OK. I came to this party a little late. In a nutshell, what was the article, or whatever, on an open carry argument.
It was a qoute countering some of the main arguments that the anti open carry crowd use for their reasoning against open carry that I got from another blog site. But nightmare apparently got his feelings hurt and starting whining about copyright. Then the mediator butchered my qoute to practically nothing. The original post was over 4 years old and no longer on the original site for any link to do anyone any good, so essentially my qoute was trashed, so I just deleted it but I can't delete the whole post so it remains.
But I will try to hit some of the highlights from my own writing that paralells the qoute only its not as in depth as the original one. Keep in mind I was writing it talking to a guy that was basically talking against open carry.
open carry vs concealed
Oh the notorious element of surprise. The element of surprise is soley an offensive action not a defensive one. No tactical training ever teaches someone to hide or hide your ability to act defensively as a defensive action its an offensive one. The element of surprise will most likely force your hand to use force not prevent or stop it.
A gun grab, cite one case of an actual gun grab of an arm civilians gun. You can't because it is a fictitious impractical argument by the anti-open carry crowd. Yes gun grabs happen to armed persons in uniform, but as a result of the perp from trying to evade arrest not just because its carried in the open.
Again a say cite one actual case of an armed citizen being the first one targeted during a convenience store robbery or any other robbery for that matter. Even the most ignorant criminals have a self preservation mentality and allmost always have some kind of rudimentary plan and unless the place has armed guards, they aren't planning on there being armed civilians, therefore when and if they see an armed citizens they have to rethink their plan.
Here is a scenario for you to ponder. Say you and you loved ones are walking in the park when two shady gangster looking teenagers appear walking towards you. Do you draw your weapon for suspicion they may rob you instead of them just walking to church, of course not, that would make you the criminal. Or do you wait until one of them has a knife to your loved ones throat then draw if you think your faster or do you comply, then most likely loosing your firearm along with your wallet giving the bad guy a good laugh with his friends how you brought a gun to a knife fight and lost? Lets say you chose to draw and you are successful at stopping them, now your a victim because you have to live with the fact you killed someone instead of deterring the crime by showing your ability to meet force with force beforehand? But thats not practical?
You say you carry for practical personal defense yet your justification for concealment are both impractical and fallacious.
Im not trying to bash anyone for choosing to conceal, I carry both open and concealed at times, but I can't stand it when people try to justify and convince others to do the same based on fictitious impractical information put out by people that live in a hollywood movie instead of reality.