Man shoots at robber, misses.

This is bad in more ways than one. http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crim...-at-would-be-buyer-who-pulled-knife-stole-it/


Sent from my iPhone.

I just cannot say this enough. Range Time. Range Time. Range Time. If you are going to carry a tool, know how to use it effectively. Probably would have gone down a bit different if he had been OC instead of concealed.

MSG Laigaie said:

Probably would have gone down a bit different if he had been OC instead of concealed.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%, if the victim would have been OCing the guy would probably have not pulled the knife and said no thanks to the phone only.

First off, the seller should have drawn and shot immediately once the knife was pulled, not while the thief was running away. I know in my state it's illegal to shoot someone that is not a threat to your life or is not causing you great bodily harm, ie a guy running away from you. This sounds like a mindset/training issue.

The fella should consider himself lucky that he was deprived of his firearm only. OC would have likely prevented this incident in the first place.

This is why CC'ing doesn't deter crime. The only one who had the "element of surprise" was the bad guy.

As already pointed out, he should not have shot at someone who was running away and was not a danger to him. He could have chased him I suppose, without drawing.

Also, I'm not surprised he missed. The bad guy was running away from him, and he only fired once, which means either logic got the better of him and he stopped firing, or the bad guy rounded a corner and he no longer had a shot.

Either way, "range time" doesn't help if the only practice you get is how to stand in one spot with no cover and shoot at a target that is standing in one spot with no cover. Combat is significantly different, both parties are moving, exchanging fire, and using cover and concealment. People like to think that, because they can hit a stationary man-sized target from 50 yards when they are calm and have ample time to breathe and acquire their target, they can hit a real person who is moving, ducking, dodging, diving, sprinting, and maybe even shooting back.

Cubex DE said:

This is why CC'ing doesn't deter crime. The only one who had the "element of surprise" was the bad guy.

Click to expand...

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

Cubex DE said:

As already pointed out, he should not have shot at someone who was running away and was not a danger to him. He could have chased him I suppose, without drawing.

Click to expand...

By going after him, he would no longer be a reluctant participant. This isn't usually viewed well, see Zimmerman case.

Cubex DE said:

Also, I'm not surprised he missed. The bad guy was running away from him, and he only fired once, which means either logic got the better of him and he stopped firing, or the bad guy rounded a corner and he no longer had a shot.

Either way, "range time" doesn't help if the only practice you get is how to stand in one spot with no cover and shoot at a target that is standing in one spot with no cover. Combat is significantly different, both parties are moving, exchanging fire, and using cover and concealment. People like to think that, because they can hit a stationary man-sized target from 50 yards when they are calm and have ample time to breathe and acquire their target, they can hit a real person who is moving, ducking, dodging, diving, sprinting, and maybe even shooting back.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. There is far more to training than shooting at a piece of paper.

Should have used ebay. Then again, don't own an iPhone and it won't get stolen, silly hipsters.

ScottE said:

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

~SNIPPED~

B

Click to expand...

My brother has a pair of Belgian Malinois dogs. They are not human companions. They are guard dogs. His place sits on 3 acres, fenced. My brother has posted the legal requirements concerning the presence of these guard dogs on the fence.

Now Scotty. Let's say you had a desire to enter that property. In which scenario would you be more likely to attempt an entry:

A. Signs up, no dogs present....

or

B. Signs up, at least two large dogs present, and able to respond in a split second?

My brother doesn't keep those dogs to attack people as a means of self protection. He has them as a deterrence to possible harm. Much more responsible than concealing the presence of the dogs, safer for all involved, effective. They serve as a deterrent to those maybe intending harm, and as those two dogs are not concealed, they are able to do their job without having to be first loosed. You step into their domain, you will be greeted. No cumbersome cage doors to deal with, no obstructions to hamper their quick and effective delivery of service.

Now it's true somebody might try to steal those two dogs, just like an open carrier being a target for a gun grab. Or shoot them. I'd certainly welcome legitimate reference of either happening with any frequency in Minnesota Scotty.

ScottE said:

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

Click to expand...

The intent of OC is to do both. WIN! :monkey

ScottE said:

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense. <snip>

Click to expand...

Correct it is for personal defense. But most of the CC community rely on the statement that they will surprise the bad guy. This is false. If one is CC then the only way for the bad guy to find out about the means of personal defense is to be surprised first by the bad guy (I am sure in this instance he was CC with his knife) and then you must deploy your firearm for defense. By the time this methodology works itself out the crime is well underway and it is very likely that the firearm has been fired. Furthermore, most of the CC community rely on the premise that if you draw your firearm only if you plan to fire, thus producing a violent scenario.

Contrast this to the OC crowd that wishes to avoid confrontation all together by providing a clear deterrence.

I have sold many things on Craigslist. I have met at a public place every time except once and always with my firearm in clear view. I would suggest that by doing this I have deterred any surprises against myself.

Anyone know who the shooter is?

ScottE said:

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense. <snip>

Click to expand...

CCer, attacked by thug wielding a knife. Will a thug desiring to commit a crime attack a OCer by wielding a knife to gain compliance from his victim?

Fuller Malarkey said:

My brother has a pair of Belgian Malinois dogs. They are not human companions. They are guard dogs. His place sits on 3 acres, fenced. My brother has posted the legal requirements concerning the presence of these guard dogs on the fence.

Now Scotty. Let's say you had a desire to enter that property. In which scenario would you be more likely to attempt an entry:

A. Signs up, no dogs present....

or

B. Signs up, at least two large dogs present, and able to respond in a split second?

My brother doesn't keep those dogs to attack people as a means of self protection. He has them as a deterrence to possible harm. Much more responsible than concealing the presence of the dogs, safer for all involved, effective. They serve as a deterrent to those maybe intending harm, and as those two dogs are not concealed, they are able to do their job without having to be first loosed. You step into their domain, you will be greeted. No cumbersome cage doors to deal with, no obstructions to hamper their quick and effective delivery of service.

Now it's true somebody might try to steal those two dogs, just like an open carrier being a target for a gun grab. Or shoot them. I'd certainly welcome legitimate reference of either happening with any frequency in Minnesota Scotty.

Click to expand...

I have a Rottweiler for the same reason.

I understand the point of your post, but there is a difference in most states between protecting your property, and trying to "deter" crime on out on the streets. I don't mind it to a point, but it can be taken too far - just ask Zimmerman, I bet he wishes he would have remained a reluctant participant. I carry for personal protection only, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.

ScottE said:

I have a Rottweiler for the same reason.

I understand the point of your post, but there is a difference in most states between protecting your property, and trying to "deter" crime on out on the streets. I don't mind it to a point, but it can be taken too far - just ask Zimmerman, I bet he wishes he would have remained a reluctant participant. I carry for personal protection only, and I take that responsibility very seriously. I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.

Click to expand...

It sure would be convenient to deter crime that may be perpetrated against me rather than trying to stop a crime in progress against me. Just saying.

ScottE said:

I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.

Click to expand...

The only crime most open carriers are attempting to defer are crimes against our person or our family, I doubt you will find anyone that is looking to play superhero or even neighborhood watch involving being openly armed.

ScottE said:

First off, the seller should have drawn and shot immediately once the knife was pulled, not while the thief was running away. I know in my state it's illegal to shoot someone that is not a threat to your life or is not causing you great bodily harm, ie a guy running away from you. This sounds like a mindset/training issue.

Click to expand...

The story is kinda short, we don't know for sure when the shot was fired. The phone owner should have never told police he fired a shot, just reported the phone stolen.

bmg50cal said:

Should have used ebay. Then again, don't own an iPhone and it won't get stolen, silly hipsters.

Click to expand...

I doubt that a large chunk of OCDO users, myself included, could be considered "hipsters" by any stretch of the imagination. Can we get back on topic, please?

ScottE said:

The intent of CC isn't to deter crime, it's for personal defense.

Click to expand...

OC deters crime from happening in the first place, and helps you resolve the situation in your favor if deterrence fails.

ScottE said:

I'm not of the mindset that I as a gun carrier am now here to deter crime.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is talking about patrolling the streets and scaring away drug dealers when we talk about OC deterring crime. We are obviously talking about deterring criminals from choosing us as targets, by making it clear that we are not going to be easy to take down. Criminals want easy targets so they can get what they want without a fight; OC'ers are obviously not going to give in to a criminal so easily. CC'ers tend to think that criminals will specifically choose those who OC to "execute," but they fail to realize that most criminals don't even consider killing people, even those who are heavily armed. They just want an easy score.

A byproduct is that crime in general is deterred, since it makes criminals realize that every person is a potential carrier, they just happened to notice this one person this one time. This isn't the point, however.

CC'ers fail to realize that their method of carry only gives them a way to respond to a crime that is already in progress, while OC helps to keep it from happening in the first place.

With the information available it seems he only violation is a gross misdemeanor

Tacoma Municipal CodeRCW 9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

A similar incident occurred in Yakima County last year and no charges as he was not in a restricted discharge of firearms area.

BigDave said:

With the information available it seems he only violation is a misdemeanor

Tacoma Municipal Code

8.12.010 Disorderly persons defined and enumerated.
The following persons are hereby declared to be disorderly persons:

6. Any person, except the police officers of the City, engaged in the lawful discharge of their duty, and persons practicing at target shooting in a duly licensed shooting gallery who shall fire off or discharge any bomb, gun, pistol, or firearm of any kind within the City limits.
​

A similar incident occurred in Yakima County last year and no charges as he was not in a restricted discharge of firearms area.

Click to expand...

Except there's this.

9.41.230 Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.
(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

So it's actually a gross misdemeanor.