Re: Open carry vs Concealed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A uniformed officer with backup on the way is a deterrent to crime. Uncle Elmo with a chrome .45 on his hip is not.
Ideally, a firearm should remain out of sight until the moment before it is (lawfully) used. Doing otherwise is as likely to escalate a conflict as it is to end it.
</div></div>
+1^</div></div>
Your assertion is that a visible firearm is more likely to:
A: Escalate a confrontation
B: Increase one's profile as a target
C: Result in being shot or being forcibly disarmed by an attacker
Not only has no one managed to present any citation for this theory that open carry causes these events to occur, I've yet to see so much as a <span style="font-weight: bold">single</span> citation of such a thing happening in this thread.
Your argument's validity is contingent not on an opinion of what's right, but on a factual basis of real-world events. To make the claim that open carry will cause a specific set of harmful consequences, you need to demonstrate not just that they are possible, but that their probability outweighs that of any potential positive consequences.
Theoretically, if ten potential confrontations are averted because a criminal is deterred by a visible weapon, but yet one person is targeted first in a shooting because they're openly carrying, then we can say that open carry is a net positive for those who choose to employ it as a tactic. There will be no police reports filed for those ten averted fights, nor will there be any blood shed.
On some level, all but the schizophrenic and/or hallucinogenic are going to evaluate their potential opponents before initiating violence. Anything that increases the threat of that potential opponent is going to be a force of deterrence in making the decision whether to attack or retreat. While I'm not willing to believe the old myth of criminals showing greater caution about attacking an officer with custom grips on their sidearm (ergo indicating proficiency with the weapon), it shouldn't even require mentioning that criminals, by definition, tend to prey on those they perceive as weak. I'm puzzled as to where this curious notion arose from that criminals are more likely to assault someone they perceive as being dangerous, flying as it does in the face of human instinct, common sense, and societal history. </div></div>
My point exactly! Trouble is, there is no way to prove it. And yes, you only hear about the instances where it didnt' work, like when the cops got shot in the coffee shop. There is no ABSOLUTE right or wrong when it comes to OC vs CC. The OP asked if there were some tactical advantages of when OC would be TACTICALLY preferred, and I believe the above quote elucidates where it would tactically help. Always, no. Increased risk? Yes. You have to weigh those risks/benefits for yourself and your particular situation.
