Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Does OC make you a target of first choice/oppertunity?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I posted this in my state section (IN), but wanted to know what everyone else thought.

    Question: When violence is going to be perpetrated, does OCing make you a target of firtst choice?

    99.999% of the time, OCing will deter common criminals. I'm not concerned with that; I'm concerned (for this discussion at least), with that 0.0001% chance that you're in a bank/store, where a hard criminal or former military person or a smart felon, will look to take out the biggest threat (an OCer). does your gun on your hip increase the potential that you will be the first person attacked. i.e. criminal walks into store with intent of armed robbery, etc.; he notices your gun while your back is turned while cashing out at cashier, and determines that he should shoot you first (should bullets fly) since you'll be the greatest threat to his success.

    any and all opinions are welcomed and encouraged. cite sources when you can, but use this thread to make intelligent and thoughtful comments. go to work!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    If I concerned myself with the smallest fraction of a percentage of what was likely to happen, I wouldn't make it out of the house.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    I posted this in my state section (IN), but wanted to know what everyone else thought.

    Question: When violence is going to be perpetrated, does OCing make you a target of firtst choice?

    99.999% of the time, OCing will deter common criminals. I'm not concerned with that; I'm concerned (for this discussion at least), with that 0.0001% chance that you're in a bank/store, where a hard criminal or former military person or a smart felon, will look to take out the biggest threat (an OCer). does your gun on your hip increase the potential that you will be the first person attacked. i.e. criminal walks into store with intent of armed robbery, etc.; he notices your gun while your back is turned while cashing out at cashier, and determines that he should shoot you first (should bullets fly) since you'll be the greatest threat to his success.

    any and all opinions are welcomed and encouraged. cite sources when you can, but use this thread to make intelligent and thoughtful comments. go to work!
    (emphasis added)

    Of course it does.

    But you are merging two questions into one. Hopefully you won't conflate the answer to one as being a valid answer forthe other.

    Does OC generally increase one's likelihood of being attacked? Nope. Deters it I should think.

    Does OC in the exact circumstance highlighted above increase one's likelihood of being attacked? Of course. No need to ask the question. Youanswered it yourself by saying, "he determines that he should shoot you first..."

    What are the odds of being in such a situation? Also, if he is going to shoot someone and sees no one armed (I'm CCing), what's to stop him from pickingme to shoot first anyway? "Let me get this witness outof the way and away from the counter where I want to stand."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    If I concerned myself with the smallest fraction of a percentage of what was likely to happen, I wouldn't make it out of the house.
    sorry if i didn't make it clear enough; i wanted all arguments for probabilities set aside so we could assess the effects of CC to OC in a specific situation. I agree with you completely; i just wanted some thoughts on this miniscule subset of probability.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    I posted this in my state section (IN), but wanted to know what everyone else thought.

    Question: When violence is going to be perpetrated, does OCing make you a target of firtst choice?

    99.999% of the time, OCing will deter common criminals. I'm not concerned with that; I'm concerned (for this discussion at least), with that 0.0001% chance that you're in a bank/store, where a hard criminal or former military person or a smart felon, will look to take out the biggest threat (an OCer). does your gun on your hip increase the potential that you will be the first person attacked. i.e. criminal walks into store with intent of armed robbery, etc.; he notices your gun while your back is turned while cashing out at cashier, and determines that he should shoot you first (should bullets fly) since you'll be the greatest threat to his success.

    any and all opinions are welcomed and encouraged. cite sources when you can, but use this thread to make intelligent and thoughtful comments. go to work!
    (emphasis added)

    Of course it does.

    But you are merging two questions into one. Hopefully you won't conflate the answer to one as being a valid answer forthe other.

    #1 Does OC generally increase one's likelihood of being attacked? Nope. Deters it I should think.

    #2 Does OC in the exact circumstance highlighted above increase one's likelihood of being attacked? Of course. No need to ask the question. Youanswered it yourself by saying, "he determines that he should shoot you first..."

    What are the odds of being in such a situation? Also, if he is going to shoot someone and sees no one armed (I'm CCing), what's to stop him from pickingme to shoot first anyway? "Let me get this witness outof the way and away from the counter where I want to stand."
    good points and thank you; but how can you seperate the exact situation (even if it is a ridiculously small probablity) from all OC situations in gerneral?what i'm trying to say is that with the 2 questions you pose, #2 is a subset of all #1 situations (no matter the probability).

    I was trying to get away from the mentality that 'since the probability is extremely small, it really does not matter'. while this may be true, i wanted to understand if there is a difference between the two.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    sorry if i didn't make it clear enough; i wanted all arguments for probabilities set aside so we could assess the effects of CC to OC in a specific situation. I agree with you completely; i just wanted some thoughts on this miniscule subset of probability.
    I think Citizen hit the nail on the head, you answered your own question: in the extremely unlikely event that the situation you described happened, yes, you might be the first to go. But, you might as well ask if we think a .38 would work well against a zombie, that situation is only slightly less likely to happen. You can go overboard with hypothetical questions. As long as everyone understands that the question doesn't reflect reality, it's OK. The problem is people forget that and use answers to hypothetical questions as if they were answers to real questions. In this case (perhaps not this particular thread, but definitely this question), someone will take the answer "Yes", and take it as an admission that OC will get you shot first in any situation.

    Wow, that ended up being a much longer rant than I intended.

  7. #7
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Here is a thought.

    If everyone carried a gun it wouldn't matter who the crookshot first because he'd have to fight the whole lot of them. (Or even if just more than one goodperson in the same place was armed.)


    If in the unlikely event you were targeted first, it benefits those around you at your expense by giving them time. Hopefully one of them is also armed and will take advantage of it.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    SNIP good points and thank you; but how can you seperate the exact situation (even if it is a ridiculously small probablity) from all OC situations in gerneral?what i'm trying to say is that with the 2 questions you pose, #2 is a subset of all #1 situations (no matter the probability).

    I was trying to get away from the mentality that 'since the probability is extremely small, it really does not matter'. while this may be true, i wanted to understand if there is a difference between the two.
    Thank you for the compliment.

    I can separate the two because I can differentiate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it literally does not get any simpler than that. Its a fundamental element of intelligence--the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities. The other element being the ability to pose andresolve problems, which necessarily would have to include the ability of recognizing or assigning importances to the elements of a problem.

    Its not logic. Its senior to logic.

    So, your answers lie just above. You've posed a problem--getting shot. FogRider pointed outin his own way that the elements of the problem are suffientlyunlikely tooccurthat they do not merit serious consideration.

    And Idid the differentiating for you.

    Got a question for you.

    What is the real problem you are trying to solve? Are you just trying to figure out a way to respond to CC-only people who say in so many words that you'll get shot first?

    Please think carefully before responding. Understand that with a low post count, and seeming to argue that the two aren't distinguishable, I'm not yet convinced that you aren't a CC-only troll. Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Here is a thought.

    If everyone carried a gun it wouldn't matter who the crookshot first because he'd have to fight the whole lot of them. (Or even if just more than one goodperson in the same place was armed.)


    If in the unlikely event you were targeted first, it benefits those around you at your expense by giving them time. Hopefully one of them is also armed and will take advantage of it.
    ha! so far, best response yet in my opinion! at least the rest of the sheep get a few more seconds to cower and consider why they're unarmed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    SNIP good points and thank you; but how can you seperate the exact situation (even if it is a ridiculously small probablity) from all OC situations in gerneral?what i'm trying to say is that with the 2 questions you pose, #2 is a subset of all #1 situations (no matter the probability).

    I was trying to get away from the mentality that 'since the probability is extremely small, it really does not matter'. while this may be true, i wanted to understand if there is a difference between the two.
    Thank you for the compliment.

    I can separate the two because I can differentiate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it literally does not get any simpler than that. Its a fundamental element of intelligence--the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities. The other element being the ability to pose andresolve problems, which necessarily would have to include the ability of recognizing or assigning importances to the elements of a problem.

    Its not logic. Its senior to logic.

    So, your answers lie just above. You've posed a problem--getting shot. FogRider pointed outin his own way that the elements of the problem are suffientlyunlikely tooccurthat they do not merit serious consideration.

    And Idid the differentiating for you.

    Got a question for you.

    What is the real problem you are trying to solve? Are you just trying to figure out a way to respond to CC-only people who say in so many words that you'll get shot first?

    Please think carefully before responding. Understand that with a low post count, and seeming to argue that the two aren't distinguishable, I'm not yet convinced that you aren't a CC-only troll. Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.
    no CC only troll here. sorry about the low post count, but i'm new to this forum and don't frequent it that much, let alone post. Since discovering this site and the OC movement in general, I OC whenever I can and try to educate as best i can regarding IN carry law. i didn't know there were such things as "cc-only trolls", but now i know.

    The real reason was that I read a Q&A in a handgun mag where a reader asked the 'expert' their thought on wearing pro-gun shirts/hats to display their support for all things handguns, to which the author replied that he didn't want to advertise his CC status or give clues that he was CCing, and in the authors mind, making him a 'target of first choice'. i will look for the specific mag, issue and artilce and post it here when i get a chance. i guess, being new to the OC thing, i wanted to gauge the sentiments among those that have experience OCing. please do not mistake my ignorance and inquiry as a ploy to argue 'cc-only' rights.

    OCing has been an eye-opener, not only to myself, but my family, in-laws and friends. i think you can actually see the wheels turning when someone sees your gun, asks if your a cop, and then you explain that we all have a right to have a gun on your hip.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    SNIP good points and thank you; but how can you seperate the exact situation (even if it is a ridiculously small probablity) from all OC situations in gerneral?what i'm trying to say is that with the 2 questions you pose, #2 is a subset of all #1 situations (no matter the probability).

    I was trying to get away from the mentality that 'since the probability is extremely small, it really does not matter'. while this may be true, i wanted to understand if there is a difference between the two.
    Thank you for the compliment.

    I can separate the two because I can differentiate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it literally does not get any simpler than that. Its a fundamental element of intelligence--the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities. The other element being the ability to pose andresolve problems, which necessarily would have to include the ability of recognizing or assigning importances to the elements of a problem.

    Its not logic. Its senior to logic.

    So, your answers lie just above. You've posed a problem--getting shot. FogRider pointed outin his own way that the elements of the problem are suffientlyunlikely tooccurthat they do not merit serious consideration.

    And Idid the differentiating for you.

    Got a question for you.

    What is the real problem you are trying to solve? Are you just trying to figure out a way to respond to CC-only people who say in so many words that you'll get shot first?

    Please think carefully before responding. Understand that with a low post count, and seeming to argue that the two aren't distinguishable, I'm not yet convinced that you aren't a CC-only troll. Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.

    and back to the case in point, i realize that we're talking about insignificant probabilites here, and that in all realities, it won't matter given the rare likely hood of an event. but i see that pragmatism will trump this argument for most. and it seems thatconceding the point that OCing increased the propensity for violence to the OC'er is less important than throwing the 'cc-only troll' label for some unsubstantiated fear that OCing will be outlawed (again, i'm not up on the current status of OCing in the country, and if like any other gun law, is on its way out).

    bottom line; does OCing create an infintismally higher risk of violence? yes.

    does this probability have any measurable effect on an individual? No, unless you think you'll win the lottery too.

    again, this is not for my own convincing, but more to sharpen my arguments to the contrary and more soundly solidfy my OC convictions.

    thank you for the intelligent input, comments, etc. i appreciate it!


    Edit: ah ****...(Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.) well, i guess i ignored your troll caveat and will be labeled as such. how can i prove that i'm not? i guess i could say that i'm the square root of a negative...

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    bottom line; does OCing create an infintismally higher risk of violence? yes.
    Wrong, because when considering "risk of violence" the risk is not just being targeted first, which admittedly applies mostly to OC, but being targeted at all, which is lower with OC due to the deterrent factor. Sure, OC makes the risk of being targeted first infinitesimally higher, but the risk of being targeted at all is down overall.

    I see what you did! Don't try to turn it around.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    bottom line; does OCing create an infintismally higher risk of violence? yes.
    Wrong, because when considering "risk of violence" the risk is not just being targeted first, which admittedly applies mostly to OC, but being targeted at all, which is lower with OC due to the deterrent factor. Sure, OC makes the risk of being targeted first infinitesimally higher, but the risk of being targeted at all is down overall. Don't try to turn it around.

    ok, good explanation and i see my folly in the general 'risk of violence' qualifier. the 'targeted first' argument is a like saying your more likely to get into an auto accident b/c you drive a car, without consdieringany other form of transportation (walking, biking, etc.)

    did that analogy work?


    edit: sorry to disappoint, i wasn't trying to turn it around; pure ignorance

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    A better analogy would be that what you said is akin to suggesting it's safer to drive because there is a chance you could die in a plane crash.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    A better analogy would be that what you said is akin to suggesting it's safer to drive because there is a chance you could die in a plane crash.
    better yet, that a plane would crash into your car. right?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    ok, good explanation and i see my folly in the general 'risk of violence' qualifier. the 'targeted first' argument is a like saying your more likely to get into an auto accident b/c you drive a car, without consdieringany other form of transportation (walking, biking, etc.)

    did that analogy work?


    edit: sorry to disappoint, i wasn't trying to turn it around; pure ignorance
    A better analogy would be saying that your chances of getting killed if a semi hits you are higher in a small car while ignoring the fact that your chances of actually getting hit in the first place go down.

    Please note that I am not actually trying state any facts about cars here, just making an analogy.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    A better analogy would be that what you said is akin to suggesting it's safer to drive because there is a chance you could die in a plane crash.
    better yet, that a plane would crash into your car.* right?
    No, I meant that what you said is akin to saying that driving is safer than flying because planes sometimes crash and kill everyone on board. You focused on the rare specific circumstance rather than considering the everyday commonplace.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    ok, good explanation and i see my folly in the general 'risk of violence' qualifier. the 'targeted first' argument is a like saying your more likely to get into an auto accident b/c you drive a car, without consdieringany other form of transportation (walking, biking, etc.)

    did that analogy work?


    edit: sorry to disappoint, i wasn't trying to turn it around; pure ignorance
    A better analogy would be saying that your chances of getting killed if a semi hits you are higher in a small car while ignoring the fact that your chances of actually getting hit in the first place go down.

    Please note that I am not actually trying state any facts about cars here, just making an analogy.

    okay this analogy makes the most sense. the type of car you drive (how you carry your gun) has no effect on the probability of someone crashing into your vehicle. your chances of suffering severe bodily injury will however be affected. (but compact car vs. SUV may not convey the small difference in probable injury. maybe Tahoe vs. Blazer is better).


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    A better analogy would be that what you said is akin to suggesting it's safer to drive because there is a chance you could die in a plane crash.
    better yet, that a plane would crash into your car. right?
    No, I meant that what you said is akin to saying that driving is safer than flying because planes sometimes crash and kill everyone on board. You focused on the rare specific circumstance rather than considering the everyday commonplace.
    got it...that works

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    well, i think this has been sufficiently answered for tonight, at least for me. i appreciate the educatin'

    night

  21. #21
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    nevermind.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    I posted this in my state section (IN), but wanted to know what everyone else thought.

    Question: When violence is going to be perpetrated, does OCing make you a target of firtst choice?

    99.999% of the time, OCing will deter common criminals. I'm not concerned with that; I'm concerned (for this discussion at least), with that 0.0001% chance that you're in a bank/store, where a hard criminal or former military person or a smart felon, will look to take out the biggest threat (an OCer). does your gun on your hip increase the potential that you will be the first person attacked. i.e. criminal walks into store with intent of armed robbery, etc.; he notices your gun while your back is turned while cashing out at cashier, and determines that he should shoot you first (should bullets fly) since you'll be the greatest threat to his success.

    any and all opinions are welcomed and encouraged. cite sources when you can, but use this thread to make intelligent and thoughtful comments. go to work!
    That same line of thinking could also lead to someone thinking that OC'ing increases your chance of being murdered during a robbery. A BG targets you as you pull up to an ATM and he is armed. You get out of the car and he spots your weapon. Now he has to kill you to rob you and he gets a new weapon in the deal.

    To me OC'ing is more that carrying a weapon; it is a state of mind where you MUST maintain situational awareness of everything aout you or OC'ing is worthless. It may take me longer to fill out a bank slip but I observe everyone around me and everyone who enters.

    Semper Fi


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    griffith, ,
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    ghengis86 wrote:
    SNIP good points and thank you; but how can you seperate the exact situation (even if it is a ridiculously small probablity) from all OC situations in gerneral?what i'm trying to say is that with the 2 questions you pose, #2 is a subset of all #1 situations (no matter the probability).

    I was trying to get away from the mentality that 'since the probability is extremely small, it really does not matter'. while this may be true, i wanted to understand if there is a difference between the two.
    Thank you for the compliment.

    I can separate the two because I can differentiate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it literally does not get any simpler than that. Its a fundamental element of intelligence--the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities. The other element being the ability to pose andresolve problems, which necessarily would have to include the ability of recognizing or assigning importances to the elements of a problem.

    Its not logic. Its senior to logic.

    So, your answers lie just above. You've posed a problem--getting shot. FogRider pointed outin his own way that the elements of the problem are suffientlyunlikely tooccurthat they do not merit serious consideration.

    And Idid the differentiating for you.

    Got a question for you.

    What is the real problem you are trying to solve? Are you just trying to figure out a way to respond to CC-only people who say in so many words that you'll get shot first?

    Please think carefully before responding. Understand that with a low post count, and seeming to argue that the two aren't distinguishable, I'm not yet convinced that you aren't a CC-only troll. Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.
    no CC only troll here. sorry about the low post count, but i'm new to this forum and don't frequent it that much, let alone post. Since discovering this site and the OC movement in general, I OC whenever I can and try to educate as best i can regarding IN carry law. i didn't know there were such things as "cc-only trolls", but now i know.

    The real reason was that I read a Q&A in a handgun mag where a reader asked the 'expert' their thought on wearing pro-gun shirts/hats to display their support for all things handguns, to which the author replied that he didn't want to advertise his CC status or give clues that he was CCing, and in the authors mind, making him a 'target of first choice'. i will look for the specific mag, issue and artilce and post it here when i get a chance. i guess, being new to the OC thing, i wanted to gauge the sentiments among those that have experience OCing. please do not mistake my ignorance and inquiry as a ploy to argue 'cc-only' rights.

    OCing has been an eye-opener, not only to myself, but my family, in-laws and friends. i think you can actually see the wheels turning when someone sees your gun, asks if your a cop, and then you explain that we all have a right to have a gun on your hip.
    Okay, found the Q&A article; The December 2008 issue of Combat Handguns, in the letters section (p.16) under "Blending in...". here is the question, followed by Walt Rauch's response.

    ""To the editors: I am confused by Mr. Rauch's artile in the June 2008 issue. Is he concerned that individuals who are carrying concealed may be identified by their dress and suffer some imagined harm? Does he have any data to show that indiciduals wearing Remington logo hats have more safety issues than a man wearing a Braves hat in Atlanta? Why does he say that, "blending in is survival camoflague"? Isn't it possible that clothing that screams "gun extremist" may deter a scumbag? I proudly wear JFOP shirts that force sheeple to think irrespective of whether I am going to a location where I may carry concealed. Am I being unsafe?

    WALT RAUCH'S RESPONSE

    IN regard to your comments pertaing to my column in the June 2008 issue, fear of harm is not the issue. Living in a "blue state" as I do, I've found that many folks here are discomfited, if not outright alarmed, in the presence of firearms. They also transfer these emotions to firearms images on clothing and gear. My comment about "blending in..."means that I prefer not to attract attention to myself and the fact that I have an interest in firearms (continued on pg. 92). As to any deterrent effet of "gun extremist" clothing, there might be some, but it also could provoke an unwanted altercation. I prefer not to be a "target of first choice." I would much rather decide the when and where of any unsavory encounter. Conditions may be quite different in you locale, but I have to give what I feel is the best advice for gun owners is to be low-key in their dress and actions. In answer to your question about my having any data to support the advice given (other than my lifetime of experience), the answer is no. To the question of are you being unsafe, I would have to say "yes." (Emphasis mine)""

    so that's where i got the idea to post here.I would guess that MR. Rauch's opinion of open carry would be the same; "unsafe".

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ghengis86 wrote:
    SNIP Edit: ah @#$%...(Continuing to argue the point will almost guarantee that I conclude you are.) well, i guess i ignored your troll caveat and will be labeled as such. how can i prove that i'm not?
    No need. Your succeeding posts addressed it very well.

    I wish I hadn't lost track (forgot) about the thread until now.

    I read the exact same article in Combat Handguns.

    As for ammunition for debate points and personal certainty, it looks like you have a handle on things.

    Personally, I OC for two reasons. The first is to promote 2A rights. The second is convenience and exercise the right without asking permission (no license needed to OC in VA).

    I guess ol' Walt gives more weight to not scaring the emotionally fragile. It overlooks, though, that lots and lots of people get over any momentary startlement in about two seconds--literally. "Oh, dude! Is that a gun? (pause) Cool!" Etc., etc.Just because they are startled or even scared is no reason to leave them in the dark about their rights and the essential need for personal security. Just because a reaction occurs does not mean it is legitimate, does not mean its permanent, doesnot mean its beneficial, can't be altered, can't diminish or disappear as more information and further consideration expands understanding.

    So, I have nothing against Walt. He is an authority in his own area. However, the OCers here are authorities even moreso on the subject of OC.

    Generally, though. With family and friendswho want to debate, I've found it best to not spend a lot of time trying to convince. Just make a confident declaration of a few facts or personal reasons for OC. Then drop or change the subject. Its the confidence, the calmness that does it, not the logic or explanation. "Here's a guy that knows what he's talking about." That sort of thing. If they are genuinely interested or concerned (as opposed to be argumentative for the sake of being right), they'll change to asking questions or framing their communications in a friendly way.

    As for anyone who throws Walt up as an authority, just say, "Yes, oh, yes. You're quite right. Walt is an authority on guns. And the real authorities on Open Carry are the guys who have been doing it for years--the open carriers at OCDO."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    "As for anyone who throws Walt up as an authority, just say, "Yes, oh, yes. You're quite right. Walt is an authority on guns. And the real authorities on Open Carry are the guys who have been doing it for years--the open carriers at OCDO."

    Darn...I need to carry for a few more years to be an authority??? Do I get a hat and a test to pass? ? Haha... Kidding.

    I would point out that I have thought that very same thing. . . Does it make me more a target. Police use that argument as well. . . Last time I was stopped they did even say "Well, I hope a crack head doesn't come up behind you and take your gun."

    I expect that OC'ing does make me more a target, but not of criminals...or people who don't know the difference between a criminal and a man simply carrying his gun. I am more scared of the PD than I am the crack head. . . If a crackhead shoots me they might catch the guy and punish him...a cop shoots me because he mistook my digital recorder for a gun and...well....

    But I teach and educate more each time I carry...hopefully with enough time I will no longer be educating people and I will once again fear the crack head more than the PD.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •