There was some activity on a thread recently, the "How many years, how many times to draw, how many times to fire" thread.
I noticed two pretty distinct scenerios that comprised the majority of the responses. People who have never drawn and people who have draw but not fired because the presence of the weapon diffused the situation. I dont support the idea of drawing to diffuse but the numbers seem to indicate that it works most of the time anyway.
So, if the presence of a firearm has prevented the need to actually fire said firearm it does make a certain degree of sense that OC would prevent these altercations from starting in the first place. Just sayin.
People talk about the "tactical advantage" of concealed carry. And the tactical advantage is legitimate, it DOES give an element of surprise to defend yourself with. But would OC have eliminated the need to defend? In the scenerio of a BG coming into a store and shooting someone for wearing a gun on the outside in the open...Maybe so. But to me (and this is only my opinion) thats trying to rationalize criminal behavior. If they where rationally thinking people they would probably NOT be robing places to start with. I figure they would probably shoot me for just being there. But if Im on the street and muggers are looking for a victim, I think I would have made myself a pretty unattractive victim by OC. Sure, if Im CC I can draw fast enough to shoot and kill, but now I would have to. I dont have any desire to shoot anyone and I don't want to be the guy whos "cleaning up the streets for others". I just don't want to be killed by someone or have to watch family of friends be killed.
Just from what Ive read on these boards, thread and polls seems you would be far less likely to need to use an OC carried weapon.
Im sure this will start some debate but I think its pretty safe to say based on the facts Ive read there's some significant merit to the idea of open carrying.