. In fact, the bashers should do themselves a favor and look up FBI crime stats. The lowest crime rates in the US are in the liberal northeast. Who'd a thunk it? Have fun.

OK, I took your advice. According to the FBI: FBI — Table 2, violent crime is on the rise in the Liberal Northeast and on the decline in the conservative Midwest. So States that are loosening carry laws the last couple years are seeing a decline in violent crime, if you can believe the FBI. Actually according to the FBI violent crime is on the decline EVERYWHERE except your Liberal Northeast. However I'm sure firearms laws in NY, NJ and Mass have nothing to do with this trend.

 

[ladder13]

OK, I took your advice. According to the FBI: FBI — Table 2, violent crime is on the rise in the Liberal Northeast and on the decline in the conservative Midwest. So States that are loosening carry laws the last couple years are seeing a decline in crime, if you can believe the FBI.

On the rise, yes, but still a LONG way to go to catch up to most of the rest of the USA.

Actually the firearm laws have been the same for decades so that dog don't hunt.

I don't need to inform anyone I'm carrying including the police.

 

[cshoff]

? for the OC fans. If it's so wonderful and is a proven crime deterrent why don't you OC all the time?

Several reasons for me. My primary reasons are because an openly carried firearm doesn't work real well with my job. I do a lot of plumbing and electrical work in confined areas (in crawl spaces, attics, under sinks, etc) and a gun in a OWB holster tends to get snagged on things as you try to move around. A concealed gun in a IWB holster, on the other hand, tends to stay tucked in close to the body and doesn't snag so easy. It's easier on me and on the gun/holster. In addition, Missouri does not have open carry preemption, so while the state has no law against open carry, political subdivisions within the state are allowed to enact local ordinances that restrict or prohibit the act, and many of them do. It creates a "patchwork" of areas where a person can and can't lawfully open carry, and it takes time and research to sort it all out (and they can change at any time, without you ever knowing about it).

Furthermore, I prefer not to play the part of open-carry educator. Frankly, I don't have the time or desire when I am out in public to answer questions that people inevitably ask. The close friends I have who open carry, on the other hand, seem to enjoy that aspect of it.

Lastly, I believe the concealed gun generally gives a person more tactical flexibility under the situations a citizen is most likely to encounter. My primary mission is to keep myself and my family safe. I want to try to insure that my first option is to LEAVE an area where something is going down, rather than to be in a position where I am forced to stay and fight. I believe a concealed gun has a slight edge in that regard.

With that said, my wife and I hike Missouri trails quite a bit in the spring and fall, when it's not so hot out. We both open carry exclusively on those trips. When I take my walks along the county roads out here, I open carry. I have a property that I care-take as part of my job, and I generally open carry when I am there. And I always have an exposed sidearm, in addition to my exposed long gun, when I am out hunting.

But I digress, I believe it was oldman45 who stated earlier that, there is no "perfect" way to carry a gun. And he is correct, each method has it's own positive and negative attributes. From a personal safety standpoint, mindset and good avoidance/deescalation skills are probably much more important than just having a gun with you. A gun can be an important part of personal safety, but it requires that person carrying it be able to use it in a efficient, judicious, and prudent manner, REGARDLESS of how it is being carried.

 

[ladder13]

You've claimed open carry somehow leads to higher crime rates.

So which is it...claimed or equate? And please provide a link.
If this is what you're referring to, it's a study based on stats. You like stats don't you?

No "northeast" state in the top 15 at least. I guess these folks have some agenda

Most dangerous states: Crime rankings for 2010

 

[walnutred]

On the rise, yes, but still a LONG way to go to catch up to most of the rest of the USA.

It's nice you have goals though. However looking at Table 5 of the FBIs statistics you will see that states like NY, NJ and Mass all have higher violent crime rates than states like OH, IN and Ky. For some reason the FBI does not seem to agree with you, but I'm sure that will not shake your convictions.

 

[ladder13]

It's nice you have goals though. However looking at Table 5 of the FBIs statistics you will see that states like NY, NJ and Mass all have higher violent crime rates than states like OH, IN and Ky. For some reason the FBI does not seem to agree with you, but I'm sure that will not shake your convictions.

Didn't know Oh, In and Ky were the "rest of the USA". Only 6 States? We can nitpick all we want, I'm retired and have all day.
Wanna talk unemployment too?

Looks like most of your citizens are in jail, maybe that's why crime is down. Congrats.

 

[cshoff]

So which is it...claimed or equate? And please provide a link.
If this is what you're referring to, it's a study based on stats. You like stats don't you?


Most dangerous states: Crime rankings for 2010

It's the same thing. If I equate your "worn tires" with your propensity to "drive like a madman", it is a claim that your driving is the cause of your worn tires.

But it's irrelevant. The study you cited makes no such distinction. It doesn't factor in A) how many people actually open carry in the states where it is legal, B) whether or not the crime rates are higher or lower in areas of those states that may not allow open carry (such as in St. Louis here in MO, which doesn't allow open carry but counts for the majority of crime in the state), C) demographic makeup and socioeconomic conditions, D) unemployment rates, E) population density, and a host of other factors that might have a direct impact on crime rates in any given area. It's simply to broad to draw any conclusions from.

It would be like pointing to a study that showed vehicular accidents had increased in a certain state over the last 10 years, and then saying, "anti lock brakes have failed to reduce vehicular accidents in that state". It's erroneous and fails the logic test right off the bat.

 

[ladder13]

Well let see here. You post making a statement about antis. I follow agreeing with you. Then you post arguing with me about my post where I agree with you. What the hell is that.

Son, are you sure you've got both oars in the water or do you just like to argue?

Bob

That boat has sunk.

 

[cshoff]

Well let see here. You post making a statement about antis. I follow agreeing with you. Then you post arguing with me about my post where I agree with you. What the hell is that.

Son, are you sure you've got both oars in the water or do you just like to argue?

Bob

Reading comprehension may not be your thing. See if you can follow along. I only took issue with one part of your post. You said:

I agree which is why I wonder why the OC carry folks keep trying to rub the anti's nose in it...<snip>

To which I replied:

I'm not sure how they are "rubbing their nose in it". If a person chooses to lawfully open carry, then great. If, however, another person chooses to be offended by it, then that is their problem....<snip>

Of course, you never came back with an answer, only the condescending reply you made above. So I guess it would be appropriate to ask if you can even find the lake with your boat, because my oars seem to be working just fine, thank you.

 

[Engine 21]

Losing sight

I'm sorry if anyone is offended by my opinion but that is all that it is - my opinion. I prefer to carry concealed, others who have for whatever reason prefer to O.C. and that's fine and it's your choice. However, circumstances may dictate in what manner you carry a weapon. If your out hunting, on open land, or making security checks on property (yours or someone elses) I understand the OC. If you are in L.E. and on duty, I understand OC. However, if you are in an urban, suburban enviornment where many people are gathered in more confined area you may want to carry concealed. No, no one has been attacked by the anti-gun crowd but they can make an issue of it and draw unwanted attention to you when you just want to go about your business. Or, they call police from their handy cell phone with the usual "man with a gun" 911 call and now you have to go through all that agrivation - properly concealed eliminates those issues. I know about the zones, 15 feet, 21 feet etc. That really doesn't enter into it in suburban / urban areas because your usually 10 or 12 feet from the next person. Like my old boss said "keep it concealed, unless you didn't want that day off anyway".

 

[cudamank]

Huh? Since the majority of LEO's are UNIFORMED, concealed carry as you suggest is simply a ridiculous concept; folks expect them to be armed.

On the other hand, the vast majority of LEO's who work in mufti DO carry concealed. In the organization for which I worked, concealed carry at all times when non-uniformed was mandatory. That meant CONCEALED! Period. Similarly you don't see FBI Special Agents, US Secret Service Special Agents, US Marshals, and other professionals open carrying in the normal course of their duties. That is a fact. Another fact is they do deal with armed bad guys regularly...whilst carrying concealed.

That said, I daresay you would be greatly surprised by the numbers of non-uniformed LEO's who are out and about CCW.

Be safe.

No need to roll your eyes, your own statement says that a large majority of law enforcement CC,. Based on this fact, and as others have stated, the general public doesn't like to see armed people, (yes I do know they are in uniform), combined with the observation that CC is as almost as fast as OC, then following all these arguments against OC, even uniform police should CC. Criminals wouldn't know which ones are armed, less chance of someone attacking an officer for their weapon, (they dont they have one), and the general public would feel safer.

Not so ridiculous after all.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Can't we all just get along?

John

 

[27145]

Going well so far!

 

[walnutred]

Cudamank, at the risk of sounding contradictory I think CC has the greater impact on crime reduction for the general public, but OC has the greater impact for the individual. I CC 98% of the time because I believe the more people that CC the more cautious criminals will become. However the times I felt there was a chance I personally might be targeted I OCed because I believe it is a visual deterrent. That or for whatever reason I felt the need for a larger handgun than I can conveniently CC. When we walk the dog I often open carry a larger handgun because of the varmints we occasionally run across. However I live in the country were shooting vermin is expected.

 

[NKJ nut]

For the sake of discussion lets assume for a minute that OC is a deterrent to an attack by a criminal. what would happen if everyone who carries were required to do so openly? Would it stop crime or just make it easier for criminals to choose their victim?

 

[walnutred]

For the sake of discussion lets assume for a minute that OC is a deterrent to an attack by a criminal. what would happen if everyone who carries were required to do so openly? Would it stop crime or just make it easier for criminals to choose their victim?

Nothing will "stop" crime. If you look at stats though, during the last quarter of the 19th century violent crime was higher in cities like Boston, New York and Cincinnati than Dodge City, Denver and El Paso.

 

[cshoff]

For the sake of discussion lets assume for a minute that OC is a deterrent to an attack by a criminal. what would happen if everyone who carries were required to do so openly? Would it stop crime or just make it easier for criminals to choose their victim?

Obviously, it's not a question that can be answered with any high degree of certainty because criminals have it in their nature to adapt and change their strategies just like those of us who are trying to avoid being victimized do. With that said, if a criminal delays committing his crime or moves on to seek out a softer target due to the presence of an openly carried firearm (or the presence of anything else), then the very definition of "deterrence" has been satisfied, and in either case, a crime has absolutely been prevented, even if only for a moment. That is, after all, the premise behind nearly any security measure you can think of; it is a purchase of time and the hardening of a specific target, in an attempt to prevent said target from being the subject of an attack or crime.

My best educated guess, based on the studies that have been conducted as well as the incidents that have been verified and documented, is that the people who are visibly armed would be largely left alone and the criminals would tend to target those who were not visibly armed. Of course, there are a lot of additional variables that could come into play that could certainly effect the choice made by the criminal. Just as an example, I dare say that the person pushing a wheelbarrow full of gold bars down the road is much more likely to be targeted than the homeless guy with a shopping cart full of junk, regardless of whether or not he is armed. In addition, and as was mentioned earlier in this thread, how a person carries themselves, their perceived level of awareness, and their physical stature surely plays a part in it as well.

 

[oldman45]

So which is it...claimed or equate? And please provide a link.
If this is what you're referring to, it's a study based on stats. You like stats don't you?

No "northeast" state in the top 15 at least. I guess these folks have some agenda

Most dangerous states: Crime rankings for 2010

Well, I hate to burst your bubble but the source you gave is nothing more than a rating by the staff of a magazine.

If you use the DOJ stats, or even the FBI stats, you will find thery have not fully compiled their listing for 2010. My worst state would be CA, followed by NY and then IL. However, none of the stats include Washington DC.

 

[hatt]

Another problem is that most people get their information from Hollywood movies. The actual wild west was pretty tame, even with all those folks toting iron.

In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:


DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)


Continue reading on Examiner.com Dispelling the myth of 'The Wild West' - Minneapolis gun rights | Examiner.com Dispelling the myth of 'The Wild West' - Minneapolis gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[ladder13]

My worst state would be CA, followed by NY and then IL. However, none of the stats include Washington DC.

With all due respect Oldman, you KNOW Louisiana is the murder capital of America, right? It's been numero uno for many years running. Sorry but Nawlins is still part of the state last time I looked. Of course that could all change with the next hurricane.

Since 2010 hasn't been compiled maybe you can give us stats from 2008 or 2009 proving La is safer than ...pick one...NY, NJ, Ill...

CLEARLY, the Northeast has less crime than any other area of America...FBI stats, not some magazine as you quote.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/standard_links/regional_estimates.html

I'm sure the cheerleaders will be by shortly to claim these stats are "flawed" or "bogus" or whatever.