• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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."
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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.
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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 shit...(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...
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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?
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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).
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
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
 

ghengis86

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
56
Location
griffith, ,
imported post

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

night
 
Top