All citizen carriers have their own favorite method of
carry. Each reason is personal and unique to the individual. Problems arise
when one person insists only one method of carry is correct and denies any
argument to the contrary. Open carry unfortunately suffers undeserved vilification,
which is often supported with rumor and unproven assertions. At worst, someone may be deterred from the only method of defensive carry they have available. It's not okay to scare someone out of self-defense.
What is a concealed
carry supremacist?
A concealed carry supremacist is not someone who believes concealed carry is what works best for
them.
A concealed carry supremacist is someone who denigrates open
carry and those who choose to practice it, without fully understanding open
carry or ever having practiced it. They believe that their chosen method of
carry, concealed carry, is the only way to carry and anyone who carries openly
is foolish, ignorant, or eager for attention. A concealed carry supremacist’s
opinion goes way beyond personal
preference. Their opinion is rooted in ego and a lack of education and
experience. Immaturely, they dismiss open carry because it does not fit their
preconceived notions about self-defense and an armed citizenry.
Some feel that a concealed firearm permit makes them
superior to others because it requires training and a background check. It is a
privilege that has to be earned, rather than a right exercised. Anyone who can
legally own a gun can carry openly (in Nevada). A supremacist feels diminished that someone
can carry without all the extras the supremacist took the time to obtain. In
the supremacist’s mind, open carriers are ill-trained sheep wandering around
without a shepherd.
Arguments Concealed Carry Supremacists Make
“They’re gonna steal
your gun.”
The major reservation that many have with open carry is that
the gun could be snatched. While this unfortunately happens all too often to
law enforcement officers, citizens don’t face the same type of encounters with
criminals. Most of these types of gun snatchings are either an attempt at
suicide by cop or a desperate way to escape from the officer during a struggle.
Gun snatchings from open carriers are extraordinarily rare events and concealed
carriers face the same, if not greater, chances of being disarmed.
From the handful of documented times an armed citizen was
targeted, each incident has many nuances that negate the simplicity of the
supremacists’ arguments. Furthermore, it will take an epidemic, rather than a
few isolated stories, usually tied to someone unprepared to use their weapon,
before totally discounting open carry’s validity. Concealed carriers are also
subject to the same threats. Let’s take a look at some incidents:*
June 2010, Milwaukee, WI (confirmed
open carry)
An open carrier was robbed at gun point for his gun. Details
are sparse, but the citizen was locally known as “the guy with the gun.” Though
it could simply be prejudice, a neighbor (who also admitted to be scared by seeing
the openly carried pistol) felt that the man carried out of bravado. "I
think he was trying to scare people off like, 'Yeah, don't mess with me,' kind
of attitude, but it didn't work." Open carry isn’t about projecting a
tough attitude or a substitute for being tough or street-smart.
Nik Clark, of Wisconsin Open Carry, summed up the situation
perfectly. "By and large it is a significant deterrent…but I think it
really does make the point that Wisconsin should have concealed carry along
with open carry so that people who live in a very high crime neighborhood where criminals aren't deterred by firearms
would have the ability to conceal carry to protect themselves.” In some places
and situations, concealed carry is the better option, which is why both methods
allow for flexibility.
Nov. 2011, Richmond, VA (confirmed open
carry)
A sixteen year old thug and an accomplice followed the open
carrier into a BP gas station. At some point, a struggle occurred. "The
suspects walk in and one immediately reached for [the victim's] gun." The
victim was unable to draw his firearm in response. Now disarmed, the victim
began to chase the now-armed suspect, who was shot in the chest and killed. The
suspect later murdered another man with the stolen gun. The suspect was
apprehended and received a sentence of 40
years in prison.
It’s unknown if the victim was using a retention holster or
not but appears that the victim was taken by surprise. What probably got him
killed was chasing the suspect into the store. Chasing a bad guy with a gun
when you don’t have a gun is a bad idea.
Oct. 2014, Gresham, OR (open carry)
The 21 year old had purchased a gun earlier in the day. At
2AM he was on a street corner with his cousin when he was approached by another
male who, after asking for a cigarette (a common ruse to get close to someone),
brandished his own gun and robbed the young man of his new pistol.
There is enough information in the article to lead one to
believe this was not an incident of a person open carrying a loaded firearm for
self-defense. Anecdotal evidence around the internet says this isn't exactly a
great area of town. Also, nothing good happens after midnight, or so the saying
goes.
Rather this reads as a young man, unprepared to use the gun
he was carrying, inexperienced with guns, showing it off to his cousin. No
mention was made if the weapon was loaded or even holstered.
Dec.
2014, New Orleans, LA (concealed carry)
The victim was approached by multiple males, pistol whipped,
and forced to the ground. He was then frisked and relieved of his concealed
weapon. The suspects fled. It is unknown if the victim had a concealed weapon
permit.
Jan. 2015, Brandon, FL (concealed
carry)
A Florida man was arrested and also placed on a mental
health hold after he attacked a man legally carrying a concealed weapon (not open carry). Michael Foster, 43, saw that
62-year old Clarence Daniels, shopping for coffee creamer, was carrying a
concealed handgun. Foster apparently saw Daniels take his weapon from his
vehicle and holster it under his clothing before entering the store.
Security camera footage shows Foster approach Daniels from
behind, grab Daniels’ head, and knock Daniels to the ground. After a brief
struggle, Foster subdues Daniels. Passersby assisted in restraining and
disarming Daniels. During the struggles, Foster was yelling “He has a gun!”
Daniels replied “I have a permit! [to carry the weapon].
Shannon Watts, of one of hydra-headed Bloomberg supported
groups, posted on Twitter apparently supporting the attack. Such anti-gun
groups, through their supporters, are known for advocating such attacks or
false reporting to police, known as ‘SWATing’, to harass law abiding guns
owners.
April 2015, Yakima, WA (confirmed open
carry)
A man was shopping with his children, purchasing a new
batting helmet for his son, when he encountered a disheveled man, Trevor Zumwalt.
Zumwalt made eye contact with the citizen carrier several times. Zumwalt then
drew a baseball bat from the rack and raised it to a swinging position. The
citizen turned to take the blow on his arm, drew his pistol, chambered a round,
and held Zumwalt at gunpoint until police arrived. The citizen said that he
will choose to carry concealed in the future.
The citizen carrier, Brandon Walker, didn’t do anything
wrong. It’s unknown what exactly Zumwalt was doing or what his intention was
when he attacked; there was no admission or information that Zumwalt was trying
to kill because of his pistol or disarm Walker. One thing is certain and that
is Walker should have been carrying with a round chambered in his Sig Sauer
pistol.
July
2015, New York, NY (concealed carry)
An off-duty NYPD officer was assaulted in a parking garage.
A suspect was seen in security video hiding and lying in wait. The suspect
ripped a necklace off of the female officer and the two began to struggle over
her purse, which contained her pistol. When she attempted to retrieve her
firearm, the suspect punched her several times in the face. Once the officer lost
control of the purse and the gun, the suspect fled, now armed with the officer’s
weapon. He was later arrested. NYPD officials were looking into
disciplining the officer for violating department protocols by failing to
keep the weapon holstered on her body.
Aug. 2015, Philadelphia, PA (concealed
carry)
A robber approached an armed citizen from behind and grabbed
the citizen. The men began struggling, and at some point, the citizen's gun
fell out of its holster. The men began fighting over the pistol. A shot was
fired inadvertently, narrowly missing the (dis)armed citizen. The citizen
regained control of the situation and chased the robber out of the store.
The citizen was apparently not using a retention holster,
which could have kept his gun from being snatched. In the video, you can
clearly see the robber get way too close to the citizen, who is totally unaware
that someone is standing so close to him. Such an egregious violation of
personal space should have been a huge red flag. This was a failure of
situational awareness.
Sept. 2015, Medford, OR (concealed
carry)
The victim was carrying his pistol in a holster in the back
of his waistband (small of the back), partially concealed by his shirt. He was
followed into the restroom by the suspect, who then tried to grab gun. When he
was not able to, the suspect punched the victim, who fell to the ground. The
victim was disarmed and the suspect forced the victim to run away at gun point.
The suspect was
later arrested and found to be a felon under the influence of drugs and on
parole.
A concealed firearm needs to be properly concealed or
entirely out in the open. A poorly concealed firearm lends the impression that
one is untrained and unprepared to use it. Furthermore, small of the back carry
provides the least amount of control over a firearm of all positions. Yet
again, this is a case of concealed carrier
being attacked. It’s important to note the presence of a firearm does not
magically keep bad things from happening. Sometimes you will be victimized
regardless of your precautions simply because tweaking felons don’t make smart
choices. All one can do is prepare the best they can for adverse circumstances.
Jan.
2016, Madison, WI (concealed carry)
A Madison man was robbed of cash and his concealed handgun
while he was trying to buy marijuana. The drug buyer—an unlawful user of a
controlled substance and thus prohibited from possessing a firearm—also had a
concealed carry permit. The victim was not injured.
Feb. 2016, Newport News, VA (open
carry)
An open carrier was robbed of his firearm. He was approached
by two men who demanded his firearm, disarmed him, and knocked him to the
ground. Nuances: he’s at a motel that has had several past prostitution and
drug busts. Sure, police say he had his gun in a holster, but something sounds
odd about this. Could he have been carrying concealed illegally and told police
it was open carry to avoid a charge, but still being able to report the robbery
and loss of his gun?
Similar incidents across the country have generated more
media interest than a single article, with scant details, repeated only in
national online publications that appeal to armed citizens and conservatives.
At face value, this may be the only actual example of a true open carry example
ever, but something is off about this whole incident. Ultimately, this ‘open
carrier’ did not have situational awareness and was a coward for not defending
himself while armed.
Analysis
Three incidents confirmed incidents of open carriers robbed
or attacked, only one fatality, and one thwarted attack. One of those victims
was killed when he chased the
now-armed robber down. Two of the open carry incidents can only be dubiously
considered to be true cases of open carry. Six of the incidents, the majority,
were confirmed to be concealed carry.
What did these events have in common? Most of these events
took place during the hours of darkness. What appears to be common thread with
those who were disarmed is carelessness, including:
- Repeated failures of situational awareness by letting the bad guys get too close.
- Failure to use a retention holster (including off-body carry).
- No will to fight back.
- No skills at retaining control of the weapon.
- Using the gun as a talisman rather than a serious tool.
The majority of these incidents show, or at least hint at,
major failures in judgment and basic self-defense techniques. Human failure,
not systemic failure. Three equivocal documented events in recent news don’t
amount to a denunciation of open carry as dangerous. It’s like saying concealed
carry, with its higher rate of incidents, should be discounted as well.
The assumption that an openly carried weapon constitutes an
invitation for victimization is false in light of the isolated incidents. A few
events do not constitute an abundance of evidence. Rather, abundant evidence is
available that open carry is indeed a deterrent to crime while concealed carry
lacks that deterrent factor.
While cops are the most likely to lecture someone about the 'dangers' of open carry, they put on their uniform and practice open carry all day. Why? Deterrence. For the most part, it works, despite the occasional incident where some desperate criminal decides to attack anyway. There is no guarantee that any method of carry is going to insulate someone from attack or save their life should one happen, regardless of experience, equipment, or precautions taken.
While cops are the most likely to lecture someone about the 'dangers' of open carry, they put on their uniform and practice open carry all day. Why? Deterrence. For the most part, it works, despite the occasional incident where some desperate criminal decides to attack anyway. There is no guarantee that any method of carry is going to insulate someone from attack or save their life should one happen, regardless of experience, equipment, or precautions taken.
“Open carriers are
gonna be the first to be shot.”
Concealed carry supremacists like to think that a bad guy
will assume them to be unarmed and either ignore them totally or pay little
attention to them. As the criminal is too busy robbing or etc., the concealed
carrier will then draw his weapon and fire. Of course, the supremacists imagine
those who were openly carrying are now lying dead on the floor. In another
scenario, the concealed carrier, though surprised by an incompetent foe waiving
his gun around, draw quickly from under their concealment garment and shoot the
bad guy. Suddenly, they’ll go from ‘gray man’ to the last thing the bad guy
ever sees. All right, in theory.
Criminals aren’t likely to target open carriers to remove
any resistance to their crime based on the simple fact that most criminals
don’t want any trouble, just a quick and easy score. Shooting someone massively
complicates things for him. Executing an open carrier is far more risky than
simply going elsewhere or waiting until the armed citizen leaves.
A criminal who starts shooting is at a huge disadvantage
compared to an armed citizen. The armed citizen isn’t going to get in trouble
for a righteous self-defense shooting. It’s the criminal who fires his gun that
has to worry about running from the police and evading homicide detectives.
Criminals generally seek easy targets. They are after money, not starting a gun fight. Guns are primarily used as an intimidation tool or as a last resort.. Going after someone who they
know is armed introduces an element of risk that they could otherwise avoid.
In fact, there have been a few document cases where robbers
have been in a business, but decided to leave and come back at a later time,
because of the presence of an armed customer. Here's just one example. More of these examples exist than
open carriers being disarmed. With concealed carry, one loses the deterrent
effect of a visible handgun.
One argument a concealed carry supremacists made was that
concealed carry "gives him control [of the situation]". The example was where he is ordered to the
ground by a robber. Then, while the robber is momentarily distracted, he will
draw his firearm and shoot the robber. First, the supremacist already lost
control by not noticing the robber first and then by putting himself in a
vulnerable position.
The supremacist’s anti-open carry example was that three
bank robbers walk in, see the open carrier, and blast him. In theory, the
concealed carrier could appear ‘harmless’ until the opportune time to
counter-attack. In the sense of a stealthy bad guy sizing up his target before
springing the attack, this theory does make sense, but it is the only time it
does. Now what if the bad guys just start randomly shooting people? In most of
the mass shootings and terrorist attacks I’m aware of, that’s what happened.
A concealed carrier is just as likely to be a target as
anyone else who is unarmed. Blending in with the sheep only has advantages for
those who know they are going to be targeted anyway. A wolf will still attack
another wolf in sheep’s clothing, but that same wolf isn’t going to go after
another wolf that looks just as fierce as him.
The Robber
Robbers have either extensively planned out their crime or
have at least cased the location. They wait until there are no cops around and
pick the best times for their crime. They want as little resistance as possible
as their goal is to score, not kill people. That makes it harder for them to
make their score and successfully get away. It is more advantageous for them to
pay attention, size up the situation, and wait until any potential threat
leaves, rather than execute an armed citizen and instantly complicate their
plot at its inception.
Most robbers or terrorists who are likely to preemptively
ambush an open carrier have the tenacity to succeed at their diabolical goal,
concealed carry hero in the crowd or not. Those not specifically looking for a
fight will wait or walk away if they see an open carrier.
The Addict
Those who would kill an armed citizen on sight are probably
going to be the ones doped up or otherwise too nervous to notice someone who is
nonchalantly carrying a holstered pistol. A magical discovery of the open
carrier would have to come into play and intertwine with said open carrier’s
total lack of situational awareness.
Most criminals who kill do so on impulse. They are the ones
who are desperate and/or high, rushing into a liquor store for a quick score.
These are the ones who shoot at compliant, unresisting clerks—the ones startled
by a frightened customer, who they quickly ventilate in a panic. Those are the
wild cards that only a fast draw from behind cover and an accurate shot can
deal with. Even so, these people are so emotionally and psychologically all
over the map they are just as likely to violently evacuate their bowels at the sight of a gun.
The Terrorist
Terrorists are another story. They are the ones most likely
to target open carriers. However, one would hope that the average citizen
carrier has the presence of mind to notice the Middle Eastern dude or white kid
with the crazed look in his eye whipping an AK-47 out of a duffle bag. For the
terrorist scenario to be plausible, the terrorist would have to blend in until
it was time to ‘go loud’, surveilled the area, ID the open carrier, and
hopefully draw and fire without the open carrier noticing.
“I want to blend in
so I can surprise an attacker.”
Open carry’s main advantage is deterrence. Some concealed
carry advocates prefer to blend in with unarmed citizens and rely on surprise
in the event of an attack, feeling that open carry may make them a primary
target for a criminal or terrorist. There is no evidence to suggest that open
carriers have been prioritized in crimes over other parties because of their
openly carried gun. Deterrence is a better option than surprise.
Far too many concealed carry supremacists don’t practice
what they preach, specifically, the ‘gray man’ doctrine. That is, to dress and
act in a non-descript way that draws no extra attention to oneself. Police
officers are rather fond of this and for good reason. For the rest of us, it’s
not so important in most of daily life. Hypocrisy arises when a supremacists
says “I don’t want to draw attention to myself” and yet does so anyway.
A lot of the guys that say this wear ‘Molon Labe’, Gadsden
flag, or obviously pro-Second Amendment shirts. To an observant individual,
it’s the equivalent of loudly announcing you have a gun. A less obvious
extension of this is ‘tactical’ clothing like BDUs or 5.11 cargo pants, known
affectionately as “kill me first pants”. Tactical flashlights and other gadgets
clipped to the belt are a dead give-away there’s probably a pistol lurking
under that waist band. A smart criminal or
terrorist, intent on killing, will lie in wait and execute the supremacist when
their back is turned.
The 'gray man' element, appearing unremarkable and blending
in with the crowd, only has application when one may be specifically sought
out; such as in the case of a police officer. Cops have a vested interest
remaining inconspicuous off-duty. The last thing they want is to be recognized
by a bad guy, let alone identified as a cop when out with their families.
Remaining inconspicuous is an important consideration, but it’s far from the
only factor that one should use when choosing a method of carry.
Most of the objections to open carry are rooted in police
officers’ opinions. Cops are a huge element in the concealed carry culture and
moonlighting or retired cops often work as concealed carry instructors, passing
along their opinions and biases to their students, most of whom are just
average Joes. Cops have a vested interest in not being identified off-duty and
their concerns don’t directly translate to the public.
“Open carriers do it to
get attention.”
Concealed carry supremacists argue that all open carriers
are doing it just to draw attention to themselves; that it's somehow an ego
boost. This statement comes from someone who probably hasn’t carried openly
before or much at all. They imagine that all open carriers are like the
Chipotle Ninjas who carried their AR-15s, legally, into a restaurant to make a
point that it was absurd for Texas to ban the open carry of handguns (prior to
this year). Yes, sometimes people do use open carry to make a point, but the
vast majority of open carriers aren't doing it out of vanity.
Many are worried about hearing criticism. Others feel that
open carry frightens some and could sway an otherwise moderate person to the
gun control side. This was a major argument in Texas during their struggle for
open carry. "Out of sight, out of mind" will not change opinions. In
fact, seeing normal people harmlessly going about their daily lives with an
exposed pistol on their hip reinforces Second Amendment rights, just as the gun
in the hands of a gangster has the opposite effect.
The interesting thing about concealed carry supremacists is
that they seem to be obsessed with how others perceive them. Worrying about
what others think is really self-absorbed. Only in a social environment where
opinions do matter (such a family, church, work) should others’ opinions on
method of carry be given consideration. Depending on the occasion and audience,
one method or the other may project the desired appearance that the armed
citizen desires, such as concealed carry at a dressy dinner, but open carry
during a tax appointment.
The debate over 'attention' is largely a matter of taste and
environment. A citizen carrier with anti-gun customers or friends may want to
protect themselves without alienating others. Some people may feel
uncomfortable carrying openly. Whatever the choice, it is a personal one and
not to be judged or criticized.
The advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that it
may be possible to carry in places where open carriers would be shunned or
asked to leave, such as casinos. Legally speaking, (in Nevada) the advantage is
with open carry, yet due to modern sensitivities, the discreet option of
undetected concealed carry would prevent any debates with anti-gunners or
objections to having the weapon on private property where the owner/management
might prohibit it. Also, given one’s choice of dress or activities, concealed
carry may be more appropriate.
I’m a concealed carry
instructor, get a CCW (and pay me to take my course)!
A pervasive and persistent problem is that concealed carry
instructors denigrate, misrepresent, and outright lie about open carry. Why?
Because open carry is free in Nevada and many other states. These dishonest instructors are engaging in a
misguided attempt to earn additional business at the expense of their students.
For an instructor, who is supposed to be an expert on their subject matter, it
is immoral to offer training which is contrary to reality.
Students are subjected to bombastic rants about all the rumors
debunked in this article, leaving them with the false impression that open
carry is dangerous. Bad advice has seriously affected the firearms community in
Clark County because of instructors who are more interested in promoting their
own selfish agendas than provide accurate training. Ego gets in the way and
they use their position and influence to impose their opinions on others. When challenged
for spreading disinformation, far too many instructors double down on their
stance, denying evidence when confronted and dismissing logical arguments.
Are you a concealed carry instructor who demonizes open
carry? Your dishonesty is a disgrace to the Second Amendment and self-defense
community. A good instructor knows that open carry allows flexibility for
self-defense. A good instructor explains the benefits of being able to conceal
in places and situations where open carry is undesirable. A good instructor
tells their students about the background check discount a permit can get them
and the other states that recognize Nevada’s permit. A good instructor tells
the truth, lets students decide their own opinions, and doesn’t win business
through deceit.
Open Carry Safety
Tips
The consistent theme in the few and far between open carry
incidents boil down to a lack of situational awareness, lack of a retention
holster, no will to fight, and no weapon retention techniques. One who carries
a gun must do so using the proper equipment and in a manner ready to use it.
1. Use a retention holster, preferably a positive locking
one, but even a tightly fitted friction retention holster is better than a
loose, low quality one. Keep your firearm at a strong point on your body where
you can observe it with your peripheral vision, generally no further back on
your body than the 4 o’clock position.
2. Situational awareness is paramount. Never be too
distracted, too buried in the newspaper, or too into your phone to notice who
is around you. Pay particular attention to people behind you and don't let
anyone get too close. If you are going to be distracted, for eating or
drinking, sit with your back or gun side to the wall or other solid obstacle to
shield your weapon.
3. Keep your gun hand free and preferably use your arm to
shield your weapon in crowded or questionable situations. Anyone grabbing your
gun will have to brush your arm fist. Maintaining positive control of your
handgun before a snatch occurs is the
best way to retain your gun.
4. Don't give up your gun! If you are imminently about to be attacked or your gun
snatched, create distance between you and your opponent, draw your weapon, and
fire if the threat continues or is likely to. Lethal force to overcome a
violent felony is usually justified and victims of gun snatchings (often police
officers) are killed with their own weapons. Don’t be the chump who gives up
his gun out of fear.
5. If your gun is grabbed, use your gun hand to prevent the
attacker from pulling the weapon out of the holster. Use your free hand to
push, pull, hit, or engage a secondary weapon. Move away from the attacker if
possible. They will expect you to stand and fight, not run away. At this point,
do anything possible to kill or disable the attacker before he can kill you. Train hard to keep your weapon. Your life depends on it.
Conclusion
Point is, if you think open carry is “stupid”, “bad”,
“reckless”, or that all open carriers do it for attention, it scares people who
might otherwise be moderate on guns, or could make you a target for robber or
assault: you’re an uninformed idiot who needs to shut up.
Statistically speaking, the prevalence of concealed carriers
vs. open carriers could count for the higher rate incidents with permittees.
Yet based on the facts, open carriers and concealed carriers alike are
victimized because of poor self-defense practices.
At the heart of the argument, some just don’t feel
comfortable having an exposed handgun. Their reasons are various and frankly,
the only one that has real merit across the board is personal comfort. If you
don’t feel comfortable with open carry, then don’t, but don't sell you choice
with bad logic and your mistruths. Open and
concealed carry each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Neither is
inherently superior. Both methods complement each other and allow for flexible
self-defense. And sometimes, despite every precaution being taken, bad
things will happen. End of story.
*The incidents studied were from recently reported news
articles, gathered via Google search. The list is not intended to be
comprehensive, but I did attempt to locate as many reports as possible of open
and concealed carriers who were disarmed or targeted.
