Missing the Point

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

MamaLiberty wrote:

If you're in a group of let say, 5 people, and you are the only one open carrying. If there is a criminal that is armed and dangerous and approaching the group, which person do you think he's going to shoot first? The one that is open carrying."

Click to expand...

Several people on this forum (and lots of others) have challenged this idiotic idea many, many times. A money reward has been offered for any verifiable record of this ever happening anywhere in the US. So far, no takers.

Click to expand...

Has anyone come up with proof of the opposite? That it deters the bad guy.

Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of, and for good reason. If you OC and someone decides to NOT rob you, you will never know. Unless you can read minds, or they approach you and say "Boy it sure is a good thing you are carrying a gun! I was going to rob you but after seeing your gun I decided it wasn't a good idea. Have a great day!"

In the case of a person that is OC'ing being targeted first. Details like that would turned into big news by the media.

News at 11. Bank robbed. One person killed. Police say the man was likely killed because he was carrying a pistol. But first these commercials...

Although I read somewhere that there is security camera video showing a man in a ski mask walk into a bank, stop a few steps inside the door and turn and leave. I was told just off camera there was a man who was open carrying. Supposedly the guy in the ski mask looked at him and left.

Is all that true? I have no idea, I never seen the video. If someone has seen it and or knows were to view it I would love to be able to see it for my self.

imported post

This is my point. You can't prove it either way, so it's not a good point for an argument.

imported post

simply because there is no proof that OC deters bad guys doesnt make it a bad point. its a logical arguement. granted, not all bad guys are going to be logical... but if they have the choice between an obviously armed person, and a person that is not.. which one are they more likely to choose?

more often then not, they will take the easy target.

imported post

If there is no proof either way it is equally valid to say that the bad guy is gonna shoot the person who is OCing.

imported post

ahh.. i see what you are saying. If people that OC were becoming targets of attacks or shootings, you could easily find evidence to support it.

OC as a deterant to a bad guy will never have proof, because nothing happens...

imported post

Exactly.

imported post

so in a strange sense, because there is no evidence to support OC'ers are becoming targets, that is almost a form of evidence that it is a deterant.. or it does nothing..

i'll stick with OC

imported post

Yes, that is a very strange sense. But I do see what your saying (just don't agree). SoI'll stick with CC.

I really do like all the different opinions on here. There are some people who won't listen, Cbackous excluded, but I still enjoy the debates.

imported post

Look atsomeevidence on crime rates based on OC. Think about how many articles you have read about robberies and even murders in shopping malls or their parking lots where OC or gunsin generalare prohibited. Then ask yourselves how many robberies and murders occur at gun shops and gun shows where every man, woman, and even child has a gun on them. That should put to rest any questions about whether or not guns deter crime.

imported post

Another point is that criminals assume that if they don't see a gun (CC) that you don't have one so OC obviously means that you do. I've always felt that amongst the most dangerous environments (at least in Arizona) are bars and nightclubs. While alcohol I am sure plays a role in disorderly and violent behavior I believe that the biggest reason is because bars are weapons free zones. I'm sure most of the time there is always someone packing concealed in a bar although illegally but since nobody sees it nobody assumes it. If a couple of regulars at a club were regularly OCing pistols I would be willing to bet money that the amount of fights and other disorderly behavior would drastically diminish. Even people who are severely drunk usually are still sober enough to know what a gun will do to them if they misbehave. Additionally, troubled people who want to lower their inhibitions and start acting like a$$holes are likely to pick another venue where people aren't (as they assume) packing guns. I know that OC deters crime from personal experience because I have ran off criminals on more than one occasion simply by displaying guns but never actually having to use them.

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

Yes, that is a very strange sense. But I do see what your saying (just don't agree). So I'll stick with CC.

I really do like all the different opinions on here. There are some people who won't listen, Cbackous excluded, but I still enjoy the debates.

Click to expand...

There is evidence that carrying (OC or CC) does reduce crime - up to 2.5 million times a year. For CC to have an impact the gun must be seen/displayed/used in some fashion. Now we have an active situation.

On the other hand, OC is a passive act - no action required. that alone says something. I'll bet you have never thought of OCing as a passive act before.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

bordsnbikes wrote:

Yes, that is a very strange sense. But I do see what your saying (just don't agree). So I'll stick with CC.

I really do like all the different opinions on here. There are some people who won't listen, Cbackous excluded, but I still enjoy the debates.

Click to expand...

There is evidence that carrying (OC or CC) does reduce crime - up to 2.5 million times a year. For CC to have an impact the gun must be seen/displayed/used in some fashion. Now we have an active situation.

On the other hand, OC is a passive act - no action required. that alone says something. I'll bet you have never thought of OCing as a passive act before.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

+1. i was at work thinking to myself, OC is like making the first move, a bad guy that was going to mug you is put on the defense and has to change his plans when he sees the gun. why wait for him to be on top of you, possibly with a weapon, to try and take the offense..



thank you grapeshot.:dude:

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

MamaLiberty wrote:

If you're in a group of let say, 5 people, and you are the only one open carrying. If there is a criminal that is armed and dangerous and approaching the group, which person do you think he's going to shoot first? The one that is open carrying."

Click to expand...

Several people on this forum (and lots of others) have challenged this idiotic idea many, many times. A money reward has been offered for any verifiable record of this ever happening anywhere in the US. So far, no takers.

Click to expand...

Has anyone come up with proof of the opposite? That it deters the bad guy.

Click to expand...

There was a story somewhere here on OCDO in an old thread, aboutwhen theyOCed into a bank. He was standing there talking to the teller, then the teller gasped and their eyes got really wide looking behind him. He asked what was wrong, and the teller told him that a guy came in with a ski mask on, apparently spotted the OCer's sidearm, turned around and ran back out of the bank.

I know that's anecdotal evidence, but there have also been surveys of criminals in prison, and It reported that over half of criminals (I don't remember the exact percent, 60 or 80%) will not attack someone if they know they are armed.

I'm too lazy today to cite the source for the study or find the thread I mentioned, but they're out there.

...Orygunner...

imported post

cbackous wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

bordsnbikes wrote:
On the other hand, OC is a passive act - no action required. that alone says something. I'll bet you have never thought of OCing as a passive act before.

Click to expand...

+1. i was at work thinking to myself, OC is like making the first move, a bad guy that was going to mug you is put on the defense and has to change his plans when he sees the gun. why wait for him to be on top of you, possibly with a weapon, to try and take the offense..
thank you grapeshot.:dude:

Click to expand...

Some have described OCing as "advertising" and indeed it is. One advertises to the BGs that they refuse to be a victim - that there may be a higher price to pay than is desirable.

Would enjoy see you and others from the Peninsula for Lobby Day on Monday. Worth the effort and fun too.

Yata hey

imported post

Gun stores are robbed fairly regularly. Google gun store robbery and you'll come back with a mess of hits. This kind of puts a hole in the knowledge of a gun deters crime, everyone going into a gun store knows there will be guns.

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

Gun stores are robbed fairly regularly. Google gun store robbery and you'll come back with a mess of hits. This kind of puts a hole in the knowledge of a gun deters crime, everyone going into a gun store knows there will be guns.

Click to expand...

Where is the logic in this misapplied information. I really hope you are simply being sarcastic - if so the appropriate emoticon would be of benefit.

In my readings, most gun store robberies occur after closing and are burglaries.

Cars don't win races - drivers do with the car as their tool.
Knives don't cut meat - butchers do utilizing the tool.

Semantics can be used or abused to "prove" a point.

If banks stopped dealing with money, there would be no bank robberies.

In my world Guns Save Lives and OCd guns do deter crime. :exclaim:

Yata hey

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

Gun stores are robbed fairly regularly. Google gun store robbery and you'll come back with a mess of hits. This kind of puts a hole in the knowledge of a gun deters crime, everyone going into a gun store knows there will be guns.

Click to expand...

If I looked I could possiblyfind something on this forum that is more ridiculous than this statement, but maybe not.

You do realize that to be of use in preventing crime, a firearms must be loaded, and in the hands of a law abiding person present at the scene of a crime. SO look at what you said here.

Clearly MOST and in some cases ALL of the firearms in a gun store are NOT loaded and they are therefore useless in preventing crime. So in fact a gun store in most cases is not different than any other store.

imported post

No they are robbed in broad daylight with people inside who have guns. I was not being sarcastic at all. In fact I remember where security camera footage showed a man walking by a cop car and into the gun store to rob them. Granted he is probably one of the stupider ones. But he isn't the only one to ever do it. Here's two for you.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/store+robbery+concerns+police/1043840/story.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07262/818763-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

imported post

your first link is about a robbery that had multiple armed men robbing a place. it seems clear they new there would be guns in there and planned for it. if a BG is determined to rob a certian place or person, they will do what they think they need to do to get the job done.

your 2nd link has a title of "Gun store owner pulls gun, foils robbery"

QUOTE he quickly dived behind a door leading into the back room and retrieved his own pistol from his office desk. He said the sudden move startled the gunman enough so that he couldn't get off a shot. Instead, the masked man ran away.

the BG, althou armed, was not planning on the owner pulling a gun himself and having to use it. this is 1 of the many times that guns save lives.

also, neither of these stories say anything about anyone OC'ing there weapon.

imported post

bordsnbikes wrote:

No they are robbed in broad daylight with people inside who have guns. I was not being sarcastic at all. In fact I remember where security camera footage showed a man walking by a cop car and into the gun store to rob them. Granted he is probably one of the stupider ones. But he isn't the only one to ever do it. Here's two for you.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/store+robbery+concerns+police/1043840/story.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07262/818763-100.stm?cmpid=latest.xml

Click to expand...

By your own examples, one was a robbery and one was not.

Granted some thieves (most even) are stupid. Some who want money go to the source = banks. Some that want guns go to gun shops - even when they are open.
Frankly, robbing a bank seems less dangerous than a daylight robbery of a gun store. Wonder why that is? Want to guarantee that all resources will be utilized to find and prosecute you? Rob either of these two type of businesses.

My strong objection is to your premise that "This kind of puts a hole in the knowledge of a gun deters crime." Very faulty logic at best. Isolated examples of the of the risk they will take and stupidity of a few criminals doesn't materially alter the overwhelming evidence of millions of defensive use of guns each year.

Now that you have found the exception to the rule on gun shops, do you care to do the same for gun shows? I think that more guns still = less crime. If you don't see it that way, oh well.

Yata hey