The more surgeries i have the less that nickname fits me bro.
I looked at a fbi report for 2008 shows 41 officers in the united states were assaulted with their own weapons... where does the 20% come from?
Oklahoma has 3.5 million people or so.... it doesnt have large municipalities. Arizona has nearly 7 million people... I think although not perfect these more densely populated states not having issues is a great testbed. Rightly so i cant say opencarry is worse than concealed carry. But, the one thing i can say is that open carry is no worse, having active testbeds for legal experiments have a long history in american history and if successful are often exported to the various states. I think in the history of legal experiments this is one is hard to argue with. Although, the 20% statistic is far to high and would love to see the study.
I looked at a fbi report for 2008 shows 41 officers in the united states were assaulted with their own weapons... where does the 20% come from?
Oklahoma has 3.5 million people or so.... it doesnt have large municipalities. Arizona has nearly 7 million people... I think although not perfect these more densely populated states not having issues is a great testbed. Rightly so i cant say opencarry is worse than concealed carry. But, the one thing i can say is that open carry is no worse, having active testbeds for legal experiments have a long history in american history and if successful are often exported to the various states. I think in the history of legal experiments this is one is hard to argue with. Although, the 20% statistic is far to high and would love to see the study.
Todd you are "terribly" incorrect about a number of things you posted here and the rest are unsupported by facts.
20% is statistically significant if you are referring to disarmings and that number has been consistent for the last twenty years.
The repeated argument about the other 40 states not having bloody streets is entirely anecdotal because a large number of those states don't have pre-emption laws like Oklahoma does so while the state doesn't forbid open carry, the large municipalities frequently do.
You cannot support your supposition that open carry worked out more often than concealed carry. I would certainly agree that open carry is better than NO carry, which is really the comparision you should be making but that is a non-issue in Oklahoma so it doesn't support your argument.
As far as those who "live by the gun" operating unconcealed, again that is not correct. That is a contextual issue. Everyone who "lives by the gun" and carries it openly also wears a uniform to make them identifiable for their agency/country's reasons. A number of those personal who do the actual fighting, as opposed to being support personnel conceal when it is appropriate and wear openly when appropriate.
private security forces out of country often open carry without being readily identified as a soldier or leo.. thanks for the argument you will have to wait until i gain some more stamina to contnue our debate.
However I don't know any of them that regularly walk around openly carrying without being identifiable as a soldier or police officer.
As I said before, I do not favor open carry because I don't think it's a good idea but I don't oppose someone else's wish to do so, no matter how silly I think it is.
About the only thing I agree with in your post is that open carry does not freeze someone's ability to act, however that is not what I wrote.
What I wrote was that speed of decision-making is more important than speed of presentation and that open carry gives away one of your critical advantages in such a scenario.
If you disagree, I offer as my perspective hundreds of students that I've worked with who have very rarely been able to hit, without getting shot, a suspect already armed in force on force scenarios. However they typically succeed when they pick the appropriate time to draw as opposed to getting into a 50/50 gunfight and trying to beat a drawn gun. If you look at the context of criminal assault, weapons and numbers are usually disproportionate as opposed to the range, indicating that criminals pick the time, place, and generally manipulate the context to their advantage. If you accept this premise, and you should if you understand what criminal assaults as opposed to agreed upon combat looks like, then you would have to agree that you give unnecessary information to your assailant if you open carry.
If you ask any of the board members here who have taken our class or the hundreds of others who have, I'm confident they'll tell you that the speed of their presentation was not the deciding factor as opposed to appropriate timing of presentation. I think it's probably the most statistically significant pool anyone on this board has.
While I agree that this is not a life or death scenario, I will point out that I don't know firsthand of any scenario where speed of presentation was the deciding factor in a lethal force situation even when the shooter was carrying openly i.e. LE and Military.
This does not mean that smooth, efficient presenation is not important; It's simply far subordinate to speedy decision-making, such that open carry offers such minimal advantage and such large detriment, that I simply believe it's a poor tactical decision.
I would venture that I have enough firsthand experience investigating these cases to offer an educated opinion on the matter but I recognize that some will simply want to do what they want to do.
Michael Brown