Even if the facts are as reported, this falls into the category of "first time for everything" or "a couple of exceptions prove the rule." Who among us hasn't heard someone swear that he (or his friend's cousin's husband) was saved in a car crash only because he wasn't wearing a seat belt and was thrown clear of the burning or sinking car? Yet anyone who can do any math at all knows that wearing a seat belt is overwhelmingly more likely to save your live and reduce injuries in a crash than to be more harmful.
Similar stats are one reason we choose to own guns. The antis trumpet their numbers about how many people are injured with their own or a family member's guns. Ignoring some dishonest terms that grossly inflate numbers, there is some truth to these claims. I'm more likely to be injured in a car crash if I own a car; those who fly are more likely to die in a plane crash than those who don't fly; I'm more likely to be electrocuted if I live in a home with electricity; I'm more likely to suffer a gas explosion if my home is plumbed for natural gas or propane; and I'm more likely to be injured with a gun if I own and shoot guns than if I don't. But that is only one side of the equation.
Owning a car gives me tremendous transportational freedom and opportunities not afforded me if I don't own a car. This opens up work/income opportunities I would not otherwise have. In some cases, owning a car may well allow me to live in a much safer neighborhood than would be possible if I had to rely upon peddle power or mass transit to get to work each day. Flying commercial is the safest (if one of the lessor comfortable) form of transportation available. I'm much safer flying cross country than I am driving, walking, etc. Not to mention the time savings. Similarly, for the risks associated with having electricity, natural gas, or propane in my home, there are tremendous benefits and certain reduction of other risks.
In exactly the same way, while owning guns increases my risk of injury from a gun, it dramatically reduces my risks of being raped, mugged, or beaten to death during an assault. It also provides recreation and enjoyment, qualify family time together, and is an exercise of my rights.
In parallel fashion, if OCing a gun increases the risk of a gun being taken or being singled out for assault in a few rare cases, those risks/costs must be weighed against the benefits of OCing.
How many people are not assaulted because they are obviously armed?
How many people are armed and able to stop an assault when they otherwise might not be because OC is more comfortable than CC in certain circumstances?
On the flip side, there are times when CCing provides the opportunity to carry when OCing might not be practical, comfortable, or prudent for some (often social, sometimes legal) reason.
I really wish gun owners would be slower to find reasons to find fault with how others legally, peacefully carry. We have more than enough opponents/enemies without creating new opponents among those with whom we agree 95%+.
It seems the guy had decent (not perfect, but decent) SA and was able to defend himself appropriately. Whether the felon targeted him to get his gun, to get his wallet, or to avenge some imagined offense, matters very little until the incidence of being targeted for the gun became far more prevalent than they have been or currently seem to be.
Charles