The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: gcerbone on September 10, 2011, 01:10:40 PM
-
http://www.facebook.com/groups/61085898224/?id=10150291132248225¬if_t=group_activity
Not so sure I agree with the sentiment. Tactically, he may have a point. Open carry means that you *might* loose a tactical advantage. Of course, open carrying may discourage the attack in the first place.
The uncomfortable truth for lots of folks is that once you accept the idea that something is a fundamental right, it means that individuals can exercise that right in ways that you don’t like. The whole idea of “it’s a right but you shouldn’t exercise it” is a bunch of crap. It’s one step removed from “if we let them take those nasty assault weapons then they will leave our hunting rifles alone.”
Divided we fail, Rob.
-
Pincus, like every other CCW instructor has a vested interest in down playing open carry.
The whole argument against open carry is based on the idea that "it scares the anti's".
When it comes right down to it, they deserve to be scared. They are so cowardly or irresponsible that they expect the cop to do for them what they lack the guts to do for themselves. The police could justifiably use the same argument that was used by the anti war movement in the 60's.
"If they are not willing to defend themselves why should we risk our lives to fight for them."
They just don't get the concept of "Shall not be infringed".
-
I think Rob explains his position best with this statement....
The right to OC, IMO, should NOT be exercised because it isn't the BEST way to avoid confrontation as long as possible and have the benefit of surprise when you do. Regardless of the logic of the responses, they are REAL and have to factored into the choices that we make. It isn't logical that people try to hurt one another and steal their stuff either, BUT....
....and....
The good news is that I teach Tactics, not Politics. :-)
IMHO, I think he's more interested in citizens maintaining a tactical advantage rather than making a political statement....I support OC, too....but I'm more interested in carrying my firearm as a SD weapon rather than a political statement....I've got t-shirts for that....
-
I doubt that I would OC in a public area, BUT I strongly support the passing of legislation that would permit me to do so as it would stop me from worrying whether or not I was 'printing'/accidentally 'brandishing' thus enabling me to carry a more effective weapon under my shirt.
MP
-
I have never heard any one else mention what I consider to be the only valid argument against open carry.
I used to do all the time.
The pistol was forever whacking furniture, door cases etc as I walked by.
I finally quit doing when while splitting kindling the ax handle whacked the grip and split the grip panel.
Concealed carry, even if the gun is really obvious, keeps the pistol closer to the body and far more protected from damage incurred in the course of daily routines.
-
acerbone,
Welcome aboard, and even if some, like me, disagree, please know that we welcome differing views and debates.
All that said, I don't understand your issue with that post of Rob's. He is saying that you should not carry open in order to make a political statement. He is not saying it is politically incorrect to open carry. Rob does believe that concealed is the best for retention, the element of surprise, to not draw undue attention of both the general public and law enforcement that should not be distracted by you, and to not single you out as the first target in a violent situation.
In this post Rob is not saying that open carry is politically incorrect or harmful to our stance and 2nd Amendment protection of the Right.
Keep in mind that the more well known and the broader the education area of an instructor the more careful they are going to become with their words. This is because they always have to be aware of the most stupid person that will quote them in public, the media or a court of law. They need to be very careful with what they post on a place like facebook, put in their videos or do and say on broadcast statements, because there are idiots out there that will take it without thinking and act. In a private class they can say and recommend more, because they know their students and can make sure their words are fully understood.
-
.....He is saying that you should not carry open in order to make a political statement. He is not saying it is politically incorrect to open carry.......
M58,
I disagree with you and Rob. I do not believe it is wrong to mix the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
-
Its a two edged sword. Open carry leaves you more vulnerable than concealed carry. I do open carry occasionally, I like to exercise my rights . But concealed carry has more advantages .
-
M58,
I disagree with you and Rob. I do not believe it is wrong to mix the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
Feel free to disagree. I can't speak for Mr. Pincus, but you will not change me. And if you come to a class I am instructing in you will not win the debate.
-
In Florida it reaches 100+ with humidity at 80%. I would LOVE open carry!
-
...you will not change me. And if you come to a class I am instructing in you will not win the debate.
I'm not really worried about that.
-
M58,
I disagree with you and Rob. I do not believe it is wrong to mix the First Amendment with the Second Amendment.
I don't think Rob or M58 is saying it is wrong....just that it might not be the best option if you are truly concerned about being able to survive an armed attack.
As has been said, you are wearing a "shoot me first" sign, you are much easier for the bad guy to deal with as he will know who he to worry about, and you are at greater risk of having someone make a grab for your weapon..if only to run off with it.
There may be some deterrent value to open carry, but I would not bet my life on it...particularly if there are multiple bad guys....you will be out gunned and they will have the initiative.
-
......As has been said, you are wearing a "shoot me first" sign, you are much easier for the bad guy to deal with as he will know who he to worry about,......
This is the one argument against OC I find somewhat far fetched. In theory it can happen but I'm really wondering if that is how it will play out. It makes a few assumptions: 1. A person is really a target by OC. 2. It assumes the perps are better trained, faster, more lucky than the victim. 3. It assumes the victim is in condition white.
I just don't think you can get there from here with those assumptions. And let's play the odds: am I really at greater risk of being shot first, let alone shot, because I OC as opposed to CC or no-carry? You can make the argument in theory but it just doesn't play out against data we have from states like AZ or VT that have had OC for years.
However, the downside to OC I can readily see is if I'm in a physical altercation. The perp just may go after my gun. If I'm not wearing a holster like the Safariland ALS type, he might be able to wrestle that away from me. And I would be in big trouble then.
I took a class from Rob a couple of years ago and OC didn't come up in the class. But he was constantly reminding us about the ambush, which I think is the most common type of confrontation on the street. I know from my own rational view point that if I was a perp I would not want to roll the dice with someone I knew had a weapon. I want to go after softer targets.
-
I agree with FA. The "shoot me first" stuff is BS unless it's an act of terrorism and those are damned unlikely.
A robber that sees you carrying a gun is going to go find some one else to bother. They are looking for easy money, not a gun battle.
-
Fullauto,
Why do you want to become the focus of everyone's attention when ever you go out to eat, go for a walk, go shopping, etc? Have you stopped to think that your pushing a visible firearm in a business may be the reason another gun free zone is created? Have you ever stopped to think of the fuel you add to the anti's fire by flaunting your protected Right as opposed to after a peaceful demonstration you and your friends let the media know how many guns were on site and how nobody was harmed or even knew they were there?
In a self defense situation, why do you want the "bad guy" to know you are armed prior to your acting in self defense? Under the number one rule of use of a firearm for self defense, you must be an unwilling participant, why do you want to expose a weapon that may assure that the fight will be a gun fight? Why do you want to single yourself out as the person that may be ambushed and have your tool removed from you? Why do you want perps prepared to deal with you before you even know they are perps?
Even if the fact you are carrying has slipped past the bad guy, why do you want everyone else in the area to know that you have a defensive tool available? Do you really want them forcing your hand before you are ready to act?
The best way for me to make sure that I am an unwilling participant, that no lesser force will do, and that I could have a means of escape, and to a certain level that I am not pushed to fearing for my life, is for me to not let the bad guys or anyone else that is not prepared know that I have the tools and ability to stop this situation. I do not want a non-deadly situation to become a deadly situation because a bad guy spots my tool on my body. I do not want my ability to take my time to assess the situation and act in what I feel is the best way taken away from me because others know in advance some of my options. I do not want anything that will draw undue attention to me in a potentially deadly situation.
If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force. If the clerk hands over money and the robber leaves that it a good thing. If the bad guy shoots the clerk, starts waving the gun at the rest of us or aims at me, I will take my best opportunity to shoot if given a chance. However, if everything is going smoothly in the robbery and the bad guy spots my gun on me and starts shooting people, was I a part of the solution or the cause of the deaths? If we are standing there and someone spots my gun and reacts, either thinking I can help or that I am another bad guy, am I prepared to react fast enough in the forced fight?
Exposing our tools of self defense in as a political statement in a demonstration takes away the ability to show clearly that we are no different than anyone else on the street. It gets us labeled as fringe at best and whack jobs more commonly as we try to present our case. However, by keeping them concealed and then revealing how many were there to make a point at the end lets them learn how normal and main street we are and that there is no reason to fear someone with a gun. I compare this to exposing a person that fears dogs to either a pit bull or a lab. If we want them to be a dog lover we get them with a nice gentle lab, so why not put them in the midst of a group of gun lovers that are secretly carrying?
Exposing our weapons in a self defense situation takes away every tactical advantage we had, and it limits the number of options we have in a potentially violent situation. There is a comparison that many instructors use that if a carpenter has a hammer - every fastener will become a nail, so we must be careful when we chose to carry that we don't turn every fight into a gun fight. Open carry will quickly narrow your options in choosing what the outcome of any given confrontation will be. Do you really want to tell an officer or a jury that everything was going smoothly during the C-Store robbery until either the perp spotted your gun or the lady in line behind you screamed "why don't you use your gun and stop him?"
Nuff said. You can see my point, and ignore if you chose.
P.S.
Haz, I fully understand. When it is 100+ and 95% humidity every bit of clothing becomes smaller and stickier. It sure would be nice to just put on the CR Speed rigs rather than packing all that steel and leather inside the pants and pockets.
-
One thought keep circling my little brain as I play on this thread and a few others in this room:
Notice how things have changed without RP around to monitor us?
-
I agree with FA. The "shoot me first" stuff is BS unless it's an act of terrorism and those are damned unlikely.
A robber that sees you carrying a gun is going to go find some one else to bother. They are looking for easy money, not a gun battle.
How many armed bank guards will be the first to be dealt with when the robbers make their move?
If you are spotted as open carrying, I doubt they will turn their attention to the teller and ignore you after they have dispatched the guard.
Yeah...this isn't likely, but it is more likely than a terrorist attack, and if your encounter will be by two armed assailants and they know in advance you are armed you have one big hole to climb out of just to have an equal chance.
Having my hand on my gun in my jacket pocket in that situation will give me a good chance of coming out alive where having your hand on your open carry gun can be a crime in many places, brandishing.
We will probably never have occasion to have either of our theories confirmed or dis-proven (we hope) but I will take what I perceive to be even that small percentage of advantage.
-
Glock sucks, if it isn't a .45 it isn't a real gun, open carry is bad,or, 1911 are junk, 9mm rules, open carry is the only way to go, it all amounts to the same thing, opinion, and we know what those are worth.
-
I don't have a problem with OC, but for me, CCW is for self defense while OC is more of a political statement, specially if done in an urban/suburban area. YMMV.
-
Glock sucks, if it isn't a .45 it isn't a real gun, open carry is bad,or, 1911 are junk, 9mm rules, open carry is the only way to go, it all amounts to the same thing, opinion, and we know what those are worth.
Oh sure.....end the discussion by saying something that is true..... ;D
-
Not ending anything, now they can rant about what an arrogant pr!ck I am ;D
-
Not ending anything, now they can rant about what an arrogant pr!ck I am ;D
Trying to get your own thread to rival the joke thread? ;D
-
Not ending anything, now they can rant about what an arrogant pr!ck I am ;D
Like we NEED a reason! ;D
-
Not ending anything, now they can rant about what an arrogant pr!ck I am ;D
Do we need to rant about it when it is a given ;)
-
Hey, give me credit, it takes practice. ;D
-
Fullauto,
Why do you want to become the focus of everyone's attention when ever you go out to eat, go for a walk, go shopping, etc? Have you stopped to think that your pushing a visible firearm in a business may be the reason another gun free zone is created? Have you ever stopped to think of the fuel you add to the anti's fire by flaunting your protected Right as opposed to after a peaceful demonstration you and your friends let the media know how many guns were on site and how nobody was harmed or even knew they were there?
In a self defense situation, why do you want the "bad guy" to know you are armed prior to your acting in self defense? Under the number one rule of use of a firearm for self defense, you must be an unwilling participant, why do you want to expose a weapon that may assure that the fight will be a gun fight? Why do you want to single yourself out as the person that may be ambushed and have your tool removed from you? Why do you want perps prepared to deal with you before you even know they are perps?
Even if the fact you are carrying has slipped past the bad guy, why do you want everyone else in the area to know that you have a defensive tool available? Do you really want them forcing your hand before you are ready to act?
The best way for me to make sure that I am an unwilling participant, that no lesser force will do, and that I could have a means of escape, and to a certain level that I am not pushed to fearing for my life, is for me to not let the bad guys or anyone else that is not prepared know that I have the tools and ability to stop this situation. I do not want a non-deadly situation to become a deadly situation because a bad guy spots my tool on my body. I do not want my ability to take my time to assess the situation and act in what I feel is the best way taken away from me because others know in advance some of my options. I do not want anything that will draw undue attention to me in a potentially deadly situation.
If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force. If the clerk hands over money and the robber leaves that it a good thing. If the bad guy shoots the clerk, starts waving the gun at the rest of us or aims at me, I will take my best opportunity to shoot if given a chance. However, if everything is going smoothly in the robbery and the bad guy spots my gun on me and starts shooting people, was I a part of the solution or the cause of the deaths? If we are standing there and someone spots my gun and reacts, either thinking I can help or that I am another bad guy, am I prepared to react fast enough in the forced fight?
Exposing our tools of self defense in as a political statement in a demonstration takes away the ability to show clearly that we are no different than anyone else on the street. It gets us labeled as fringe at best and whack jobs more commonly as we try to present our case. However, by keeping them concealed and then revealing how many were there to make a point at the end lets them learn how normal and main street we are and that there is no reason to fear someone with a gun. I compare this to exposing a person that fears dogs to either a pit bull or a lab. If we want them to be a dog lover we get them with a nice gentle lab, so why not put them in the midst of a group of gun lovers that are secretly carrying?
Exposing our weapons in a self defense situation takes away every tactical advantage we had, and it limits the number of options we have in a potentially violent situation. There is a comparison that many instructors use that if a carpenter has a hammer - every fastener will become a nail, so we must be careful when we chose to carry that we don't turn every fight into a gun fight. Open carry will quickly narrow your options in choosing what the outcome of any given confrontation will be. Do you really want to tell an officer or a jury that everything was going smoothly during the C-Store robbery until either the perp spotted your gun or the lady in line behind you screamed "why don't you use your gun and stop him?"
Nuff said. You can see my point, and ignore if you chose.
P.S.
Haz, I fully understand. When it is 100+ and 95% humidity every bit of clothing becomes smaller and stickier. It sure would be nice to just put on the CR Speed rigs rather than packing all that steel and leather inside the pants and pockets.
Ok. Here are my final thoughts on this.
To sum up:
Concealed carry does offer tactical advantages over open carry. For centuries criminals have used this tactic to great effect to conceal their intent. We use it today primarily because the law mandates it in most states and we have identified all of the advantages that criminals have long known. However, I do not believe that because you carry concealed you automatically get the "Superior Tactical Advantage Card." I keep coming back to states like AZ, VT, AK and others that allow open carry. I think if people were getting killed because of OC, the media would be reminding us every newscast. The data just doesn't support your view on the tactical inferiority of open carry.
As for your concerns about the political statement of open carry, I submit that carrying itself is a political statement, no matter whether you are carrying open or concealed. Buying a firearm is a political statement in some form too. I don't believe because we carry concealed the public is going to like us more; we ought to know that just doesn't happen. Michael Bane brings up the gay rights movement. He said he was told by their activists that in order to change the culture they had to come out of the closet and into the street. I say based upon current events, they succeeded in changing the culture. We still are the "fringe" in the community but that is changing. Open carry is the logical next step in the transformation of our culture back to a society that not only respects firearms but embraces them.
I will freely admit that I am a radical when it comes to gun owner rights. For example I think you should be able to purchase select-fire weapons like you can purchase rifles and shotguns. You don't need a LEO permission to own one. You don't need the feds mandating you have to carry a piece of paper around with a stamp to show you are part of the good guys and the gun is "legit." Just because you own a Ma Deuce doesn't make you a mass murderer, but it sure means you have some bucks if you can afford to feed that thing! ;D
I think I have said enough on this topic. It's time for me to leave it alone.
-
The only thing FA posted that I would argue is the "tactical advantage of CCW".
It is my opinion that the surprise value of CCW is balanced by the faster draw possible with OC.
You ever see Bob Munden working with a concealment holster ?
-
Bob Munden lives in Montana. Lots of people open carry there.
I only open carry when I am hunting. I really do not care for it in the public forum. This is my personal opinion. I mentioned this on Mr. Pincus's Facebook also. But I would not make a decision to remove someone's right to open carry. That is their choice. I prefer to conceal carry.
-
Bob Munden lives in Montana. Lots of people open carry there.
I only open carry when I am hunting. I really do not care for it in the public forum. This is my personal opinion. I mentioned this on Mr. Pincus's Facebook also. But I would not make a decision to remove someone's right to open carry. That is their choice. I prefer to conceal carry.
+10 I already stated why I don't open carry any more. The arguments against, including my own, are purely opinion, or preference, but the over riding principal is "Shall not be infringed".
-
Not ending anything, now they can rant about what an arrogant pr!ck I am ;D
Wouldn't that be redundant now?....
-
Just to introduce a bit of drift....
From one of M58's responses in this thread
"If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force."
Anyone care to comment on this?
To me, if someone pulls a gun on someone with criminal intent, they have expressed their willingness to use deadly force....and they have the ability to carry that out in less than one second.
If someone pulled a gun and pointed it at me I would feel justified is using deadly force as soon as possible to stop that threat. Thus, if I would feel justified in protecting myself in that situation, I would feel justified in doing so for someone else in that situation.
Now, that means it is justified, but would I get involved? I have to say that I would.
-
If they are just after the stores money good luck to them, Stuff is insured, and it is not worth my time and the associated aggravation to kill some one over some one else's insured stuff.
on the other hand, the minute they start actually shooting they go down.
-
If they are just after the stores money good luck to them, Stuff is insured, and it is not worth my time and the associated aggravation to kill some one over some one else's insured stuff.
on the other hand, the minute they start actually shooting they go down.
I agree, but let me add, that as soon as someone produces a weapon they have become a lethal threat, and I will take appropriate action. I cannot read minds and therefore I can't know that they don't intend to use said weapon.
There is a bit of a catch 22 here. If you wait till they start shooting to take them down, then you may be finding yourself being asked why you didn't act before an innocent was shot/stabbed/bludgeoned/whatever. Of course if you shoot first, then someone will inevitably paint you as a loose cannon.
-
I would have to say - it depends. Every situation is different and needs to be assessed individually.
If the BG looks like he knows what he's doing and I feel that the likelihood of him resorting to violence (as opposed to just the threat) is low (IMO) then I'll hold the door open for him if it gets him out of there sooner. Be a good witness and give the cops all the details you can.
If it looks like he will probably resort to violence (IMO), and I can engage him with an acceptable risk level (IMO) to myself and others, then I'll engage.
If he does engage in violence, then I will engage in the same.
YMMV.
-
I would have to say - it depends. Every situation is different and needs to be assessed individually.
If the BG looks like he knows what he's doing and I feel that the likelihood of him resorting to violence (as opposed to just the threat) is low (IMO) then I'll hold the door open for him if it gets him out of there sooner. Be a good witness and give the cops all the details you can.
If it looks like he will probably resort to violence (IMO), and I can engage him with an acceptable risk level (IMO) to myself and others, then I'll engage.
If he does engage in violence, then I will engage in the same.
YMMV.
Just to be sure I understand. You are saying that if someone holds a gun on you and you have a chance to draw and stop him, you will wait till you are sure of his intentions before you make your move?
-
Just to be sure I understand. You are saying that if someone holds a gun on you and you have a chance to draw and stop him, you will wait till you are sure of his intentions before you make your move?
I am pretty sure Ichi is talking about being in a store that is being robbed. Not being robbed himself. EG third party CCW holder in a store where clerk is being held up.
-
I am pretty sure Ichi is talking about being in a store that is being robbed. Not being robbed himself. EG third party CCW holder in a store where clerk is being held up.
I think he is too, but I'll wait for him to confirm that.
-
Calm and professional , like he does this every day, versus Twitchy and panicky ?
-
I would be less worried about someone who was calm and professional. I think they would be much less likely to pull the trigger. They know the difference between armed robbery and murder. It's the nervous guy that I worry about. More likely to shoot someone by accident. That is when fear kicks in, and he ends up shooting everyone in the store.
-
I am pretty sure Ichi is talking about being in a store that is being robbed. Not being robbed himself. EG third party CCW holder in a store where clerk is being held up.
Yeah, I was following the "If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force." comment with my thoughts on being is said situation.
In general, the tweeker robbing the pharmacy worries me a lot more than the guy in coveralls and a mask robbing the bank. As a third party CCWer the extent of my involvement would depend on how I read the situation.
It is a whole different ballgame if they are pointing the gun at me.
I was scared and fearing for my life
I was shakin' like a leaf on a tree
'Cause he was lean, mean
Big and bad, Lord
Pointin' that gun at me
-
Yeah, I was following the "If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force." comment with my thoughts on being is said situation.
In general, the tweeker robbing the pharmacy worries me a lot more than the guy in coveralls and a mask robbing the bank. As a third party CCWer the extent of my involvement would depend on how I read the situation.
It is a whole different ballgame if they are pointing the gun at me.
I was scared and fearing for my life
I was shakin' like a leaf on a tree
'Cause he was lean, mean
Big and bad, Lord
Pointin' that gun at me
That was my point. I would not see a lot of difference in motivation if the gun was pointed at me or some other innocent. The main difference would be that I have a whole lot less risk making a move when the gun isn't pointed at me.
My heart tells me I could not just stand there and let another person be placed in that danger without responding when I have the means and capability to do the job. I've not been in that situation and I hope I would respond as my heart is telling me to.
I don't want to be looking in the mirror the next morning and be saying, like the guy who didn't fire in the latest IHop shooting, "I wish I would have shot him and stopped the killings". I don't want to live with that.
Jeanne Assam is my hero.....at least in how she dealt with an armed shooter.
-
"If I am in a C-Store with five other people and someone pulls a gun on the clerk I have no reason to respond with deadly force."
Anyone care to comment on this?
To me, if someone pulls a gun on someone with criminal intent, they have expressed their willingness to use deadly force....and they have the ability to carry that out in less than one second.
This is truly a multi-edged sword. Can we watch someone get threatened and robbed and not do anything?
From a LEO training tape: Off duty cop is in a bank with about a dozen customers. Robber shows up, produces weapon and does his thing. OD cop is standing about 15' from bad guy. They're advice? Do nothing and be a good witness.
If cop or CCW decides to intervene, there is a possibility that BG's unknown partner, who is already in the store/bank, will make himself known in a very bad way.
There is also the possible (probable?) errant shots fllying towards innocents. Unless you clean out his brain pan, he will probably turn to flee while firing until he is out of ammo. After all, we shot him with a 9, 40, 45 popgun, not a 12ga or deer rifle.
How many people are in danger then?
I'm all for doing the right thing. That right thing is going to depend on what the BG does and how I read his intentions. (as mentioned, twitchy or calm pro)
Per the OP, I prefer concealed carry because of the element of surprise. I do OC once is a while but it's usually because I'm coming from a desert session and haven't taken the gun off my hip yet.
-
I guess it all comes down to making a judgment call. If you can let the BG get out without hurting anyone, then great. Let the LE do it's job. Once BG goes violent, I say all bets are off.
My head hurts.....why do you guys always gotta make this stuff so complicated! ;)
-
I was scared and fearing for my life
I was shakin' like a leaf on a tree
'Cause he was lean, mean
Big and bad, Lord
Pointin' that gun at me
Gimme three steps and you'll never see me no more.... ;)
-
Gimme three steps and you'll never see me no more.... ;)
Shoot, you'd be sitting in the beer cooler with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other...... ;D ;D ;D
-
Shoot, you'd be sitting in the beer cooler with a gun in one hand and a beer in the other...... ;D ;D ;D
Don't get them mixed up. :o
-
Don't get them mixed up. :o
Knowing Haz, it would be a squirt gun full of tequila and the beer would just be for a chaser. ;D
-
Knowing Haz, it would be a squirt gun full of tequila and the beer would just be for a chaser. ;D
;D
-
My 20 years in N.C., an open carry state, enlightened me to a few things.
The OC statute in NC, is so regulated, watered down, and restrictive, unless your NOT in a city, it makes no sense.
Sure in Meatcamp, NC, (real town BTW, outside of Boone and Banner Elk), nobody cares if you OC or not....Mind your manners, be polite, and OC all day everyday.... There are several rural areas of NC, where this is accepted and not a big deal. Yes, there are gun racks in the back windows of pick up trucks also...With GUNS in them.....
The 800lb. Gorilla, is more urban settings. The point of the 2nd Amend. is the " and Bear Arms" part....subject to interpretation, regulation, fees, permits, and otherwise gov't interference.
I am always going to be a proponent of OC, as the sole CHOICE of the gun owner. IMHO, there is a time and place for everything.
In an urban environment, I like CC. Nobody's business...Don't start no shi*, won't e no shi*.....In a rural setting, (which we will never get back to culturally), OC is the way to go. No muss, no fuss.
and everyone is so polite....
-
As for the convenience store scenario, if a robber was pointing a gun at the cashier and I was present and carrying concealed, it would be hard not to react. How many times have we read where they were just going to rob the store and the adrenaline got pumping and they started killing customers?
The robber is showing intent, capability and opportunity that deadly force could be used in the blink of an eye. Do you want to be the one who does nothing and the bad guy shoots a person while exiting the store? The decision is yours.
-
Do you want to be the one who does nothing and the bad guy shoots a person while exiting the store? The decision is yours.
And the other side of the coin is; do you want to be the one that spooks the BG and causes him to open fire on you and everyone else (when he sees you drawing out of the corner of his eye) rather than just leave with his loot? It is a tough call that is very circumstance driven and each individual will have to use their best judgement when they make that call because they are going to have to live with the results.
-
This is truly a multi-edged sword. Can we watch someone get threatened and robbed and not do anything?
From a LEO training tape: Off duty cop is in a bank with about a dozen customers. Robber shows up, produces weapon and does his thing. OD cop is standing about 15' from bad guy. They're advice? Do nothing and be a good witness.
If cop or CCW decides to intervene, there is a possibility that BG's unknown partner, who is already in the store/bank, will make himself known in a very bad way.
There is also the possible (probable?) errant shots fllying towards innocents. Unless you clean out his brain pan, he will probably turn to flee while firing until he is out of ammo. After all, we shot him with a 9, 40, 45 popgun, not a 12ga or deer rifle.
How many people are in danger then?
I'm all for doing the right thing. That right thing is going to depend on what the BG does and how I read his intentions. (as mentioned, twitchy or calm pro)
Per the OP, I prefer concealed carry because of the element of surprise. I do OC once is a while but it's usually because I'm coming from a desert session and haven't taken the gun off my hip yet.
you know, when I first read this, I figured it might be sound advice from those who would know.
But after considering it, I have these thoughts.
This is directed at off duty officers. And what is the difference between an off duty officer and one on duty?
They don't get more perceptive or more skillful more anything when they put on a weapon. What they are saying, if you are an on duty cop and have not been noticed by the robbers, sit tight and made a good witness.
The on duty cop can spook the bad guys into shooting and cause wild shots to be fired..some of his own and all the other bad stuff an off duty cop can...or the armed citizen can.
I'd guess the only difference is liability.
And, one more time I ask, why does it seem to make a difference if the gun is pointing at you? If you act to protect yourself you can be spooking the bad guy just as easily than if he has the drop on a clerk. More so because he will see your move for certain but might not if his attention is on the clerk.
My guess is that you think your life is worth the risks involved but the clerks is not.
-
This is directed at off duty officers. And what is the difference between an off duty officer and one on duty?
Just off the top of my head; Kevlar vest, radio, likelihood of having backup, odds of going home at the end of the day. No one wants to commit suicide when it is unnecessary. When Jeanne Assam took on Mathew Murray she was dealing with an active shooter who's intent was to kill as many people as possible, not breaking up a robbery. Although, rumor has it, New Life Church does have a butt load of cash on site after services.
And, one more time I ask, why does it seem to make a difference if the gun is pointing at you? If you act to protect yourself you can be spooking the bad guy just as easily than if he has the drop on a clerk. More so because he will see your move for certain but might not if his attention is on the clerk.
My guess is that you think your life is worth the risks involved but the clerks is not.
There seems to be a lot of talking past each other on this point. It is not so much about who the gun is pointed at but rather the arena in which the events unfold. The BG is not robbing the clerk, he is robbing the store/bank/whatever. Is the clerk in danger? Most definitely. Is it the same level of danger that he would face if the BG was robbing him on the street? In most cases (not all) I would say no. By committing a crime in a public place the BG places himself in a high risk position of having a lot of witnesses (and possible surveillance cameras). Unless he is a twitchy tweeker, he knows the an act of violence will escalate the response to the crime - the police will put a lot more time and resources into finding him if he shoots someone. He wants to get his big (to him) payoff and get the heck out of there. If his chances of escape are impeded by a CCWer that draws on him he will, in turn, escalate his response to the threat or do whatever he thinks will increase his odds of getting out of the situation. So, IMHO, it makes sense to seriously consider the "good witness" role rather than try to intervene.
If he has no witnesses (robbing an individual on the street) the risk to him is less for doing something violent. And he might see some logic to eliminating the only witness. So the victim on the street is at a higher risk than someone in a business setting. In this scenario being the good witness will probably just get you seriously hurt or killed.
These are just my thoughts on it. YMMV. ;D
-
As Ichiban posted, who the gun is pointed at doesn't matter.
Yes, the clerk is in danger, BFD. He hasn't been shot yet, so it is simply intimidation.
Do you even know if it's a real gun ?
Do you actually think the insured money of some company that most likely will not even thank you is worth killing some one ? In my opinion, since the robbers attention is focused on the clerk if you shoot him you're nothing but a murderer.
-
As Ichiban posted, who the gun is pointed at doesn't matter.
Yes, the clerk is in danger, BFD. He hasn't been shot yet, so it is simply intimidation.
Do you even know if it's a real gun ?
Do you actually think the insured money of some company that most likely will not even thank you is worth killing some one ? In my opinion, since the robbers attention is focused on the clerk if you shoot him you're nothing but a murderer.
+1
Everyone read the criteria for engaging in the fight in your state or jurisdiction. In the State of Minnesota the criteria is not met in the C-Store scenario.
-
you know, when I first read this, I figured it might be sound advice from those who would know.
But after considering it, I have these thoughts.
This is directed at off duty officers. And what is the difference between an off duty officer and one on duty?
The obvious uniform, radio for backup and the possible partner. None of which the off duty cop has at his disposal.
What they are saying, if you are an on duty cop and have not been noticed by the robbers, sit tight and made a good witness.
No, they are NOT saying that at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
They are saying that when off duty, in civvy clothes, don't escalate the situation unless absolutely needed.
They, just like us, look like John Q. Public, so act like John Q unless it turns to shit.
The on duty cop can spook the bad guys into shooting and cause wild shots to be fired..some of his own and all the other bad stuff an off duty cop can...or the armed citizen can.
I'd guess the only difference is liability.
The On Duty cop has the duty to engage felons - that comes with the uniform. (that might be considered an ambush of an OD cop)
The off duty LEO might get a pass for lighting up the place that the CCW might not, due to peoples idea that cops are some superhuman breed not taken from the general population. A fallacy I don't agree with since they are taken from the general population.
And, one more time I ask, why does it seem to make a difference if the gun is pointing at you? If you act to protect yourself you can be spooking the bad guy just as easily than if he has the drop on a clerk. More so because he will see your move for certain but might not if his attention is on the clerk.
My guess is that you think your life is worth the risks involved but the clerks is not.
In my state there is a laundry list of felonies that reasonable John Q is OK to threaten deadly force or use deadly force to stop.
Armed robbery, rapes, murder, manslaughter, child molestation, kidnapping, burglary (1st & 2nd degree), arson of an occupied structure, Agg. assualt, I may have missed one...
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00411.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
It's not a matter of "you think your life is worth the risks involved but the clerks is not". That is an assumption. Of course the clerks life is worth it.
But the devil is in the details of reality.
If I intervene, I have put my freedom, our house, and every penny I have to my name on the line. That will be judged all in the name of "was it reasonable".
A decision that has to made in a split second and will be reviewed ad nauseum by those looking to hang you, and that could all be undone by a slip of the tongue or a mistake in the interpretation of your statement.
When the Monday morning quarterbacks who have never been in that situation come out of the woodwork, you may be homeless and broke for doing the right thing. I may be right but an attorney would drain me dry and that's even if I win the case.
Could I live with that? Probably, yeah.
Could I subject my family to that? I might, but it had better be a damn clear cut situation and the trouble is, they seldom are.
And that doesn't even bring into the scenario someone innocent shot. What a freaking nightmare THAT would add!!
-
As Ichiban posted, who the gun is pointed at doesn't matter.
Yes, the clerk is in danger, BFD. He hasn't been shot yet, so it is simply intimidation.
Do you even know if it's a real gun ?
Do you actually think the insured money of some company that most likely will not even thank you is worth killing some one ? In my opinion, since the robbers attention is focused on the clerk if you shoot him you're nothing but a murderer.
So, you are saying if someone is pointing a gun at you, you won't react until he shoots you? And if someone does take out a guy who is pointing a gun at them before they get shot, they are a murderer?
-
So, you are saying if someone is pointing a gun at you, you won't react until he shoots you? And if someone does take out a guy who is pointing a gun at them before they get shot, they are a murderer?
Can't answer for Tom, but as for me - If the gun is pointed at me I can shoot. However, it must be threatening me, and a general pointing at someone else is not a threat to me. By law I can not protect others unless on of the others in danger is me.
-
As Ichiban posted, who the gun is pointed at doesn't matter.
Yes, the clerk is in danger, BFD. He hasn't been shot yet, so it is simply intimidation.
Do you even know if it's a real gun ?
Do you actually think the insured money of some company that most likely will not even thank you is worth killing some one ? In my opinion, since the robbers attention is focused on the clerk if you shoot him you're nothing but a murderer.
So, you are saying if someone is pointing a gun at you, you won't react until he shoots you? And if someone does take out a guy who is pointing a gun at them before they get shot, they are a murderer?
Solus, your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. You have done this several times during this thread.
I didn't comment on what I'd do if the gun was pointed at me, the subject was a C-store robbery, I don't work in one.
-
Solus, your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. You have done this several times during this thread.
I didn't comment on what I'd do if the gun was pointed at me, the subject was a C-store robbery, I don't work in one.
Tom, in the post of yours I quoted, you said "As Ichiban posted, who the gun is pointed at doesn't matter.
So you did bring it up. It doesn't matter if the gun is pointed at you or the clerk.
Are you not saying it does matter?
That is what I wanted clarified.
What I am asking is if it is you or a friend or loved one who is threatened, will you respond differently than if it is a stranger?
And actually I don't need an answer. I understand that each of us will be making the decision that we think is right...and suffer any moral or legal consequences of our actions.
I do wish to be sure the question is asked and directly enough to have folks think about it in this depth....and think about it now, before that situation arises (if it ever does) or after you have acted counter to how you would have wanted.
You can call me "anal" with respect to self examination, and you will be correct.
My interest in the answers and explanations are only for my understanding and to weigh them against my own thoughts and feelings, but that isn't my objective with these posts.
Take care.
P.S. That is why I responded to the post about the Peace Officers Guide....it added additional information to be considered.
-
As the law in this state currently is written (changes in 60 days ) I'm not the clerk, I can leave, so I'm obligated to do so.
The gun isn't pointed at me, I'm not in danger, I have no justification to cap the Ahole.
Your thoughts and opinions need to be weighed against the laws in your area.
-
I'll keep it simple because I'm a simple guy!
I carry a firearm to defend a threat against MY person, MY family or MY property!
In CT, it's pretty damn clear that to use deadly force, you better be damn sure you're being threatened with deadly force!
MA has a castle doctrine as well but the same reasoning applies.
-
Notice how things have changed without RP around to monitor us?
Try to stay on topic, M58.... ;D
*****
I am glad that you guys are discussing the topic (and not tooo many tangents!). It is an important one. This recent 'flare up' in regard to my position is the second in the year from the OC Activism Camp. We even addressed the issue in the 3rd season of TBD after the first time so that the issue of potential confrontation and potential misunderstanding could be addressed more clearly.
I am all for the RIGHT to OC. I am all for OC under conditions wen it makes sense (wilderness environments, for example), but I am not for taking your means of self defense and turning it into a soapbox.
-RJP
-
:-X