imported post
Mainsail:
I enjoyed your dissertation on the Pros of OC and the Cons of CC. I do have a couple of very specific points I would like to make. In order to bring some creditability to what I write, some backqround is needed.
After two tours of duty with the USMC as a sniper/tracker in Viet Nam, and college on the GI Bill, I was recruited by a federal law enforcement/Intel agency. While that agency was home for 30+ years, I quite often was assigned TDY to other agencies and entities within the federal gov't. These include, but are not limited to BN&DD(preceeded DEA), the DEA, ATF, NSA, U.S. Marh. Service, etc. At the time of retirement I was a GS-1811/14. Since retirement I have also taught at FLETC in GA.
My education (thanks to Unc Sam) consits of two BA/BS degrees, my M.B.A, and a PhD.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding OC/CC. My opinion is that each has pros/cons and each individual must come to his own conclusion regarding any possible preferrence. It, given what is possibly at stake, is a highly personal matter! On-the-job about 90% of my carry was CC, however, I did carry openly with no badge showing about 10% of the time.
My, I hope, constructive critcism is with the manner in which you dimiss, or discount a point that is not in keeping with your own beliefs. For example, you use OFTEN the phraise "there is no credible evidence of". Another, your use of "never". Generally like this 'I 've never seen one', or 'there never has been'. One cannot assume that just because he/she has never seen or experienced something, that cannot or does not exist! No one can make the statement "that there is no credible evidence" to counter a point without citeing supporting evidence. In any case, the word "credible" is subjective in and of itself. It is a matter of someone's opinion. Without evidence it can not be substantiated.
So in the absence factual evidence, how do I make a difinitive conclusion? I can't! To large extent, I can use my own experience, but only if the experience greatly exceeds that of an average persons, in that specific situation. If the instance of occurance, of a certain act, is something I have personally experienced "X" times; now I can begin to incorporate statistical inferance into my attempt to present evidence that is as fact based as possible, under the circumstances. Courts have determined that I am an "expert witness" in very specific areas. How can they do that? It comes down to is the judgement of my professional peers. Many times a certification is involved. For example I am a (was) a Licensed C.P.A.. Certification was determined based upon specific factors such as, experience, exam results. If I scored in the top 1% of 10,000 people taking the same exam, am I an expert? Yes!
Do my professional opinions qualify as being highly credible? In courts of law, yes. Can the court rely on my professional estimations/opinions as being fact? They do everyday in thousands of cases.
That was one hell of a long way to suggest that when conducting analysis, or in arriving at a factual conclusion; "there is no credible evidence", or "Never", or "I've never seen" should be relied on with a ton of skepticism.
Mainsail:
I enjoyed your dissertation on the Pros of OC and the Cons of CC. I do have a couple of very specific points I would like to make. In order to bring some creditability to what I write, some backqround is needed.
After two tours of duty with the USMC as a sniper/tracker in Viet Nam, and college on the GI Bill, I was recruited by a federal law enforcement/Intel agency. While that agency was home for 30+ years, I quite often was assigned TDY to other agencies and entities within the federal gov't. These include, but are not limited to BN&DD(preceeded DEA), the DEA, ATF, NSA, U.S. Marh. Service, etc. At the time of retirement I was a GS-1811/14. Since retirement I have also taught at FLETC in GA.
My education (thanks to Unc Sam) consits of two BA/BS degrees, my M.B.A, and a PhD.
I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding OC/CC. My opinion is that each has pros/cons and each individual must come to his own conclusion regarding any possible preferrence. It, given what is possibly at stake, is a highly personal matter! On-the-job about 90% of my carry was CC, however, I did carry openly with no badge showing about 10% of the time.
My, I hope, constructive critcism is with the manner in which you dimiss, or discount a point that is not in keeping with your own beliefs. For example, you use OFTEN the phraise "there is no credible evidence of". Another, your use of "never". Generally like this 'I 've never seen one', or 'there never has been'. One cannot assume that just because he/she has never seen or experienced something, that cannot or does not exist! No one can make the statement "that there is no credible evidence" to counter a point without citeing supporting evidence. In any case, the word "credible" is subjective in and of itself. It is a matter of someone's opinion. Without evidence it can not be substantiated.
So in the absence factual evidence, how do I make a difinitive conclusion? I can't! To large extent, I can use my own experience, but only if the experience greatly exceeds that of an average persons, in that specific situation. If the instance of occurance, of a certain act, is something I have personally experienced "X" times; now I can begin to incorporate statistical inferance into my attempt to present evidence that is as fact based as possible, under the circumstances. Courts have determined that I am an "expert witness" in very specific areas. How can they do that? It comes down to is the judgement of my professional peers. Many times a certification is involved. For example I am a (was) a Licensed C.P.A.. Certification was determined based upon specific factors such as, experience, exam results. If I scored in the top 1% of 10,000 people taking the same exam, am I an expert? Yes!
Do my professional opinions qualify as being highly credible? In courts of law, yes. Can the court rely on my professional estimations/opinions as being fact? They do everyday in thousands of cases.
That was one hell of a long way to suggest that when conducting analysis, or in arriving at a factual conclusion; "there is no credible evidence", or "Never", or "I've never seen" should be relied on with a ton of skepticism.
