well he vetoed it...

[tRidiot]

Certainly and I believe it to be one of the most reliable means of deterring criminal assault.

HOWEVER, I have also witnessed otherwise predatory-appearing targets get victimized because they were in fact sheep dressing like sheepdogs.

Could you clarify what you mean by that statement, please? I'm just not clear, sorry.

I do not regard the mere possession of a weapon as much of a deterrent, since I've spent the last 15 years of my life seeing cops get assaulted on a regular basis by armed or unarmed assailants without any concern whatsoever for the officer being armed.

I understand your argument as it stands, but I'd like to point out the fallacy in my view. Your assertion is that open carry of firearms does not deter criminal acts, which in some cases is obviously true. I can come up with myriad reasons why an individual might attack an officer or someone carrying a weapon openly, including but not limited to an intoxicating substance influence, a mental disease or defect, or simply irrational thought processes leading one to poorly judge the likelihood of success in such a situation.

However.... the fallacy lies in the other instances, which by their very nature may be unrecognizable and unrecordable, where a potential criminal act is deterred by the very presence of some altering factor... a factor such as a large intimidating individual in a convenience store, a bank of security cameras, an armed guard in a bank lobby, or even the presence of multiple unarmed witnesses in any given situation.

Obviously we can't quantify or even qualify the vast majority of these instances... I am just pointing out that while there are situations where open carry may tactically not be advantageous, it is up to us as gun owners to decide what we feel is the best situation for ourselves, including how, when, and where to carry (within the law).

How many muggers/potential rapists are scared off simply when someone walks up on their act in progress? How many more criminals might be more wary of committing a criminal act in the presence of someone openly (and lawfully) wearing a firearm in public? I say that we cannot know that, but common sense tells me that there are many criminals who are cowards and would find another place or another day/time to perpetrate their acts.

As for the danger to me, I'm willing to accept the danger and the loss of the element of surprise to let anyone around me who might be thinking "impure thoughts" know that I am serious about my self-defense, and that of my family.

Sheepdogs shouldn't hide, IMO... part of their purpose is as a deterrent. Acting like a sheep may draw the wolf in.... I'm more in the camp of scaring his ass away before he decides to attempt to take a bite!

 

[Poke78]

As someone who has studied the profession of arms for all of my adult life, I regard suprise as one of the most effective tactics available to anyone in a fight.

As a uniformed officer, I am denied a certain element of suprise by the nature of my job. When I did not have this encumberance as a plain clothes officer, I found my confrontations to be much more one-sided in my favor due to the element of suprise.

So, while some may believe that the presence of a weapon to be a deterrant in and of itself, my experience tells me that this is not to be relied upon and can be more of a hindrance than a help.

My take. If the veto is overridden, everyone will get to make their own decision and live with the benefits and consequences.

Michael Brown

I appreciate your insights and the experience behind your comment. I agree with you about surprise being an advantage that should not be forfeited without careful consideration. Your last line is an excellent summary of how real freedom works at the individual level. The experience of other OC states supports that OK should move toward real freedom, IMO.

 

[Michael Brown]

Could you clarify what you mean by that statement, please? I'm just not clear, sorry.



I understand your argument as it stands, but I'd like to point out the fallacy in my view. Your assertion is that open carry of firearms does not deter criminal acts, which in some cases is obviously true. I can come up with myriad reasons why an individual might attack an officer or someone carrying a weapon openly, including but not limited to an intoxicating substance influence, a mental disease or defect, or simply irrational thought processes leading one to poorly judge the likelihood of success in such a situation.

However.... the fallacy lies in the other instances, which by their very nature may be unrecognizable and unrecordable, where a potential criminal act is deterred by the very presence of some altering factor... a factor such as a large intimidating individual in a convenience store, a bank of security cameras, an armed guard in a bank lobby, or even the presence of multiple unarmed witnesses in any given situation.

Obviously we can't quantify or even qualify the vast majority of these instances... I am just pointing out that while there are situations where open carry may tactically not be advantageous, it is up to us as gun owners to decide what we feel is the best situation for ourselves, including how, when, and where to carry (within the law).

How many muggers/potential rapists are scared off simply when someone walks up on their act in progress? How many more criminals might be more wary of committing a criminal act in the presence of someone openly (and lawfully) wearing a firearm in public? I say that we cannot know that, but common sense tells me that there are many criminals who are cowards and would find another place or another day/time to perpetrate their acts.

As for the danger to me, I'm willing to accept the danger and the loss of the element of surprise to let anyone around me who might be thinking "impure thoughts" know that I am serious about my self-defense, and that of my family.

Sheepdogs shouldn't hide, IMO... part of their purpose is as a deterrent. Acting like a sheep may draw the wolf in.... I'm more in the camp of scaring his ass away before he decides to attempt to take a bite!

I think those are all very valid points.

However in my experience, which of course creates/clouds my opinion, I am not terribly worried about those that are easily deterred; I am worried about the ones that AREN'T deterred.

Those are the ones I carry a gun for.

I believe that the majority of potential confrontations can be avoided by apppropriate management of unknown contacts where if you fail the interview, you are de-selected. I think this has much more to do with behavior than the presence of a weapon.

I simply believe, based on my experience, that the presence of a weapon does not mark you as a sheepdog to a certain percentage of the criminal population.

I think that is the big difference of opinion I have with those who maintain that mere presence acts as a deterrant.

Michael Brown

 

[tRidiot]

I think those are all very valid points.

However in my experience, which of course creates/clouds my opinion, I am not terribly worried about those that are easily deterred; I am worried about the ones that AREN'T deterred.

Those are the ones I carry a gun for.

I believe that the majority of potential confrontations can be avoided by apppropriate management of unknown contacts where if you fail the interview, you are de-selected. I think this has much more to do with behavior than the presence of a weapon.

I simply believe, based on my experience, that the presence of a weapon does not mark you as a sheepdog to a certain percentage of the criminal population.

I think that is the big difference of opinion I have with those who maintain that mere presence acts as a deterrant.

Michael Brown

Understood.

 

[Glocktogo]

It's ok for the weapon to act as a deterrent, but don't count on it, ever. If you carry, you'd better be ready to use it. Many who carry, aren't.

 

[1shot(bob)]

If the issue is OPEN carry and the argument is that police officers carry openly, then I'd say responsibilities bear directly on the discussion.

It is not and has never been.

This is where the disagreement really occurs.

I say your rights are not being denied you; You say they are.

IMO the inalienable individual right is that of personal protection and I do not believe that is being infringed by requiring that an individual conceal a pistol from view.

Michael Brown

May I ask why LEO carry their weapon openly as opposed to concealed?

 

[Michael Brown]

May I ask why LEO carry their weapon openly as opposed to concealed?

Because the uniform identifies them as an authority figure and there is no point in trying to blend in if you want the officer to be seen as an authority figure.

Not all LEO may share this opinion i.e. one of J. Edgar Hoover's carryovers is that FBI Special Agents ALWAYS conceal their sidearms.

If I was still in a non-uniformed assignment I would take the same view and never carry openly outside of home and office as I much prefer not to be known to be armed.

Michael Brown

 

[SBD]

I am completely mystified by the assertion that allowing the BG to know you are armed is not a deterrent. The whole reason behind governments displaying their war making capabilities is to deter their enemy(s) from attacking. Does it deter ALL potential attackers? No. Does it work on most? Absolutely! And for evidence just look around your neighborhood at all the "Warning I have an alarm system" signs. Signs out side of military installations stating that guards are armed and martial law applies therein. The reason they are there is to "deter" criminal behavour. How about the MOAB? Not a very practical weapon but if you are a terrorist you are likely not to want one dropped on you after having witnessed what it does and knowing that the people you plan to attack WILL use one on you. NUKES - now there is a deterrent. Difficult to deny the point. Again I have no interest in carrying open, except in the places I mentioned before, but I also don't want to get roasted for an accidental reveal. There are laws on the books to protect us from other laws on the books. Seems like there is a need...that's all I'm sayin'. It is a numbers game. Yes there will be attacks that can not be stopped by indication of the willingness and facility to use deadly force but the numbers come up on the side of deterrence being the best way to avoid a problem (no I don't know what they are but intuitively it makes much sense).

 

[tm8634]

has anyone heard of any of this above "pros or cons" being a issue in any of the other 40+ states that it is already passed (no), i myself wont open carry but i think it atleast a step towards more freedom...

 

[kcatto]

OK... I was taught in a constitutional law class I took way back when in college that LEO are not supposed to have any more power or authority than the citizens they protect i.e. the constitution.... That has over the years become a fallacy especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment.... I can think of countless items that are for sale but "LEO Only" this in itself separates and allows them more rights under the second amendment... This distention and further separation between LEO and the law biding citizens makes more citizens look at LEO's more like a Gestapo than a friendly agency that is there to help them.... Most of this started when the Supreme court ruled that peace officers are not required to protect individuals as a person but to protect the communities they serve as a whole....

lets look at this with the K.I.S.S principal....

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"....

ok a RIGHT is something that is not granted, given, or a privilege... it is inherit and recognized by our constitution at birth....

to keep.... obviously that means ownership....

bear arms...... literally means to carry weapons....

look this does not get any simpler than that....

The states can regulate and make any laws as long as they DO NOT infringe on any of the rights recognized by the constitution... anything else is a clear violation of the constitution.... And YES it is that simple....

A freeman does not need a license to carry a weapon, his license is written into the constitution.... Anything else is a form of class doctrine and that makes everyone with a CCW indentured servants of sorts....