[Roger Phillips]

I also agree with Ranger. You are speculating on events that may happen in the future using events that don't apply and provide no data to back it up. Please educate us on all those open carriers that are targeted for their guns.

Everyone creates a pattern. Even not creating a pattern is a pattern. Please cite to the preplanned attacks that you are referring to.

Tactical advantage? There is no tactical advantage to concealed carry as you are already one step behind if the need arises.

I'm glad you realize that concealed carriers are more complacent, unaware and unskilled compared to open carriers. The typical cc'er tends to live feeling that their ace in the hole will get them out of any situation that may arise and so drops their awareness, maybe not completely, but to a level lower than open carriers.

The information you are perpetuating is not dangerous, just the typical misinformation regarding open carry.

The very core to self defense is about preparing for what might happen.

This core is built around historical facts and historical experiences. What amazes me about some of the most extreme "agenda only" crowd is their willingness to stick their heads in the sand, beg for "provide me a link" and when you provide them with many, they have an unwillingness to see anything except the agenda that they are pushing. I no longer search for those that will never see.

What I do is point out the the vast majority of open carry people (which includes me) no longer dump on historical fact, historical experience, historically proven self defense philosophies, common sense, and open mindedness to push a political activist agenda only. Open Carry advocates may be learning more and at a higher rate of speed, than any other gun enthusiasts. In just a few years they went from "It never happens" to "that is an outlier" to "is does not happen systematically" to "the acceptance of needing training because retention is a real issue." But we still have "the political activist only crowd" that has not taken this step. They have one agenda and ANYTHING that takes away from that one agenda must be attacked.........even if those that they are attacking are open carry advocates, open carry proponents, and a couple of the top firearm trainers in the country.

Just because we bring historically proven and accepted tactical knowledge to the right to open carry, we are attacked for not being "all in and agenda only focused." As a Self Defense Instructor my priority will always be the safety of my students over a political agenda. Open carry is a very important right........but a solid self defense knowledge base, skill set, and philosophy is even more important.

Tactical advantage? There is no tactical advantage to concealed carry as you are already one step behind if the need arises.

This one argument was the undoing of the "political activist only crowd." This level of ignorance on the reality of self defense left them fighting from a position of an unmistakable lack of basic knowledge. This is the point where we called them out on their level of training, experience, and where they learn their self defense philosophy. Every "political activist only" advocate that I had debated either admitted to have no training or refused to list their training. My resume can be found here.

I'm glad you realize that concealed carriers are more complacent, unaware and unskilled compared to open carriers. The typical cc'er tends to live feeling that their ace in the hole will get them out of any situation that may arise and so drops their awareness, maybe not completely, but to a level lower than open carriers.

This has changed since I wrote these articles, but I originally wrote this articles to combat the "political activist only philosophy" that just open carrying a gun as a talisman was good enough. This was a very dangerous agenda. Since these articles, that has changed dramatically! But there are still newbies coming into open carry and following the "political activist only philosophy." You can always tell the newbies! They toe the "agenda only" line beyond any level of common sense. The perpetuation of the "there is no tactical advantage" lie is the tattle-tale sign of a newbie or a "political activist only."

 

[Zralou]

My feelings on 'carrying' are some basic rules I condition myself to. (not implying this is the right way, just my way).

1. Be assertive, but not aggressive.
2. Be confident, but not obnoxious.
3. Be subjective, but not indecisive.
4. Be cautious, but not timid.

I sat and read all six pages of this thread today, and I have absorbed a lot of good information that has given me a different perspective on OC vs CC. I see benefits and drawbacks to both methods, and no one style is more "right" or "wrong" than the other. Either style of carry is solely the individuals personal choice, as long as the person has the 'mindset' to match the style, then it works.

I personally conceal carry by choice, to me, the law, and in particular law enforcement, has too much 'gray area' regarding open carry and I don't want the hassle of confrontation every time I walk down the street.

Sara Lou

 

[Qtip]

Zralou, I'm not trying to convince you to OC, but I encourage you to look more into the history of OC in Alabama. The state's supreme court has consistently upheld OC as being legal since the 1840's. LEO's cannot detain you without RAS, and open carrying by itself does not meet that criteria. OCing is pretty straightforward in Alabama.

 

[Zralou]

Zralou, I'm not trying to convince you to OC, but I encourage you to look more into the history of OC in Alabama. The state's supreme court has consistently upheld OC as being legal since the 1840's. LEO's cannot detain you without RAS, and open carrying by itself does not meet that criteria. OCing is pretty straightforward in Alabama.

After august 1st 2013 I may just OC once in a while, now that SB286 has passed and becomes law 08/01/13. After august I have it in 'black and white' in plain words, so no more 'shades of gray' to deal with.

I don't have a problem with OC, i'm a strong supporter of 2A, but being female it can cause un-nesessary attention from some who still think of women as not capable of thinking for themselves let alone shooting someone. It also kinda falls under my #1 self rule to NOT aggravate, which can happen when faced with sexist mentalities.

Saying all that, I will certainly exercise my 2A rights once in a while, in measured circumstances.

Sara Lou

 

[Ghost1958]

Im not going to get into the OC CC thing. I know what I know from my life and my experiences. I CC mostly and OC some also. If I OC and someone wants my gun they can have at it and find out stupid they were.
Where I live the public or LE reaction to OC isnt a factor because neither pays it any attention.

The only thing I will say is the repeated an OC gun isnt a magic talisman statement falls a bit short of real life.

A gun drawn from OC or CC and aimed at an attacker isnt a magical anything either. BG or BGs may back off. Then again they may become more viscous. Any firearm thats carried in hopes of its mere presence somehow will stop an attack even by an unarmed BG, probably should be left at home. YMMV

 

[Ghost1958]

After august 1st 2013 I may just OC once in a while, now that SB286 has passed and becomes law 08/01/13. After august I have it in 'black and white' in plain words, so no more 'shades of gray' to deal with.

I don't have a problem with OC, i'm a strong supporter of 2A, but being female it can cause un-nesessary attention from some who still think of women as not capable of thinking for themselves let alone shooting someone. It also kinda falls under my #1 self rule to NOT aggravate, which can happen when faced with sexist mentalities.

Saying all that, I will certainly exercise my 2A rights once in a while, in measured circumstances.

Sara Lou

Just personally when I see a female OCing a sidearm or somehow know she is CCing one I tend to believe shes not carrying it as a fashion statement and likely would very deliberately shoot someone if that someone gives her reason too.

 

[OldVet]

Just personally when I see a female OCing a sidearm or somehow know she is CCing one I tend to believe shes not carrying it as a fashion statement and likely would very deliberately shoot someone if that someone gives her reason too.

Never knew a woman who didn't know how to use what she had...

 

[carracer]

The very core to self defense is about preparing for what might happen.

This core is built around historical facts and historical experiences. What amazes me about some of the most extreme "agenda only" crowd is their willingness to stick their heads in the sand, beg for "provide me a link" and when you provide them with many, they have an unwillingness to see anything except the agenda that they are pushing. I no longer search for those that will never see.


Sorry, you have provided nothing factual and speak only of your personal feelings on this. This leads to the credibility dropping a notch or two. Yes, defense is about preparation, for both open and concealed carriers. However you are citing stuff that doesn't, or so rarely, happens so as to perpetuate a situation as an every day fact. You could back off a little and be more accurate by stating these are situations that have happened in the past and one needs to be aware. History proves out that a couple of instances hardly makes the everyday occurrence that you are alluding to.

What I do is point out the the vast majority of open carry people (which includes me) no longer dump on historical fact, historical experience, historically proven self defense philosophies, common sense, and open mindedness to push a political activist agenda only. Open Carry advocates may be learning more and at a higher rate of speed, than any other gun enthusiasts. In just a few years they went from "It never happens" to "that is an outlier" to "is does not happen systematically" to "the acceptance of needing training because retention is a real issue." But we still have "the political activist only crowd" that has not taken this step. They have one agenda and ANYTHING that takes away from that one agenda must be attacked.........even if those that they are attacking are open carry advocates, open carry proponents, and a couple of the top firearm trainers in the country.

Once again, refer to the above. Historical references just are difficult to find, unless you are referring to LEO. A couple of non LEO instances come up in a search. One would expect hundreds or pages full of them from the way it is expounded by CC instructors. There are a few "Political Activist Only" carriers. They are few in numbers but very vocal. Every crowd has them, even the CC crowd. The vast majority of OC people are just regular folks like you and me. The biggest difference is probably that I cc about 10 percent of the time and oc about 90, where, you are the other way around. Retention training important regardless of how you carry, we could ask George Zimmerman about that, I'm sure he would agree.

Just because we bring historically proven and accepted tactical knowledge to the right to open carry, we are attacked for not being "all in and agenda only focused." As a Self Defense Instructor my priority will always be the safety of my students over a political agenda. Open carry is a very important right........but a solid self defense knowledge base, skill set, and philosophy is even more important.

Historically proven and tactical knowledge is always appreciated by carriers both open and concealed. Your example of being able to watch a situation and strike at an opportune moment is great. Our being able to be a deterrent is great also. Gary Kleck wrote in his book "Targeting Guns" about interviewing over 1800 criminals and reported over 50% that were concerned and would avoid armed potential victims. He also stated this number was most likely very low due to the egos of the persons being interviewed. I feel this deterrence is just as valuable as you "Element of surprise". I want to avoid being the victim, not just respond after the situation has arisen. But, yes, a "solid self defense knowledge base, skill set, and philosophy is even more important." Regardless of oc or cc. I, as you do, feel training is cannot be stressed enough, regardless of method of carry.




This one argument was the undoing of the "political activist only crowd." This level of ignorance on the reality of self defense left them fighting from a position of an unmistakable lack of basic knowledge. This is the point where we called them out on their level of training, experience, and where they learn their self defense philosophy. Every "political activist only" advocate that I had debated either admitted to have no training or refused to list their training. My resume can be found here.

I tend to agree with you here. However, they are not the mainstream carriers, but, are very vocal.



This has changed since I wrote these articles, but I originally wrote this articles to combat the "political activist only philosophy" that just open carrying a gun as a talisman was good enough. This was a very dangerous agenda. Since these articles, that has changed dramatically! But there are still newbies coming into open carry and following the "political activist only philosophy." You can always tell the newbies! They toe the "agenda only" line beyond any level of common sense. The perpetuation of the "there is no tactical advantage" lie is the tattle-tale sign of a newbie or a "political activist only."

Hmmm.... I do take exception your stating as a "Lie" that cc has no tactical advantage. That would be just an opinion of yours and not a fact. Regardless of the situation if it is needed to present your firearm cc is slower. Maybe only a fraction of a second. Maybe only a half a second. How far does your adversary get in that last half a second in the Tueller drill. Surprise is an offensive tactic as developed and not a defensive one. You are reacting to a situation that has already developed. Maybe there might be an opportunity to react or maybe not. Maybe open carry is a deterrent or maybe not. You lean toward the former, I the latter.

We can both agree that carry, open or concealed, is not the panacea of self defense. Training is valuable regardless of method. No such thing as enough in my opinion. Situation awareness, in my opinion, is our most valuable asset regardless of open, concealed or not carrying at all.

If ever in Boise, give a shout! Beverage of your choice on my nickel!

 

[wrearick]

....The bottom line question is as follows "are people who own guns, targeted for their guns?" It really is as simple as that! If you do not think they are, you may want to educate yourself on common historical knowledge and the reality of the way the street works.........

They are but not so much as by the thug on the street as by the government "good guys" who recognize that the second amendment was written with a view on keeping them with in the limits of the authority we the people give them. At some point, be it a police officer on the beat or a politician elected to office there comes a time when their opinion of themselves gets too big and they begin to believe they hold regal or dictatorial powers over the common folk. Common folk having access to guns does not sit well with those folks.

 

[Roger Phillips]

Hmmm.... I do take exception your stating as a "Lie" that cc has no tactical advantage. That would be just an opinion of yours and not a fact. Regardless of the situation if it is needed to present your firearm cc is slower. Maybe only a fraction of a second. Maybe only a half a second. How far does your adversary get in that last half a second in the Tueller drill. Surprise is an offensive tactic as developed and not a defensive one. You are reacting to a situation that has already developed. Maybe there might be an opportunity to react or maybe not. Maybe open carry is a deterrent or maybe not. You lean toward the former, I the latter.

We can both agree that carry, open or concealed, is not the panacea of self defense. Training is valuable regardless of method. No such thing as enough in my opinion. Situation awareness, in my opinion, is our most valuable asset regardless of open, concealed or not carrying at all.

Speed of the draw stoke is nowhere near as important as the timing of the draw stroke. Newbies want speed.......experience wants timing. It is this timing that is the ultimate tactical advantage, but most people do not have the training necessary to understand the OODA loop, the reactionary curve, initiative deficit, and taking the initiative. When you get to dictate "if and when" you are going to enter the fight, that is a tactical advantage of the highest degrees. When you are open carrying your ability to decide "if and when" is severely hampered and you lose one of the biggest tactical advantages possible inside of a life threatening situation. Speed of the draw stoke is not about "tactical advantage" it is about speed of the draw stroke. To infer that the speed of the draw makes up for your ability to use your timing to the ultimate of benefits, would be a huge mistake that can be found out very quickly in properly conducted force on force.

This is why I keep my tactical advantage when I am in the big city, around crowds, or in high crime areas. Because it is clear that timing is much more important than a very small amount of speed. Outside of areas like this and where there is no other choice by law, I am willing to give up my tactical advantage (my ability to use my timing) and open carry. But then again, in most cases, my threat level has dropped dramatically due to the area that I am in.

As far as speed of the draw from open carry compared to concealment, it is much more about the position that the gun is carried over whether it is covered or not. When you carry on your center line, as in appendix carry, you cut out all of the wasted motion of going behind the hip. This elimination of wasted movement allows you to clear your garment on your center line in relatively the same speed as from open carry behind the hip. There are things that can be learned that will allow you to mitigate any lose of speed by being concealed.

A very small percentage of open carry people are all about stats and links. They cherry pick the stats that support their decisions while ignoring all of the stats that do not support their opinion. This has been a long time problem with this small group of people and that is due to how transparent their dogma is. An open carry person may deter a criminal from acting, A ccw person may deter a criminal from acting, an unarmed person that carries himself well and has some good awareness may deter a criminal from acting. Years ago there was a study done inside of a super max prison. The people doing the study would lay out pictures of law abiding civilians and ask the criminal predators, "which ones do you want?" Nearly every single criminal predator picked out the exact same people. The point is that you do not have to have a visible gun to deter crime. It is about "a look" that we have.

People are targeted for their guns! It has been that way for a very long time (like ever since the invention of guns.) Just because we have a recent push for open carry does not mean that historical fact is going to go away........no matter how badly the "political activist only" wants it to go away. When we talk about how often this happens, it is like any crime, you could go your whole life and not be effected by any given crime. But, self defense is all about preparing for what might happen. You being targeted for your guns may or may not happen, but when you give away your OPSEC, the risks increase. That is the way crime works. People looking to take guns from people.......tend to go to people that are known to have guns. Open carry allows people to know that you have guns.

In my opinion, the perpetuation of the lie "there is no tactical advantage" is one of the most dangerous lies told by the "political activist only." And until that lie has quit being perpetuated, I will point out that fact.

 

[carracer]

"As far as speed of the draw from open carry compared to concealment, it is much more about the position that the gun is carried over whether it is covered or not."

So I guess the Tueller drill is just time filler in your classes? Tell me, When you conduct training are your students drawing and firing from concealment? Are you carrying concealed while instructing?

I think we are referring to the same study with your example. Perhaps not. As criminals are criminals they tend to go to people that look like victims. CC'ers look like victims to the avg. criminal. If I have SA and carry myself properly so as to perpetuate that look or have SE and carry myself properly so as to perpetuate that look and also carry a big stick, which looks weaker to the perp?

"In my opinion, the perpetuation of the lie "there is no tactical advantage" is one of the most dangerous lies told by the "political activist only." And until that lie has quit being perpetuated, I will point out that fact."

We could go on about this forever. Your opinion is I'm lieing, my opinion is YOU are lieing. The thing is. We both believe we are expounding facts. It is the typical concealed carry instructor fallback that your gun will be taken etc. I've heard it for years. OMG! The sky is falling! Yet have nothing to back it up. I know, you think I am a "newby" as you have all the sheepskins etc. Be that as it may. "I'm not a political activist only". You won't find me on you tube anywhere.

I'll be sure to get back with you to let you know how many times my gun is taken and cc'ers saved my bacon with their tactical advantage, the "element of surprise."

 

[Roger Phillips]

CC'ers look like victims to the avg. criminal.

To use a useless "political activist only" ploy, could you provide a link that proves your statement?

So I guess the Tueller drill is just time filler in your classes?

We run the Tueller drill from the 7, to the 6, then to the 5, and then down to 4, then down to the 3, then we try it at the 2 and then the 1. I have zero idea what this question has to do with open carry because the Tueller drill has very little teaching value except to point out that if you stand still and draw, a knife man can cut you while starting at 7 yards. The Tueller drill nailed down the fact that it is stupid to stand still while drawing your gun. Busting off of the X works very well up to about 2 1/2 yards and integration of hand to hand with the gun works very well inside of that. Speed of the draw inside of the Tueller drill has next to nothing to do with being as deadly as you can possibly be.

Are you carrying concealed while instructing?

I teach concealed for some course and open carry for other courses. What is the point of the question?

I see that you are inferring that I wrote these articles because I am a CCW Instructor. Just to make sure that we are clear, I have qualified maybe five people for CCW in the last year, yet have trained hundreds for intermediate, advanced, and extremely advanced training. The five CCW people that I have qualified were my friends and I did it for free.

To use another useless "political activist only" ploy, could you please provide links to the hundreds of cases where an open carry gun deterred a crime?

 

[carracer]

"To use another useless "political activist only" ploy, could you please provide links to the hundreds of cases where an open carry gun deterred a crime?"

They are in the same place your "targeted" cites are. Difficult to prove a negative is it not? Another CC activist ploy! You certainly like to use that "activist ploy" phrase alot.

I guess my point on the tueller is that concealed carrier instructors teach a concept that is speed related, correct? My example of speed is just that. OC is quicker, no matter what the drill. Maybe just a fraction. Maybe just enough. Moving is that same whether open or concealed. Or am I wrong and open carriers should "just stand there". Just an example is all.

My other point is that most, I cannot say all, instruction is conducted from an open carry holster. If concealed carry is such an advantage why do instructors not instruct concealed all the time and require their students do the same?

I commend you for your training for your friends and appreciate the training that you conduct in your other classes. That was very gracious and generous of you. I have paid for classes for several of my friends and family and asked them to do the same for others as they are able. I'm sure yours are as useful, informative and perhaps even more fun than the ones I have taken.

As I go thru my training classes I look at them as a way to further my techniques for survival and avoidance and view open and concealed carry as just different means to the same end. I don't see a clear advantage to either one. The main thing is to carry as you feel comfortable and have your SA about you.

The offer for a beverage is open and looked forward to!

 

[Harryball]

My other point is that most, I cannot say all, instruction is conducted from an open carry holster. If concealed carry is such an advantage why do instructors not instruct concealed all the time and require their students do the same?

The students have to start somewhere and OC is easy to teach a draw technique. Most of the times, the class goes to concealed after the lessons on draw technique are finished.

 

[stylus]

OK, I am from NYC and the idea of open carry is foreign to me, but...
What advantage is gained by letting bad guys know that you are armed?

"Show of force" so they go mess with someone else.

Also I shouldn't have to conceal if I just don't feel like it on a given day.

 

[stylus]

Not to mention making a lot of good guys, gals, children, very nervous...

You mean like how some people get nervous when they see a Black man walking towards them?

 

[Zralou]

Not wanting to jump in on this "debate" (I don't have a dog in this fight), but one thing to bear in mind with OC, all the points put forward advocating it's safer to OC assume you are capable of fending off someone wanting to take your weapon, that is fine if you are 6' 5" and 250+lbs.

But what if you're 5ft & 105lbs (I wish!!, maybe 40 years ago!! :wink, and some guy (6' 5", 250+lbs) standing next to you in a crowd decides they are big enough to take the weapon from you without much resistance?.
You are now in a situation of two simple choices, give up your weapon and hope for the best, or take a life and face the consequences of your actions.

Sara Lou

 

[carracer]

An attempt at taking a weapon should be looked at as a deadly assault and appropriate action taken. Situation awareness is your friend. The "Three S's' apply regardless of method of carry.

 

[Ghost1958]

Put on your firearm know how to use it, and when to use it cc or oc. Be sure you have it in you to use it if you have too. Simple as that.

Everything beyond that is icing on a cake that you havent baked yet and dont have a recipe for unless you have actually been there for real. Trainer or student. That is a fact.

I cant find any reports anyplace of a person being attacked just to steal an OCed weapon though I imagine it has happened someplace sometime. I cc mostly myself. OC some. You can be disarmed cc or oc during an attack, happens to both methods and to LE military etc all the time.

No real dog in this fight except theres no real evidence either way on this debate. Its a matter of opinion.

 

[Qtip]

I did some interesting number comparisons with car accident data and reported gun grab attempts, and came to the conclusion that you are at least twice as likely to have an accident while driving one mile as you are to have a gun grab attempted against you while OCing. That's with 5 gun grabs in the last 10 years (it's probably more like 3) and 1,000 people OCing every day (probably a lot more). Auto accidents happen on average 200 per 100 million miles driven.