imported post
Schofield wrote:
Please note: I'm brand new to this forum and I've mostly been browsing various threads; I haven't seen this addressed anywhere yet. I agree completely that the idea of someone wearing a firearm to be "looking for trouble" is a logical fallacy. I'm a huge fan of OC, CC, and firearms. The essay is very well written and succinct.
What about a situation where someone deranged intends to go in shooting? If they see someone standing in line wearing a pistol, they'll almost certainly decide to take out that threat first. Not in a one-on-one confrontation but the ghoul against *everyone*, you're simply in their way. Concealed carry would at least give you the few seconds of leeway, not being the first target, to draw and fire. Curious.
- Schofield
I'm not sure that is true. If someone is going on a suicide shooting spree, they are by definition mentally deranged. I would question if they are rational enough to really think through the matter to that extent or that they are really going to be that observant. My guess would be that they are going to have tunnel vision for the most part and see everyone as a target and just be focused on shooting them. If you are shot immediately in that situation I would guess it is more going to be a matter of being one of the first victims because of bad luck of your location, rather than because you have a gun on your hip.
If you think out that scenario, unless you are one of the first targets, you are going to be going for cover and have your gun in your hand regardless of OC or CC carry, so the method of carry becomes moot, except perhaps, to how quickly you can draw your weapon. And usually these guys don't stake out the place and surveil it minutes before the attack to see who is where. They have a plan, they walk in, go to their chosen firing position and start pulling the trigger. Unless you are unlucky enough to encounter them prior to their first shot, in which case maybe they would shoot you before getting to their firing position if they even notice that you are armed, I don't think someone OC is at anymore risk than someone CC.
My guess is that for any individual, over years of carrying, the deterrent factor of OC on a potential BG who is just a petty thief and doesn't want to get shot by a customer over a $100 quick shop robbery, probably balances out with any enhanced risk of being a first target from a truly determined, criminal willing to commit murder or planning murder.
Another side to that argument however, is the fact that several (perhaps many or even all, I haven't read all 50) state constitutions within the section protecting the RKBA, reads that such rights do not extend to the concealed carry of weapons and that the state reserves the right to regulate CC. This tells me that there has been a perception for some 200 years that CC is somehow a different, higher threat to the people or the state or law and order or something than OC. Is the fact that in at least some frontier states, where many people were armed much of the time, that such clauses were deemed necessary, prima facie evidence that CC really does give a tactical advantage despite some modern thought to the contrary? Or is it a case that with the advance of weapons this is a moot point? Or is this line of thought really just meaningless?
I do find it ironic that in a state such as MO, where the RKBA is specifically protected in the state constitution whereas CC is not, that we can get licensed to CC and that such licensure is preempted (the licensure part affirming that it is not a right but instead a priveledge extended by the state much as driving), that the constitutionally protected right to OC is limited in that there is no state preemption to prevent municipalities from passing laws out right banning OC. Court arguments that such preemption is unnecessary due to constitutional protections and that such municipal laws are unconstitutional under the state constitution have been ruled against in state courts here. As the saying goes, it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law.
