Geronimo44
New member
imported post
Or giving him his first target, pro's and con's for each.
Or giving him his first target, pro's and con's for each.
-
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.
-
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.
Anti Open Carry
- Thread starter David13
- Start date
Border Bob
Regular Member
imported post
I'll add my two farthings to the pot and say that Snake Eater's post on April 8th is the best presentation I've seen for OC anywhere. Good job well done.
I live in rural southwestern New Mexico, with 35 miles of empty desert before you get to 'town', which has a population of about 12,000. Out here in the real world, you can call 911 (if the phone is working that day) but you're going to have to wait 40 minutes to an hour for a response. You've got to be able to protect yourself from thebanditos. And really, what's so bad about that?
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.
I'll add my two farthings to the pot and say that Snake Eater's post on April 8th is the best presentation I've seen for OC anywhere. Good job well done.
I live in rural southwestern New Mexico, with 35 miles of empty desert before you get to 'town', which has a population of about 12,000. Out here in the real world, you can call 911 (if the phone is working that day) but you're going to have to wait 40 minutes to an hour for a response. You've got to be able to protect yourself from thebanditos. And really, what's so bad about that?
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
Geronimo44 wrote:
You don't read well do you? but I can see that you watch lot's of movies and are a member of the NRA ! :lol:
Sorry, couldn't help myself :lol:
Geronimo44 wrote:
You don't read well do you? but I can see that you watch lot's of movies and are a member of the NRA ! :lol:
Sorry, couldn't help myself :lol:
Rayce Bannon
Regular Member
imported post
Ratt402 wrote:
According to the '71 verison of the NC Constitution u do hav the 'Right' to 'bear arms' but do not hav the Right to conceal carry.
Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]
The justicesclaimed in Heller 'the individual' had the Right to bear arms long before the U.S. Const was written, and 'the individual' has the Right to bear arms 'now'. The justices further clamied in 'Miranda', 'no rule, code, or legislation' can interfer w/ urfundamental Rights.
____________________
Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. ('71 version of the NC const).
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. [emphasis added]
According to the NC Const. (which supercedes any 'state statutes')thestate Citizens hav the fundamental Right to OC but do not hav the fundamental Right toCC. The later, the state Citizen has to begtheirstate guvt for permission. Which co-insides w/ Sec 3 of the NC const which recognizes the state laws must be inline w/ the US const.
Ratt402 wrote:
According to the '71 verison of the NC Constitution u do hav the 'Right' to 'bear arms' but do not hav the Right to conceal carry.
Sec. 3. Internal government of the State.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]
The justicesclaimed in Heller 'the individual' had the Right to bear arms long before the U.S. Const was written, and 'the individual' has the Right to bear arms 'now'. The justices further clamied in 'Miranda', 'no rule, code, or legislation' can interfer w/ urfundamental Rights.
____________________
Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. ('71 version of the NC const).
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. [emphasis added]
According to the NC Const. (which supercedes any 'state statutes')thestate Citizens hav the fundamental Right to OC but do not hav the fundamental Right toCC. The later, the state Citizen has to begtheirstate guvt for permission. Which co-insides w/ Sec 3 of the NC const which recognizes the state laws must be inline w/ the US const.
Ratt402
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for the info Rayce Brannon as you are totally correct. I guess I used the wrong choice of words on what I was trying to get at. I am fairly new to OC and this forum, hence why I like it so much, everyone is helpful in here. Anyways, I guess what I was getting at, it would be alot more of a comfort if NC was more specific as is VA from what I can read and them being a "Gold Star Open Carry State" according to the Maps on the home page here.
Might say I expect to run across that one percent with the luck I have! :lol:
Thanks again!
Semper Fi !
Thanks for the info Rayce Brannon as you are totally correct. I guess I used the wrong choice of words on what I was trying to get at. I am fairly new to OC and this forum, hence why I like it so much, everyone is helpful in here. Anyways, I guess what I was getting at, it would be alot more of a comfort if NC was more specific as is VA from what I can read and them being a "Gold Star Open Carry State" according to the Maps on the home page here.
Might say I expect to run across that one percent with the luck I have! :lol:
Thanks again!
Semper Fi !
Rayce Bannon
Regular Member
imported post
Ratt402 wrote:
Ur welcome Ratt. Newbie here as well. What i find odd bout a lot of forums such as these is that the intermixing of street vernacular w/ statutes. (Not talking bout the joking around statements) UNfortunately, the public schools hav dummied down the American populace.Americans today, have virtually no clue of the difference between a 'word' defined in Webster, and a 'term' defined in statutes.
For instance, on the streeet, the 'word' United States means 'America'. We were taught in public schools United States means the good 'ole U.S. of A.
Whereas the 'term' "United States" has over 450 (state /fed) different statutory (legal) definitions. (Vry few mean America.)
Another example is 'motor vehicle'. Most people 'travel in an automobile' and do not 'drive a motor vehicle'. However, we hav been programmed into using commercial terms w/o even relizing it. It is a well-settled fact in law that 'traveling in an automobile" is not 'driving a motor vehicle'.
It's called 'word of art'....and UNfortunately, public schools to not teach this. That's why when it comes to certain topics (unalienable Rights) I do my best to educate (deprogram) people from using 'statutory' terms when they mean street words.
Standing in a courtroom and admiting to 'terms' a citizen has no idea what the 'terms' really mean....or they hav hired a 'licensed attoreny' (whatever that means) to speaking on behalf of the citizen is probably not in the citizen's best interest.
peace b ur journey
Ratt402 wrote:
Ur welcome Ratt. Newbie here as well. What i find odd bout a lot of forums such as these is that the intermixing of street vernacular w/ statutes. (Not talking bout the joking around statements) UNfortunately, the public schools hav dummied down the American populace.Americans today, have virtually no clue of the difference between a 'word' defined in Webster, and a 'term' defined in statutes.
For instance, on the streeet, the 'word' United States means 'America'. We were taught in public schools United States means the good 'ole U.S. of A.
Whereas the 'term' "United States" has over 450 (state /fed) different statutory (legal) definitions. (Vry few mean America.)
Another example is 'motor vehicle'. Most people 'travel in an automobile' and do not 'drive a motor vehicle'. However, we hav been programmed into using commercial terms w/o even relizing it. It is a well-settled fact in law that 'traveling in an automobile" is not 'driving a motor vehicle'.
It's called 'word of art'....and UNfortunately, public schools to not teach this. That's why when it comes to certain topics (unalienable Rights) I do my best to educate (deprogram) people from using 'statutory' terms when they mean street words.
Standing in a courtroom and admiting to 'terms' a citizen has no idea what the 'terms' really mean....or they hav hired a 'licensed attoreny' (whatever that means) to speaking on behalf of the citizen is probably not in the citizen's best interest.
peace b ur journey
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
Ratt402 wrote:
Louisiana's Constitution is similar; Section 11-
See ? OC is the right, just like the founding fathers intended.
CC is a privilege, paidby you, and given to you by your state. Which the state can take away at anytime, and COME UP WITH THE MOST RIDICULOUS RESTRICTIVE LAWS THEY CAN THINK OF ! :banghead:
Which is just another reason in the long list of why I OC
Semper Fi back at cha Devil !
Ratt402 wrote:
Louisiana's Constitution is similar; Section 11-
See ? OC is the right, just like the founding fathers intended.
CC is a privilege, paidby you, and given to you by your state. Which the state can take away at anytime, and COME UP WITH THE MOST RIDICULOUS RESTRICTIVE LAWS THEY CAN THINK OF ! :banghead:
Which is just another reason in the long list of why I OC
Semper Fi back at cha Devil !
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
At one time... carrying arms concealed was a nefarious practice. Bearing arms openly and cased/slung indicated honorable intent. Whereas concealed arms gave the impressionof beingunarmed while you were not... and therefore dishonorable. 'Prob'ly up to no good.
This is where the States (Under 10A) began the 'permit/license' for concealed carriers who were permited to conceal after being found honorable by the State and/or municipality. This did not affect bearing arms openly.
The right to bear arms openly has always been recognized. Note... 'recognized'... not permitted. This is among Ratt402's 'words' described. Some still think Rights (an inherent individual act or condition)and Laws (Prohibitive and controlling acts imposed by government) are the same. NOT! At one time... men were'educated' in the use of arms as boys. Men were (as now) responsible for their conduct under arms and expected to obey such 'Laws' as applied to their legitimate purpose.
During most of our lifetimes we, at some point obfuscated this 'right' with 'permit and license' regulations due to the focus on 'concealment'. Since there is no 'law' specifically addressing arms borne openly by permission, the actual Right (altho obvious) aquired this homogenous perception in error.
Many of us were inculcated (wrongly) at an early agewith this perception that even ownership of firearms in particular required government permission.I argued this point in a Jr. High School Civics classin 1957 and was 'thrown out' for being disruptive. (ME?:uhoh: Imagine that! :shockIt's no wonder that LEO's and their political masters today fail to understand this right to bear arms openlyin particular.
Some states and municipalities continue to deny or otherwise restrictthis right'by Law' and feel smugly justified in doing so.I recently had a 'run-in' with a retired (27 years) Federal LEO from Washington state who was absolutely convinced that open carry was not allowed (recognized)in Washington: ("Nobody does that... it would scare women and children.") He had a Washington CPL to carry concealed.
The wording of the Washington State Constitution is identical to that of Arizona's:
Article I Section 24“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Projection? He also continued to confuse rights with laws as 'the same thing'. This is a mindset prevalent most everywhere. Washington does however require a CPL to carry a handgun in a motor vehicle (same as concealed) which is not the case here. Disinformation becomes 'lore' in time. RCW 9.41.290 is the preemption statute for Washington state.
I'm just using Washington as an example due to this retired LEO's continued mindset. I'm certain that after this 'enlightenment' he looked it up himself... but maybe not. Some people are afraid of the truth or refuse to believe it.
As has been stated elsewhere many times: "A right not exercised is a right lost."
At one time... carrying arms concealed was a nefarious practice. Bearing arms openly and cased/slung indicated honorable intent. Whereas concealed arms gave the impressionof beingunarmed while you were not... and therefore dishonorable. 'Prob'ly up to no good.
This is where the States (Under 10A) began the 'permit/license' for concealed carriers who were permited to conceal after being found honorable by the State and/or municipality. This did not affect bearing arms openly.
The right to bear arms openly has always been recognized. Note... 'recognized'... not permitted. This is among Ratt402's 'words' described. Some still think Rights (an inherent individual act or condition)and Laws (Prohibitive and controlling acts imposed by government) are the same. NOT! At one time... men were'educated' in the use of arms as boys. Men were (as now) responsible for their conduct under arms and expected to obey such 'Laws' as applied to their legitimate purpose.
During most of our lifetimes we, at some point obfuscated this 'right' with 'permit and license' regulations due to the focus on 'concealment'. Since there is no 'law' specifically addressing arms borne openly by permission, the actual Right (altho obvious) aquired this homogenous perception in error.
Many of us were inculcated (wrongly) at an early agewith this perception that even ownership of firearms in particular required government permission.I argued this point in a Jr. High School Civics classin 1957 and was 'thrown out' for being disruptive. (ME?:uhoh: Imagine that! :shock
It's no wonder that LEO's and their political masters today fail to understand this right to bear arms openlyin particular.Some states and municipalities continue to deny or otherwise restrictthis right'by Law' and feel smugly justified in doing so.I recently had a 'run-in' with a retired (27 years) Federal LEO from Washington state who was absolutely convinced that open carry was not allowed (recognized)in Washington: ("Nobody does that... it would scare women and children.") He had a Washington CPL to carry concealed.
The wording of the Washington State Constitution is identical to that of Arizona's:
Article I Section 24“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Projection? He also continued to confuse rights with laws as 'the same thing'. This is a mindset prevalent most everywhere. Washington does however require a CPL to carry a handgun in a motor vehicle (same as concealed) which is not the case here. Disinformation becomes 'lore' in time. RCW 9.41.290 is the preemption statute for Washington state.
I'm just using Washington as an example due to this retired LEO's continued mindset. I'm certain that after this 'enlightenment' he looked it up himself... but maybe not. Some people are afraid of the truth or refuse to believe it.
As has been stated elsewhere many times: "A right not exercised is a right lost."
Rayce Bannon
Regular Member
imported post
Well said Rebel -
Other Rights people hav let slip thru their hands is the Right to enter into "wholly matrimony". A 'marriage license' w/ a Soc Sec number is not required."Wholly matrimony' is theway in which G. Washington, A.Lincoln andMillions of Americansjoined together w/ their spouses.They did not 'get a license'.
"Marriage license" comes from the word 'Miscegenation' later called 'mixed marriage' etc., etc. Later just 'marriage'.Why American men / womenrun down to the 'business office' of their city and beg their guvt for permissionis beyond me. Also, with the 'license' u r also marrying the 'state', which u grant the 'state' a Right over ur soon to be born 'children'. Read the 'license'. and statutes.
Americans hav the Right to fish and hunt. People do not hav to purchase a 'license' to excerise these Rights.
Americans hav the Right to use a boat w/o begging their guvt for a permission slip ('License').Americans also hav the Right totravel in an 'automobile' on the public hwys. Though Americans do not have the Right to 'Operate' a boat, nor do Americans hav the Right to 'operate' and / or 'drive' a 'motor vehicle' w/o a 'license'
Generally speaking, in statutory terms, 'operate' means u r conducting business (commercial activity) on the public hwys or water hwys. Americans simply do not understand that 'words' in Webster's dictionary do not hav the same meaning as 'terms' in a court room.
Before siging 'guvt' docs, it mite be wise to know the defintions of the terminology being used in the guvt docs.
Btw, excersing some of these Rights may place u temporarly under arrest...however Freedom ain't free. Even the justices will tell u, no court will freelygrant u ur Rights....u must fight for them. The choice is urs.
Peace b ur journey.
Well said Rebel -
Other Rights people hav let slip thru their hands is the Right to enter into "wholly matrimony". A 'marriage license' w/ a Soc Sec number is not required."Wholly matrimony' is theway in which G. Washington, A.Lincoln andMillions of Americansjoined together w/ their spouses.They did not 'get a license'.
"Marriage license" comes from the word 'Miscegenation' later called 'mixed marriage' etc., etc. Later just 'marriage'.Why American men / womenrun down to the 'business office' of their city and beg their guvt for permissionis beyond me. Also, with the 'license' u r also marrying the 'state', which u grant the 'state' a Right over ur soon to be born 'children'. Read the 'license'. and statutes.
Americans hav the Right to fish and hunt. People do not hav to purchase a 'license' to excerise these Rights.
Americans hav the Right to use a boat w/o begging their guvt for a permission slip ('License').Americans also hav the Right totravel in an 'automobile' on the public hwys. Though Americans do not have the Right to 'Operate' a boat, nor do Americans hav the Right to 'operate' and / or 'drive' a 'motor vehicle' w/o a 'license'
Generally speaking, in statutory terms, 'operate' means u r conducting business (commercial activity) on the public hwys or water hwys. Americans simply do not understand that 'words' in Webster's dictionary do not hav the same meaning as 'terms' in a court room.
Before siging 'guvt' docs, it mite be wise to know the defintions of the terminology being used in the guvt docs.
Btw, excersing some of these Rights may place u temporarly under arrest...however Freedom ain't free. Even the justices will tell u, no court will freelygrant u ur Rights....u must fight for them. The choice is urs.
Peace b ur journey.
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
Geronimo44 wrote:
Please show us one (JUST ONE) incident (verifiable) that has an OC'er being targeted by a criminal.
There are two incidents posted on this site, one has been debunked the other was posted by a former OCDO member but no onehas been able to verify his story.
So, both of these are fairly tales.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Geronimo44 wrote:
:banghead:NTSA!!!
Please show us one (JUST ONE) incident (verifiable) that has an OC'er being targeted by a criminal.
There are two incidents posted on this site, one has been debunked the other was posted by a former OCDO member but no onehas been able to verify his story.
So, both of these are fairly tales.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Agent19 wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Agent19 wrote:
Yeah... NTSA for sure. I almost replied to that... same as you did. 'Just ONE verifiable instance out of.... how manyhundreds of thousandsof OC'rs? If that were the case... it'd be reported... somewhere... and frequently. It's not... never has been. It's an invalid ASSUMPTION... and projection. It's based entirely on emotional hysteria. Much of it from those who have never carried a gun 'n don't even own one.
arentol
New member
imported post
Agent19 wrote:
If OC becomes too common then it loses some of the shock value that deters criminals from attacking OC'ers, and the percentage of OC'ers who should REALLY not be OC'ing will go up. This could result in a few criminals getting away with robbing an OC'er for their gun and money, and then all of us will be vulnerable because the criminals know it can be done.
Fortunately I doubt the day of attacks on OC'ers being remotely common will ever come, but it is disingenuous to claim that assaults on OC'ers will never happen.
Agent19 wrote:
This is totally correct as far as it goes. However, there is one thing to keep in mind in regards to the overall OC debate...
If OC becomes too common then it loses some of the shock value that deters criminals from attacking OC'ers, and the percentage of OC'ers who should REALLY not be OC'ing will go up. This could result in a few criminals getting away with robbing an OC'er for their gun and money, and then all of us will be vulnerable because the criminals know it can be done.
Fortunately I doubt the day of attacks on OC'ers being remotely common will ever come, but it is disingenuous to claim that assaults on OC'ers will never happen.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Rob guy with a gun...
Rob a guy with no gun...
Hmmm? :quirky Decisions , decisions...
Rob guy with a gun...
Rob a guy with no gun...
Hmmm? :quirky Decisions , decisions...
arentol
New member
imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
You miss the point entirely....
I am saying essentially two things:
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Some people will open carry who shouldn't if the movement gets large enough, and those people will be targets for armed robbery.
I am NOT saying such robbery will be commonplace. I am saying simply that if enough people carry then we WILL start getting the VERY rare reports of an OC'er being robbed of his gun and money.
Remember too that this is in a hypothetical future in which:
Nobody is getting MWAG's for OC anymore because EVERYONE is used to seeing OC'ers even if many people still don't like the idea.
The police aren't arresting people and taking their guns for OC'ing anymore.
Almost no businesses bat an eye when you enter with your handgun on your hip.
Thugs are able to recognize which guns are valuable and therefore are able to make an informed decision about whether it is worth risking their life to get your $1500 gun or not. Bearing in mind that these same types of thugs today will rob a convenience store where they KNOW the owner is armed for just $100 and a chance to prove how bad-ass they are.
Sonora Rebel wrote:
You miss the point entirely....
I am saying essentially two things:
Familiarity breeds contempt.
Some people will open carry who shouldn't if the movement gets large enough, and those people will be targets for armed robbery.
I am NOT saying such robbery will be commonplace. I am saying simply that if enough people carry then we WILL start getting the VERY rare reports of an OC'er being robbed of his gun and money.
Remember too that this is in a hypothetical future in which:
Nobody is getting MWAG's for OC anymore because EVERYONE is used to seeing OC'ers even if many people still don't like the idea.
The police aren't arresting people and taking their guns for OC'ing anymore.
Almost no businesses bat an eye when you enter with your handgun on your hip.
Thugs are able to recognize which guns are valuable and therefore are able to make an informed decision about whether it is worth risking their life to get your $1500 gun or not. Bearing in mind that these same types of thugs today will rob a convenience store where they KNOW the owner is armed for just $100 and a chance to prove how bad-ass they are.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
I never missed the point at all. Arizona is prob'ly one of those states where open carry is historically 'open carry'. In fact, only recently has bein' heeled at all been called 'open carry'. Some still think that sounds strange. That said... it's more common and 'accepted' here. There wasno 'movement' or AZCDL... you either chose to be armed or not.
You would think then, by your reasoning that folks would be gettin' robbed and their sidearms lifted. Not so. Never happens. 'Least I've not heard of it... so it's gotta be a rare event. Nothing's 100%... but the odds are it's not gonna happen 'on the street' anyway.
I never missed the point at all. Arizona is prob'ly one of those states where open carry is historically 'open carry'. In fact, only recently has bein' heeled at all been called 'open carry'. Some still think that sounds strange. That said... it's more common and 'accepted' here. There wasno 'movement' or AZCDL... you either chose to be armed or not.
You would think then, by your reasoning that folks would be gettin' robbed and their sidearms lifted. Not so. Never happens. 'Least I've not heard of it... so it's gotta be a rare event. Nothing's 100%... but the odds are it's not gonna happen 'on the street' anyway.
YllwFvr
Regular Member
imported post
Mini14 wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "tactical vest". I have a crossdraw vest im wearing <--- in my avatar pic but I think I would be rather uncomfortable at the attention it drew lol.
Now to be sure everyone says "No one even notices when I OC". That statement is the opposite for me. Someone notices in nearly every single building I enter, and I usually wear jeans and a black or navy blueshirt so its tends to blend. Then again when someone looks "different" you notice them more. So my tattoos draw people eyes, they look me over and see the gun. I would guess thats how they notice anyway. I've never had people say anything to me about it, just whispers and a few :shock:looks.
Mini14 wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "tactical vest". I have a crossdraw vest im wearing <--- in my avatar pic but I think I would be rather uncomfortable at the attention it drew lol.
Now to be sure everyone says "No one even notices when I OC". That statement is the opposite for me. Someone notices in nearly every single building I enter, and I usually wear jeans and a black or navy blueshirt so its tends to blend. Then again when someone looks "different" you notice them more. So my tattoos draw people eyes, they look me over and see the gun. I would guess thats how they notice anyway. I've never had people say anything to me about it, just whispers and a few :shock:looks.
Fehrmann69
Regular Member
imported post
Truely an awesome write up. Thanks for the post.
Truely an awesome write up. Thanks for the post.
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
arentol wrote:
:idea:Those same people would probably be targeted if they CC'ed or didn't carry.
arentol wrote:
:idea:Those same people would probably be targeted if they CC'ed or didn't carry.
imported post
Agent19 wrote:
It is almost funny when these implications make the blogs anew.
Yata hey
Agent19 wrote:
Timeless and still empty rhetoric re preemptive strikes and the danger of OCing = urban legend and old wives tales.
It is almost funny when these implications make the blogs anew.
Yata hey
arentol
New member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
ANYONE who claims that there has never been a case of a private citizen who was armed with a pistol being attacked on the street by a criminal that knew that person was armed is full of crap. Ever hear of a drive-by shooting? Well, quite a bit of the time the people doing it have known the target was armed. They also have walk-up shootings, and lots of other such shootings, including some against people who had their guns in their hand at the time.
Yes, these incidents are between people that more or less know each other, and are both criminals, but it shows one thing... Criminals are WILLING to attacked someone who is armed if they think it will be worth their while and they think they can surprise the other person.
They also do this in banks, gun stores, jewelry stores, and even gas stations. So now that we have established criminals are willing to attack an armed individual for personal or impersonal reasons, as long as they can justify it in their head, it becomes obvious it is just a matter of time before it happens to an OC'er.
Just like the answer to "Will anyone ever win Mega Millions at odds of [size=1 in 175,711,536]?" is yes, the answer to "Will and OC'er be attacked for his gun and wallet by someone that knows he is armed?" is yes. The odds of winning the lottery are horrible, but as long as people keep playing someone will win eventually. Similiarly, the odds of an OC'er being attacked are so bad as to be nothing to worry about on an individual level, but as a whole it is merely a matter of time before it happens. The reason it hasn't happened, to our knowledge, in a century or more is because not very many people OC (Thousands of times fewer than Mega-Millions players). Some simple math will show that the more people who OC the more likely it is one of them will eventually be attacked by someone who knows they are armed.
That an OC'er will be attacked is INEVITABLE, and denying the possibility outright means you are suffering from a horrible case of self-deception.
Now, what does my argument prove besides the statement above? It proves that the argument that you shouldn't OC because you will be attacked is complete BS. Criminals will almost always pass on an OC'er for random crime. So much so that it is almost impossible that it will happen to you, or with current OC numbers that it will happen in the next 30 years. However, it WILL happen to someone, someday, and the more OC'ers there are, the more likely it is to happen for various reasons.
As for the Arizona thing, I am talking ODDS, and Arizona just doesn't have the population to have enough OC'ers to have reached odds of having this happen even once in a century.
Grapeshot wrote:
I am all for OC, and do it myself when I can, so I am NOT trying to argue against it in any way. However, I do think I am making a valid point...
ANYONE who claims that there has never been a case of a private citizen who was armed with a pistol being attacked on the street by a criminal that knew that person was armed is full of crap. Ever hear of a drive-by shooting? Well, quite a bit of the time the people doing it have known the target was armed. They also have walk-up shootings, and lots of other such shootings, including some against people who had their guns in their hand at the time.
Yes, these incidents are between people that more or less know each other, and are both criminals, but it shows one thing... Criminals are WILLING to attacked someone who is armed if they think it will be worth their while and they think they can surprise the other person.
They also do this in banks, gun stores, jewelry stores, and even gas stations. So now that we have established criminals are willing to attack an armed individual for personal or impersonal reasons, as long as they can justify it in their head, it becomes obvious it is just a matter of time before it happens to an OC'er.
Just like the answer to "Will anyone ever win Mega Millions at odds of [size=1 in 175,711,536]?" is yes, the answer to "Will and OC'er be attacked for his gun and wallet by someone that knows he is armed?" is yes. The odds of winning the lottery are horrible, but as long as people keep playing someone will win eventually. Similiarly, the odds of an OC'er being attacked are so bad as to be nothing to worry about on an individual level, but as a whole it is merely a matter of time before it happens. The reason it hasn't happened, to our knowledge, in a century or more is because not very many people OC (Thousands of times fewer than Mega-Millions players). Some simple math will show that the more people who OC the more likely it is one of them will eventually be attacked by someone who knows they are armed.
That an OC'er will be attacked is INEVITABLE, and denying the possibility outright means you are suffering from a horrible case of self-deception.
Now, what does my argument prove besides the statement above? It proves that the argument that you shouldn't OC because you will be attacked is complete BS. Criminals will almost always pass on an OC'er for random crime. So much so that it is almost impossible that it will happen to you, or with current OC numbers that it will happen in the next 30 years. However, it WILL happen to someone, someday, and the more OC'ers there are, the more likely it is to happen for various reasons.
As for the Arizona thing, I am talking ODDS, and Arizona just doesn't have the population to have enough OC'ers to have reached odds of having this happen even once in a century.