This is the old debate about whether one, who is legally allowed to, and in a jurisdiction that permits it, should carry his sidearm concealed or openly. Both have merit, and both have their drawbacks.
Open carry allows one to project the fact that he is arm, thus hardening himself and his environment as a potential target. A would be criminal seeking a quick victim may be deterred by the sight of a handgun on his would-be-target and force him to go look for a victim who represents a lower risk to his own well being. After all, most of these criminals are cowards and try to avoid engaging those who would potentially fight back. On the same token, if said criminal is determined, or maybe the armed individual is just an obstacle on the way to bigger things, such as a mass casualty incident (active shooter), one can argue that carrying openly would elevate that person to the top of the "must be eliminated" list, after all, he represents the highest risk to the criminal and he may try to neutralize that risk as soon as possible.
We live in an era where elderly people and children are targeted for their relative inability to resist, AND police officers are targeted for no other reason than wearing a uniform and carrying a gun. Open carry is sometimes a good option.
The opposing argument for carrying a legally owned firearm is carrying it in a concealed fashion. Proponents of concealed carry take the approach of lowering the risk of having a Bullseye on one's back by virtue of not showcasing the fact they are armed, yet maintaining the ability to respond and utilize the element of surprise when doing so. This group prefers the reactive (in a defensive sense) measure rather than the proactive (deference) measure.
Neither group is wrong and each person acts based on his training, environment, legal restrictions (for example, many states allow open carry without the need for a permit, thus making it the preferred legal manner of carry), and moral/ethical view of the role of the defender.
For myself, I like being more like Israel's nuclear program. For years the existence of such program was denied and any mentioning of it was preceded by the term "alleged". Today, Israel practices what is called the "Policy of Opacity", in which the official government of Israel does not confirm nor denies the existence of a nuclear program, or the extent of any would be such alleged program. The goal of the Policy of Opacity is to essentially say: "We have the nukes. You know we have the nukes. You are not sure about the fact or the extent to which we have the nukes. Therefore you will think twice before attacking in case our nukes are much more advanced and numerous than you think"...only, without actually saying all of that.
The way I choose to carry my handgun is similar in its approach. I maintain a high level of awareness when in public. I carry myself as someone that would possibly be carrying a handgun. I may even be dressed as a professional gun-totter (wearing a suit for dignitary protection, or in Tactical attire for training sessions). But you won't see the gun (it is concealed). Thus, I hope, I convey a certain level of deterrence, and some confusion/uncertainty amongst any would-be assailants, without exposing what I truly have, or how well I can use it.
As always, stay safe and watch your six.
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services
No comments:
Post a Comment