Do you ever see anyone open carrying? (Washington: violent crime, felons)

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Excellent point BF66389. I only open carry when I hike as I usually have my t-shirt tucked in to my shorts. Concealed IMO is the best way to keep the bad guy from gaining any extra advantage they might already have.

+1, the only real advantage to open carry is generally in wilderness situations where more firepower (and thus non-concealable) is needed; a bear isn't going to attack you because you have a gun that's worth a lot (and not traceable to them) or go get a gun before committing a crime knowing that you have one...

Most other times it just places you at an increased risk. Not only do you now DEFINATELY have something worth taking, but your defensive strategy is entirely exposed (my guess is that there is a chance your total risk is actually greater than if you weren't carrying at all; similar to if you strolled a bad neighborhood with a nice camera around your neck). There is an object of fear in the unknown, even with a known deterant...that fear is reduced.

[rmcewan]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

They can. If you break their rule it is simply a trespass and the police will ask you to leave. "No Firearm" zones are often targeted because the bad guys know everybody is disarmed. I like to call them "Victim Disarmament Zones..." and rightfully so.

I have to disagree with "often targeted". Liquor stores, gas stations, and banks are often targeted, but not because they ask you to leave your gun in the car.

[BF66389]

I have to disagree with you as well SgtHoskins; the driver in the robbery is not the lack of firearms. Usually its because these businesses tend to do business in cash (and therefore have some) as opposed to locations with a more costly product. It's well known in some areas that the convenience store folks are armed (as are the visitors, ie- Texas); yet they still get robbed.

The logic looks good on paper, but in the real world criminals tend to be stupid (hence why they are criminals rather than just earning the $1100 they get from risking their lives to rob a convenience store). A friend of mine actually works specifically with these types of "high risk" targets to minimize their risks (very profitable business actually).

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by rmcewan

I have to disagree with "often targeted". Liquor stores, gas stations, and banks are often targeted, but not because they ask you to leave your gun in the car.

Then why are schools, colleges, and shopping malls targeted?

[BF66389]

Malls because people arrive with money and leave with expensive purchases; huge parking lots and lots of things "going on" make it easy to mug & slip away.

Schools because look at how many kids bring cash, personal electronics, and espensive clothing to school; or kids at the school get into issues with drugs, etc.

Colleges because college kids are fairly carefree and stupid for the most part. How many doors are left open and 2+ $2k laptops are just sitting inside; how many college kids own way-to-expensive clothing to "impress".

Another biggie is availability of transportation. Schools, Colleges, and Malls are generally in places that are easy to get to/from; areas around bus-stations and other means of public transit also tend to have higher crime rates and it isn't just related to population density (where public transit is more prevalent).

Now I'm not saying the above reasons are the end-all and be-all; or that you are entirely wrong. I'm just saying that the major drivers in criminals targeting these areas- is not a lack of gun wielding citizens.

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by BF66389

I'm just saying that the major drivers in criminals targeting these areas- is not a lack of gun wielding citizens.

Years of statistics prove other wise.

[motoracer51]

Originally Posted by BF66389

I've only seen it in more remote areas rather than more touristy/populated ones due to the fact that most folks who wish to carry would rather not draw attention to themselves or accidentally perpetuate a negative stereotype by scaring those around them (those not used to seeing a weapon). While this view is driven by a lack of knowledge on behalf of those being scared- it does exist (right or wrong) so therefore we, as responsible gun owners, should act accordingly. We have the right to bear arms- but that doesn't necessarily guarantee the right to disturb others if it can otherwise be prevented (again, right or wrong).

There is also another issue at hand. Take Texas for example- carrying a firearm is VERY common compared to many other areas. Chances are no-one would be "suprised" to see someone open-carry even in a very urban setting. That said- many choose to concealed carry in a more urban area to mimize risk; that risk being carrying an expensive piece of merchandise on ones self.

So, in other words- there are MANY reasons that it is more appropriate in less dense areas than in more dense areas; not just "scaring people".

For the record, a friend who works in law enforcement takes the same view when he decides to carry concealed or open: Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you have a firearm displayed it makes you immune from someone wanting to take that expensive piece of equipment. Reduce your risks and adjust your type of carry to what is most appropriate to that area.

Believe it or not, open carry is illegal in Texas.

[rmcewan]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Years of statistics prove other wise.

You have statistics that show more armed robberies at malls and schools than at liquor stores or gas stations? By all means, share.

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Years of statistics prove other wise.

As I said, I am not saying it is not a factor and I am 100% positive that you could point to many excellent and well documented studies which correlate crime/violence and firearms ownership/usage in a reciprocal manner (ie- legal guns reduce illegal activity).

However, just because it can be correlated doesn't mean its a causal relationship. IE, NH has incredibly low amounts of violent crime, as well as very limited gun laws; yet its not the prevalence of firearms that is keeping crime low. Not the greatest example, but I could put together an awesome statistical report based on this type of correlated relationships.

In fact, I could probably even model plenty of scenarios that "prove" that legal firearms reduce violence.

Now, if we look at the socio-economic factors that tend to follow LEGAL gun ownership (guns are expensive), so even if the gun-owners are not "well off"; they tend to be well-off enough to have the discretionary income available to purchase a firearm with money earned through legal means (or purchased it as a necessity of their rural subistance; such areas usually don't have enough people to have a lot of crime).

Again, we can pick and choose different scenarios to build different predictive and/or correlated statistical relationships. None of which is necessarily more valid than another without insight into specific incidents- where statistically speaking; the "reason" for the crime would be spread amoung many factors.

...and you know I have a very high opinion of firearms ownership, sportsmen, etc from other conversations; I just want to use the right means to justify the continued legal ownership of firearms rather than the flawed statistics that have been used (and by the way haven't worked so well) to date. Because if we use flawed arguments- we'll lose the debate.

[BF66389]

Folks- lets ignore the statistics for now. Seriously, I do this stuff for a living and I can assure you that without a doubt I can statistically prove anything...

THE factor placing restrictions on the 2nd ammendment is a problem with perception, it is also a problem with distinguishing between 3 things:
1) Criminal gun ownership/usage
2) Legal gun ownership/responsible usage
3) Legal gun ownership/irresponsible usage

Right now the association is with 1 & 3, that's all we here about. For the same reason we only generally hear about "tree hugger" democrats or "bible beater" republicans; the guy who's biggest worry is "when will I mow the lawn" is generally fairly silent.

However- the path to education and informed decision making means demonstrating that the vast majory are indeed- most worried about mowing their lawn.